text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we study the mixed Littlewood conjecture with pseudo-absolute values. For any pseudo absolute value sequence $\mathcal{D}$, we obtain the sharp criterion such that for almost every $\alpha$ the inequality $$|n|_{\mathcal{D} }|n\alpha -p|\leq \psi(n)$$ has infinitely many coprime solutions $(n,p)\in{\mathbb{N}}\times {\mathbb{Z}}$ for a certain one-parameter family of $\psi$. Also under minor condition on pseudo absolute value sequences $\mathcal{D}_1$,$\mathcal{D}_2,\cdots, \mathcal{D}_k$, we obtain a sharp criterion on general sequence $\psi(n)$ such that for almost every $\alpha$ the inequality $$|n|_{\mathcal{D}_1}|n|_{\mathcal{D}_2}\cdots |n|_{\mathcal{D}_k}|n\alpha-p|\leq \psi(n)$$ has infinitely many coprime solutions $(n,p)\in{\mathbb{N}}\times {\mathbb{Z}}$.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, University of California, Irvine, California 92697-3875, USA'
author:
- Wencai Liu
title: 'Some refined results on mixed Littlewood conjecture for pseudo-absolute values'
---
Introduction
============
The [*Littlewood Conjecture* ]{} states that for every pair $(\alpha,\beta)$ of real numbers, we have that $$\label{littlewood}
\liminf_{n\to\infty}n\|n\alpha\|\|n\beta\|=0,$$ where $||x||=\text{dist}(x,{\mathbb{Z}})$. We refer the readers to [@bugeaud2014around; @bugeaud2011badly] for recent progress. By a fundamental result of Einsiedler-Katok-Lindenstrauss [@einsiedler2006invariant] the set of pairs $(\alpha,\beta)$ for which (\[littlewood\]) does not hold is a zero Hausdorff dimension set.
From the metrical point, can be strengthened. Gallagher [@Gal] established that if $\psi:{\mathbb{N}}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ is a non-negative decreasing function, then for almost every $(\alpha,\beta)$ the inequality $$\label{metricLittlewood1}
\|n\alpha\|\|n\beta\|\le \psi (n)$$ has infinitely many solutions for $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$ if and only if $\sum_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}}\psi (n)\log n =\infty$. In particular, it follows that $$\liminf_{n\to\infty}n \, (\log n)^2 \|n\alpha\|\|n\beta\|=0$$ for almost every pair $(\alpha,\beta)$ of real numbers. By a method of [@Sch], Bugeaud and Moshchevitin[@bugeaud2011badly] showed that there exist pairs of $(\alpha,\beta)$ such that $$\liminf_{n\to\infty}n \, (\log n)^2 \|n\alpha\|\|n\beta\|>0.$$ This result has been improved by Badziahin[@Bad], which states that the set of pairs $(\alpha,\beta)$ satisfying $$\liminf_{n\to \infty} n\log n\log\log n\|n\alpha\|\|n\beta\|>0$$ has full Hausdorff dimension in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. It is conjectured that Littlewood conjecture can be strengthened to $$\liminf_{n\to\infty}n\log n\|n\alpha\|\|n\beta\|=0,$$ for all $(\alpha,\beta)\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$.
In [@de2004problemes], de Mathan and Teulié formulated another conjecture – known as the [*Mixed Littlewood Conjecture*]{}. Let $\mathcal{D}=\{n_k\}_{k\ge 0}$ be an increasing sequence of positive integers with $n_0=1$ and $n_k|n_{k+1}$ for all $k$. We refer to such a sequence as a [*pseudo-absolute value sequence*]{}, and we define the $\mathcal{D}$-adic pseudo-norm $|\cdot|_{\mathcal{D}}:{\mathbb{N}}\to \{n_k^{-1}:k\ge 0\}$ by $$|{n}|_\mathcal{D} = \min\{ n_k^{-1} : n\in n_k{\mathbb{Z}}\}.$$ In the case $\mathcal{D}=\{p^k\}_{k=0}^\infty$ for some integer $p\ge 2$, we also write $|\cdot|_{\mathcal{D}}=|\cdot|_p$. B. de Mathan and O. Teulié [@de2004problemes] conjectured that for any real number $\alpha$ and any pseudo-absolute value sequence $\mathcal{D}$, we have that $$\liminf_{n\to\infty}n|n|_\mathcal{D}\|n\alpha\|=0.$$ In particular, the statement that $\liminf_{n\to\infty}n|n|_p\|n\alpha\|=0$ for every real number $\alpha$ and prime number $p$, is referred as $p$-adic Littlewood conjecture.
Einsiedler and Kleinbock have shown that any exceptional set to the de Mathan-Teulié Conjecture has to be of zero Hausdorff dimension [@einsiedler2007measure]. By a theorem of Furstenberg [@Furstenberg], one has that for any two prime numbers $p,q$ and every real number $\alpha$ $$\label{fur}
\liminf_{n\to\infty} n |n|_{p} |n|_{q}\|n\alpha\| =0.$$ This result can be made quantitative [@bourgain2009some], that is $$\liminf_{n\to\infty} n(\log \log \log n )^{\kappa}|n|_{p} |n|_{q}\|n\alpha\| =0$$ for some $\kappa>0$. The statement can be strengthened from a metrical point of view [@bugeaud2011metric], that is, suppose $p_1,\ldots , p_k$ are distinct prime numbers and $\psi:{\mathbb{N}}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ is a non-negative decreasing function, then for almost every real number $\alpha$ the inequality $$|n|_{p_1}\cdots |n|_{p_k}|n\alpha-p|\le \psi (n)$$ has infinitely many coprime solutions $(n,p)\in {\mathbb{N}}\times{\mathbb{Z}}$ if and only if $$\label{impremark}
\sum_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}}(\log n)^k\psi (n)=\infty.$$ As a corollary, it is true that $$\label{fur1}
\liminf_{n\to\infty} n \, (\log n)^{k+1} |n|_{p_1}\cdots
|n|_{p_k}\|n\alpha\| =0 $$ for almost every $\alpha\in{\mathbb{R}}$. In [@harrap2013mixed], Harrap and Haynes consider the [*$\mathcal{D}$-adic pseudo-absolute value*]{}. Given a pseudo-absolute value sequence $\mathcal{D}$ with some minor restriction, let $\mathcal{M}:{\mathbb{N}}\to{\mathbb{N}}\cup\{0\}$ be $$\mathcal{M}(N)=\max\left\{k: n_k \leq N \right\}.$$
Suppose that $\psi:\mathbb{N} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is non-negative and decreasing and that $\mathcal{D}=\{n_k\}$ is a pseudo-absolute value sequence satisfying $$\label{Euler1}
\sum_{k=1}^{m} \frac{\varphi(n_k)}{n_k}\geq c m~\text{for all}~m\in{\mathbb{N}}~\text{and for some}~c>0,$$ where $\varphi$ is the Euler phi function. Then for almost every $\alpha\in{\mathbb{R}}$ the inequality $$|{n}|_\mathcal{D} |{n\alpha}-p| \le \psi(n)$$ has infinitely many coprime solutions $(n,p) \in \mathbb{N}\times {\mathbb{Z}}$ if and only if $$\label{equ12}
\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \mathcal{M}(n)\psi(n)=\infty.$$
Note that when $ {\mathcal{D}}=\{p^k\}$ for some positive integer $p$ we have that $\mathcal{M}(N)\asymp \log N$. Thus Harrap-Haynes’ result implies for $k=1$. The first goal of this paper is to extend to the class of finitely many pseudo-absolute value sequences.
As pointed out in [@harrap2013mixed], such generalization depends on the overlap among pseudo-absolute value sequences. For example[^1] if $\mathcal{D}_1=\{2^k\}$ and $\mathcal{D}_2=\{3^k\}$, yields that inequality $$|n|_{\mathcal{D}_1}|n|_{\mathcal{D}_2}\|n\alpha\|\le\psi (n)$$ has infinitely many solutions for almost every $\alpha$ if and only if $$\sum_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}}(\log n)^2\psi (n)=\infty.$$ However if $\mathcal{D}_1=\mathcal{D}_2=\{2^k\}$, by [@bugeaud2011metric Theorem 2], the inequality has infinitely many solutions for almost every $\alpha$ if and only if $$\sum_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}} n\psi (n)=\infty.$$
Basically, the proof of and follows from Duffin-Schaeffer Theorem [@duffin1941khintchine](see Theorem \[duffin\]), which is a weaker version of Duffin-Schaeffer conjecture.
[**Duffin-Schaeffer Conjecture**]{}: Let $\psi:{\mathbb{N}}\to {\mathbb{R}}$ be non-negative function and define $${\mathcal E}_n={\mathcal E}_n(\psi)=\bigcup_{p=1 \atop
(p,n)=1}^n\left(\frac{p-\psi(n)}{n},\frac{p+\psi(n)}{n}\right),$$ where $(p,n)$ is the largest common divisor between $p$ and $n$. Then $\lambda(\limsup{\mathcal E}_n)=1$ if and only if $\sum_n\lambda({\mathcal E}_n)=\infty$, where $\lambda$ denotes the Lebesgue measure on $\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}$.
One side of Duffin-Schaeffer conjecture is trivial. If $\sum_n\lambda({\mathcal E}_n)<\infty$, by Borel-Cantelli Lemma, $\lambda(\limsup{\mathcal E}_n)=0$. Since it has been posted, Duffin-Schaeffer conjecture was heavily investigated in [@PV; @Stra; @beresnevich2013duffin; @haynes2012duffin; @Li1; @Li2]. We should mention that Duffin-Schaeffer conjecture is equivalent to the following statement: Suppose $\psi:{\mathbb{N}}\to {\mathbb{R}}$ is a non-negative function and satisfies $$\sum_n\frac{\varphi(n)\psi(n)}{n}=\infty,$$ where $\varphi$ is the Euler phi function. Then for almost every $\alpha\in{\mathbb{R}}$ the inequality $$|{n\alpha}-p| \le \psi(n)$$ has infinitely many coprime solutions $(n, p)\in \mathbb{N}\times{\mathbb{Z}}$.
We will also employ Duffin-Schaeffer Theorem to study mixed Littlewood conjecture in the present paper and find a nice divergence condition for finite pseudo-absolute values.
\[thm2\] Let $\psi:\mathbb{N} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be non-negative and decreasing and let $\mathcal{D}_1=\{n_k^{1}\},\mathcal{D}_2=\{n_k^{2}\}, \cdots , \mathcal{D}_m=\{n_k^{m}\}$ be $m$ pseudo-absolute value sequences. Suppose $ \mathcal{D}_1, \mathcal{D}_2,\cdots,\mathcal{D}_m$ satisfies the following condition: there exists some constant $c_1>0$ such that $$\label{equ13}
\frac{\varphi(n_{k_1}^1n_{k_2}^2\cdots n_{k_m}^m)}{n_{k_1}^1n_{k_2}^2\cdots n_{k_m}^m}\ge c_1,$$ where $\varphi$ is the Euler phi function. Then for almost every $\alpha\in{\mathbb{R}}$, the inequality $$|{n}|_{\mathcal{D}_1 }|{n}|_{\mathcal{D}_2}\cdots |{n}|_{\mathcal{D}_m }|{n\alpha}-p| \le \psi(n)$$ has infinitely many coprime solutions $(n, p)\in \mathbb{N}\times{\mathbb{Z}}$ if and only if $$\label{equ14}
\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{\psi(n)}{|{n}|_{\mathcal{D}_1 }|{n}|_{\mathcal{D}_2}\cdots |{n}|_{\mathcal{D}_m }}=\infty.$$
Let $p_1,\ldots , p_m$ be distinct prime numbers, and $\mathcal{D}_i=\{p^k_i\}$, $i=1,2,\cdots,m$. For such pseudo-absolute value sequences $\mathcal{D}_i$, $i=1,2,\cdots, m$, one has holds. By the fact that (see [@bugeaud2011metric]) $$\sum_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}}(\log n)^m\psi (n) = \infty \quad
\Longleftrightarrow \quad \sum_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}}\frac{\psi (n)}{ |n|_{p_1}
\cdots |n|_{p_m}} = \infty \, ,$$ Theorem \[thm2\] implies .
We say a pseudo-absolute value sequence $\mathcal{D}=\{n_k\}$ is generated by finite integers if there exist prime numbers $p_1,p_2,\cdots, p_N $ such that every $n_k$ can be written as $p_1^{k_1}p_2^{k_2}\cdots p_N^{k_N}$ for some proper positive integers $k_1,k_2,\cdots,k_N$. We call $p_1,p_2,\cdots,p_N$ the generators of $\mathcal{D}$.
\[cor\] Let $\psi:\mathbb{N} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be non-negative and decreasing and let $\mathcal{D}_1=\{n_{k}^1\},\mathcal{D}_2=\{n_{k}^2\}, \cdots , \mathcal{D}_m=\{n_{k}^m\}$ be $m$ pseudo-absolute value sequences. Suppose each $\mathcal{D}_1 ,\mathcal{D}_2 , \cdots ,\mathcal{D}_m$ is generated by finite integers. Then for almost every $\alpha\in{\mathbb{R}}$ the inequality $$|{n}|_{\mathcal{D}_1 }|{n}|_{\mathcal{D}_2}\cdots |{n}|_{\mathcal{D}_m }|{n\alpha}-p| \le \psi(n)$$ has infinitely many coprime solutions $(n,p) \in \mathbb{N}\times{\mathbb{Z}}$ if and only if $$\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{\psi(n)}{|{n}|_{\mathcal{D}_1 }|{n}|_{\mathcal{D}_2}\cdots |{n}|_{\mathcal{D}_m }}=\infty.$$
If $\mathcal{D}_j$ is generated by finite integers for each $j=1,2,\cdots,m$, one has holds. Thus Corollary \[cor\] directly follows from Theorem \[thm2\].
Suppose there is no intersection between the pseudo-absolute value sequences. Then we can get better results. We say two pseudo-absolute value sequences $\mathcal{D}_1=\{n_{k}^1\}$ and $\mathcal{D}_2=\{n_{k}^2\}$ are coprime if $n_{i}^1$ and $n_{j}^2$ are coprime for any $i,j\in {\mathbb{N}}$.
\[thmnew\] Let $\psi:\mathbb{N} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be non-negative and decreasing. Suppose the pseudo-absolute value sequences $\mathcal{D}_1=\{n_{k}^1\},\mathcal{D}_2=\{n_{k}^2\}, \cdots , \mathcal{D}_m=\{n_{k}^m\}$ are mutually coprime and $$\label{equ13new}
\sum_{n_{k_1}^1n_{k_2}^2\cdots n_{k_m}^m\leq N} \frac{\varphi(n_{k_1}^1n_{k_2}^2\cdots n_{k_m}^m)}{n_{k_1}^1n_{k_2}^2\cdots n_{k_m}^m}\ge c_2\#\{(k_1,k_2,\cdots,k_m):n_{k_1}^1n_{k_2}^2\cdots n_{k_m}^m\leq N\},$$ for some constant $c_2>0$. Suppose that there exists some $c_3$ with $0<c_3<1$ such that $$\label{1829equ1}
\sum_{ n_{k_1}^1n_{k_2}^2\cdots n_{k_m}^m\leq N} n_{k_1}^1n_{k_2}^2\cdots n_{k_m}^m\leq c_3 N \#\{(k_1,k_2,\cdots,k_m):n_{k_1}^1n_{k_2}^2\cdots n_{k_m}^m\leq N\},$$ for all large $N$.
Then for almost every $\alpha\in{\mathbb{R}}$, the inequality $$|{n}|_{\mathcal{D}_1 }|{n}|_{\mathcal{D}_2}\cdots |{n}|_{\mathcal{D}_m }|{n\alpha}-p| \le \psi(n)$$ has infinitely many coprime solutions $(n,p) \in \mathbb{N}\times {\mathbb{Z}}$ if and only if $$\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \psi(n) \#\{(k_1,k_2,\cdots,k_m):n_{k_1}^1n_{k_2}^2\cdots n_{k_m}^m\leq n\}=\infty.$$
Duffin-Schaeffer theorem is crucial to the proof of Theorems \[thm2\] and \[thmnew\]. However Duffin-Schaeffer theorem requires good match between sequence $\psi(n)$ and Euler function $\varphi(n)$, so that hypotheses , and are very important. For some nice functions $\psi(n)$, Duffin-Schaeffer theorem can be improved [@beresnevich2013duffin; @haynes2012duffin; @Li1; @Li2]. We will use [@Li2 Theorem 1.17] to study the mixed Littlewood conjecture and find that restriction is not necessary in some sense.
Given $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and $x\in{\mathbb{R}}$, define $$||nx||^\prime=\min\{|nx-p|:p\in{\mathbb{Z}}, (n,p)=1\}.$$
\[thmnewhar\] Let $\mathcal{D}=\{n_k\}$ be a pseudo-absolute value sequence and define $$\label{GMhar}
\mathfrak{M}(n)=\sum_{n_{k } \leq n} \frac{\varphi(n_{k})}{n_k}.$$ Suppose $\epsilon\geq0$. Then for almost every $\alpha\in{\mathbb{R}}$ $$\label{Ghar1}
\liminf_{n\to\infty} n \mathfrak{M}(n)(\log n)^{1+\epsilon} |{n}|_{\mathcal{D} } ||{n\alpha}||^{\prime} = 0,$$ if and only if $\epsilon=0$.
Proof of Theorem \[thm2\]
=========================
In this paper, we always assume $C$ ($c$) is a large (small) constant, which is different even in the same equation. We should mention that the constant $C$ ($c$) also depends on $c_1,c_2$ and $c_3$ in the Theorems.
Before we give the proof of Theorem \[thm2\], some preparations are necessary.
[@bugeaud2011metric Lemma 2]\[lem1\] Let $p_1,\ldots , p_k$ be distinct prime numbers and $N\in{\mathbb{N}}$. Then $$\sum_{\substack{n\le N\\p_1,\ldots , p_k\nmid n}}\frac{\varphi
(n)}{n}=\frac{6N}{\pi^2}\prod_{i=1}^k
\frac{p_i}{p_i+1}+O\left(\log N\right).$$
Obviously, Lemma \[lem1\] implies the following lemma.
\[keysection2\] Suppose $d_1,d_2,\cdots, d_m\geq 2$. Then there exists some $d>0$ only depending on $m$ such that $$\sum_{\substack{n=1\\d_1\nmid n,d_2\nmid n,\cdots d_m\nmid n}}^N\frac{\varphi (n)}{n}\ge dN\quad\text{for any }~ N\in{\mathbb{N}}.$$
\[duffin\] Suppose $\sum_{n=1}^{ \infty} \psi (n)=\infty$ and $$\limsup_{N\to\infty}\left(\sum_{n=1}^{ N} \frac{\varphi (n)}{n}\psi (n)\right) \left(\sum_{n=1}^{ N} \psi (n) \right)^{-1} \, > \, 0 \ .$$ Then for almost every $\alpha$, the inequality $$|n\alpha-p|\leq \psi (n)$$ has infinitely many coprime solutions $(n,p)\in{\mathbb{N}}\times{\mathbb{Z}}$.
Suppose $\mathcal{D}_1=\{n_{k}^1\},\mathcal{D}_2=\{n_{k}^2\}, \cdots ,\mathcal{D}_m=\{n_{k}^m\}$ are $m$ pseudo-absolute value sequences. Denote $d_{k+1}^j=\frac{n_{k+1}^j}{n_{k}^j}$ for $j=1,2,\cdots,m$. Define a subset $S(n)$ of ${\mathbb{N}}^m$ as follows: $$S(n)=\{(k_1,k_2,\cdots,k_m):(k_1,k_2,\cdots,k_m)\in {\mathbb{N}}^m \text{ and } \text{lcm}(n_{k_1}^1,n_{k_2}^2,\cdots ,n_{k_m}^m) \leq n\},$$ where lcm($k_1,k_2\cdots,k_m$) means the least common multiple number of $k_1,k_2\cdots,k_m$. For any $(k_1,k_2,\cdots,k_m)\in S(n)$, we define $f(n;k_1,k_2,\cdots,k_m)\in {\mathbb{N}}$ as the largest positive integer such that $$\text{lcm}(n_{k_1}^1,n_{k_1}^2,\cdots ,n_{k_m}^m)f(n;k_1,k_2,\cdots,k_m)\leq n.$$
[**Proof of Theorem \[thm2\].**]{}
Without of loss of generality, assume $\alpha\in[0,1)$. Define $${\mathcal E}_n={\mathcal E}_n(\psi_0)=\bigcup_{p=1 \atop
(p,n)=1}^n\left(\frac{p-\psi_0(n)}{n},\frac{p+\psi_0(n)}{n}\right),$$ where $$\psi_0(n)= \frac{ \psi(n)}{ |{n}|_{\mathcal{D}_1}|{n}|_{\mathcal{D}_2}\cdots |n|_{\mathcal{D}_m}}.$$ The Lebesgue measure of ${\mathcal E}_n$ is obviously bounded above by $\frac{2\psi_0(n)}{n}\varphi(n)$. Obviously, coprime pair $(n,p)\in{\mathbb{N}}\times{\mathbb{Z}}$ is a solution of $|n\alpha-p|\leq \psi_0(n)$ if and only if $\alpha\in {\mathcal E}_n$.
If $$\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{ \psi(n)}{ |{n}|_{\mathcal{D}_1}|{n}|_{\mathcal{D}_2}\cdots |n|_{\mathcal{D}_m}}< \infty,$$ one has $$\label{Gmeasure1}
\sum_n \lambda( {\mathcal E}_n)<\infty.$$ By Borel-Cantelli Lemma, the inequality $$|{n}|_{\mathcal{D}_1 }|{n}|_{\mathcal{D}_2}\cdots |{n}|_{\mathcal{D}_m }|{n\alpha}-p| \le \psi(n)$$ has infinitely many solutions $(n,p) \in \mathbb{N}\times {\mathbb{Z}}$ only for a zero Lebesgue measure set of $\alpha$.
Now we start to prove the other side. First, one has $$\sum_{n=1}^N \frac{\varphi(n)\psi(n)}{n|{n}|_{\mathcal{D}_1}|{n}|_{\mathcal{D}_2}\cdots |n|_{\mathcal{D}_m}}$$ $$\label{equ11}
= \sum_{n=1}^N
\left(\psi(n)-\psi(n+1) \right) \sum_{j=1}^n \frac{\varphi(j)}{j|{j}|_{\mathcal{D}_1}|{j}|_{\mathcal{D}_2}\cdots |j|_{\mathcal{D}_m}}
+ \psi(N+1)\sum_{j=1}^N \frac{\varphi(j)}{j|{j}|_{\mathcal{D}_1}|{j}|_{\mathcal{D}_2}\cdots |j|_{\mathcal{D}_m}}.$$ Now we are in the position to estimate the inner sums. Direct computation implies
$$\sum_{j=1}^n \frac{\varphi(j)}{ j|{j}|_{\mathcal{D}_1}|{j}|_{\mathcal{D}_2}\cdots |j|_{\mathcal{D}_m}}\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&=\sum_{(k_1,k_2,\cdots,k_m)\in S(n)}\sum_{\substack{j=1\\n_{k_1}^1|j,n_{k_2}^2|j,\cdots,n_{k_m}^m|j\\~n_{k_1+1}^1\nmid j,n_{k_2+1}^2\nmid j,\cdots,n_{k_m+1}^m\nmid j}}^n\frac{\varphi(j)}{ j|{j}|_{\mathcal{D}_1}|{j}|_{\mathcal{D}_2}\cdots |j|_{\mathcal{D}_m}}\\
&= \sum_{(k_1,k_2,\cdots,k_m)\in S(n)}\frac{n_{k_1}^1n_{k_2}^2\cdots n_{k_m}^m}{\text{lcm}(n_{k_1}^1,n_{k_2}^2,\cdots ,n_{k_m}^m)}\sum_{\substack{1\le j\le f(n;k_1,k_2,\cdots,k_m)\\d_{k_1+1}^1\nmid j,d_{k_2+1}^2\nmid j,\cdots d_{k_m+1}^m\nmid j}}\frac{\varphi(\text{lcm} (n_{k_1}^1,n_{k_2}^2,\cdots ,n_{k_m}^m) j)}{j}\nonumber\\
&\ge\sum_{(k_1,k_2,\cdots,k_m)\in S(n)} n_{k_1}^1n_{k_2}^2\cdots n_{k_m}^m\frac{\varphi(\text{lcm}(n_{k_1}^1,n_{k_2}^2,\cdots, n_{k_m}^m ))}{\text{lcm}(n_{k_1}^1,n_{k_2}^2,\cdots, n_{k_m}^m )}\sum_{\substack{1\le j\le f(n;k_1,k_2,\cdots,k_m)\\d_{k_1+1}^1\nmid j,d_{k_2+1}^2\nmid j,\cdots d_{k_m+1}^m\nmid j}}\frac{\varphi(j)}{j}\nonumber\\
&\ge c\sum_{(k_1,k_2,\cdots,k_m)\in S(n)}f(n;k_1,k_2,\cdots,k_m) \varphi(n_{k_1}^1n_{k_2}^2\cdots n_{k_m}^m ),\label{equ1}\end{aligned}$$ where the first inequality holds by the fact that $\varphi(mn)\geq \varphi(m)\varphi(n)$ and the second inequality holds by Lemma \[keysection2\] and the fact that $$\frac{\varphi(\text{lcm}(n_{k_1}^1,n_{k_2}^2,\cdots, n_{k_m}^m ))}{\text{lcm}(n_{k_1}^1,n_{k_2}^2,\cdots, n_{k_m}^m )}=\frac{\varphi( n_{k_1}^1n_{k_2}^2\cdots n_{k_m}^m )}{n_{k_1}^1n_{k_2}^2\cdots n_{k_m}^m }.$$
By and , we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{finall2}
\sum_{j=1}^n \frac{\varphi(j)}{ j|{j}|_{\mathcal{D}_1}|{j}|_{\mathcal{D}_2}\cdots |j|_{\mathcal{D}_m}}
&\geq& c\sum_{(k_1,k_2,\cdots,k_m)\in S(n)}n_{k_1}^1n_{k_2}^2 \cdots n_{k_m}^mf(n;k_1,k_2,\cdots,k_m) .\end{aligned}$$ One the other hand, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j=1}^n\frac{1}{|j|_{\mathcal{D}_1}|j|_{\mathcal{D}_2}\cdots |j|_{\mathcal{D}_m}}&=\sum_{(k_1,k_2,\cdots,k_m)\in S(n)} n_{k_1}^1n_{k_2}^2\cdots n_{k_m}^m\sum^n_{\substack{j=1\\n_{k_1}^1|j,n_{k_2}^2|j,\cdots,n_{k_m}^m|j\\~n_{k_1+1}^1\nmid j,n_{k_2+1}^2\nmid j,\cdots,n_{k_m+1}^m\nmid j}}1\label{equnew}\\
&\leq \sum_{(k_1,k_2,\cdots,k_m)\in S(n)}n_{k_1}^1n_{k_2}^2 \cdots n_{k_m}^mf(n;k_1,k_2,\cdots,k_m).\label{finall1}\end{aligned}$$ Finally, putting and together, we get $$\sum_{j=1}^n \frac{\varphi(j)}{ j|{j}|_{\mathcal{D}_1}|{j}|_{\mathcal{D}_2}\cdots |j|_{\mathcal{D}_m}} \geq c\sum_{j=1}^n\frac{1}{|j|_{\mathcal{D}_1}|j|_{\mathcal{D}_2}\cdots |j|_{\mathcal{D}_m}}.$$ Combining with , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=1}^N \frac{\varphi(n)\psi(n)}{n|{n}|_{\mathcal{D}_1}|{n}|_{\mathcal{D}_2}\cdots |n|_{\mathcal{D}_m}} &\geq& \sum_{n=1}^N
\left(\psi(n)-\psi(n+1) \right) \sum_{j=1}^n \frac{c}{|{j}|_{\mathcal{D}_1}|{j}|_{\mathcal{D}_2}\cdots |j|_{\mathcal{D}_m}}
+ \psi(N+1)\sum_{j=1}^N \frac{c}{|{j}|_{\mathcal{D}_1}|{j}|_{\mathcal{D}_2}\cdots |j|_{\mathcal{D}_m}} \\
&\geq& c \sum_{n=1}^N \frac{ \psi(n)}{ |{n}|_{\mathcal{D}_1}|{n}|_{\mathcal{D}_2}\cdots |n|_{\mathcal{D}_m}}.\end{aligned}$$ Now Theorem \[thm2\] follows from and Theorem \[duffin\].
Proof of Theorem \[thmnew\]
===========================
The proof of Theorem \[thmnew\] is similar to the proof of Theorem \[thm2\] or . We need one lemma first. Denote $$\mathcal{M}(n)=\#\{(k_1,k_2,\cdots,k_m):n_{k_1}^1n_{k_2}^2\cdots n_{k_m}^m\leq n\}-1.$$
\[Le18\] Under the conditions of Theorem \[thmnew\], the following estimate holds, $$\label{1829equ2}
N\mathcal{M}(N)\asymp \sum_{n=1}^N \mathcal{M}(n).$$
It suffices to show that $$N\mathcal{M}(N)\leq O(1) \sum_{n=1}^N \mathcal{M}(n).$$
We rearrange $n_{k_1}^1 n_{k_2}^2\cdots n_{k_m}^m$ as a monotone sequence $t_0=1,t_1,t_2,\cdots, t_k\cdots$. Then, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=1}^N \mathcal{M}(n) &=& \sum_{k=0}^{\mathcal{M}(N)-1} k (t_{k+1}-t_k)+\mathcal{M}(N)(N-t_{\mathcal{M}(N)}+1)\nonumber\\
&=& (N+1)\mathcal{M}(N)- \sum_{k=0}^{\mathcal{M}(N)}t_k.\label{Gmar231}\end{aligned}$$ By the assumption , one has $$\label{Gmar232}
\sum_{k=0}^{\mathcal{M}(N)}t_k\leq c_3 N\mathcal{M}(N),$$ for some $0<c_3<1$.
Now the Lemma follows from and .
[**Proof of Theorem \[thmnew\]**]{}
We employ the same notations as in the proof of Theorem \[thm2\].
By the fact that the pseudo-absolute value sequences are mutually coprime, one has $$\mathcal{M}(n)+1=\#S(n).$$ Moreover, $$\frac{n}{2} \leq n_{k_1}^1 n_{k_2}^2\cdots n_{k_m}^mf(n;k_1,k_2,\cdots,k_m)\leq n.$$ By and assumption , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j=1}^n \frac{\varphi(j)}{ j|{j}|_{\mathcal{D}_1}|{j}|_{\mathcal{D}_2}\cdots |{j}|_{\mathcal{D}_m}} &\geq c\sum_{(k_1,k_2,\cdots,k_m)\in S(n)}f(n;k_1,k_2,\cdots,k_m) \varphi(n_{k_1}^1n_{k_2}^2\cdots n_{k_m}^m )\nonumber\\
&\ge c n \sum_{(k_1,k_2,\cdots,k_m)\in S(n)}\frac{ \varphi(n_{k_1}^1n_{k_2}^2\cdots n_{k_m}^m )}{n_{k_1}^1n_{k_2}^2\cdots n_{k_m}^m}\nonumber\\
&\ge cn\mathcal{M}(n).\label{equ1new1wen3}\end{aligned}$$ By and , we have $$\label{equnew1}
cn\mathcal{M}(n)\leq \sum_{j=1}^n\frac{1}{|j|_{\mathcal{D}_1}|j|_{\mathcal{D}_2}\cdots |j|_{\mathcal{D}_m}} \leq n\mathcal{M}(n).$$ Suppose $$\sum_{n} \psi(n)\mathcal{M}(n)<\infty.$$ In this case, by , one has $$\sum_{n=1}^N \frac{\psi(n)}{|{n}|_{\mathcal{D}_1}|{n}|_{\mathcal{D}_2}\cdots |n|_{\mathcal{D}_m}}\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&=& \sum_{n=1}^N
\left(\psi(n)-\psi(n+1) \right) \sum_{j=1}^n \frac{1}{|{j}|_{\mathcal{D}_1}|{j}|_{\mathcal{D}_2}\cdots |j|_{\mathcal{D}_m}}
+ \psi(N+1)\sum_{j=1}^N \frac{ 1}{|{j}|_{\mathcal{D}_1}|{j}|_{\mathcal{D}_2}\cdots |j|_{\mathcal{D}_m}} \nonumber\\
&\leq & \sum_{n=1}^N
\left(\psi(n)-\psi(n+1) \right) n\mathcal{M}(n) +\psi(N+1)N\mathcal{M}(N)\nonumber\\
&\leq & C \sum_{n=1}^N \left(\psi(n)-\psi(n+1) \right) \sum_{j=0}^{n}\mathcal{M}(j) +\psi(N+1)N\mathcal{M}(N)\nonumber\\
&\leq& C \sum_{n=1}^N \psi(n)\mathcal{M}(n)<\infty ,\label{equ6new}\end{aligned}$$ where the first inequality holds by . By Borel-Cantelli Lemma, the inequality $$|{n}|_{\mathcal{D}_1 }|{n}|_{\mathcal{D}_2}\cdots |{n}|_{\mathcal{D}_m }|{n\alpha}-p| \le \psi(n)$$ has infinitely many coprime solutions $(n,p) \in \mathbb{N}\times{\mathbb{Z}}$ only for a zero Lebesgue measure set of $\alpha$.
Now we are in the position to prove the other side.
Suppose $$\sum_{n} \psi(n)\mathcal{M}(n)=\infty.$$
By and , one has $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=1}^N \frac{\varphi(n)\psi(n)}{n|{n}|_{\mathcal{D}_1}|{n}|_{\mathcal{D}_2}\cdots |n|_{\mathcal{D}_m}} &\geq & c \sum_{n=1}^N
\left(\psi(n)-\psi(n+1) \right) nM(n) +c\psi(N+1)N\mathcal{M}(N) \nonumber \\
&\geq &c \sum_{n=1}^N\psi(n)\mathcal{M}(n).\label{Gwen4}\end{aligned}$$ Thus $$\label{equ7new}
\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{\psi(n)}{|{n}|_{\mathcal{D}_1}|{n}|_{\mathcal{D}_2}\cdots |n|_{\mathcal{D}_m}} =\infty.$$ By and , we have
$$\label{equ8new}
\sum_{n=1}^N \frac{\varphi(n)\psi(n)}{n|{n}|_{\mathcal{D}_1}|{n}|_{\mathcal{D}_2}\cdots |n|_{\mathcal{D}_m}}\geq c \sum_{n=1}^N\frac{\psi(n)}{|n|_{\mathcal{D}_1}|n|_{\mathcal{D}_2}\cdots |n|_{\mathcal{D}_m}}.$$
Applying and to Theorem \[duffin\], we finish the proof.
Proof of Theorem \[thmnewhar\]
==============================
Before we give the proof, one lemma is necessary.
\[Lemar23\] Let $\mathcal{D}=\{n_k\}$ be a pseudo-absolute value sequence and $\mathfrak{M}(n)$ be given by . We have the following estimate, $$\label{Gmar231829equ2}
N\mathfrak{M}(N)\asymp \sum_{n=1}^N \mathfrak{M}(n).$$
It is easy to see that holds if sequence $\mathfrak{M}(n)$ is bounded. Thus, we assume $\mathfrak{M}(n)\to \infty$ as $n\to \infty$.
It suffices to show that $$N\mathfrak{M}(N)\leq O(1) \sum_{n=1}^N \mathfrak{M}(n).$$ As usual, let $ \mathcal{M}(N)$ be the largest $k$ such that $n_k\leq N$.
By the definition of $\mathfrak{M}(n)$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=1}^N \mathfrak{M}(n) &=& \sum_{k=0}^{\mathfrak{M}(N)} \left(\sum_{j=0}^k\frac{\varphi(n_j)}{n_j}\right) (n_{k+1}-n_k)+\left(\sum_{j=0}^{ \mathcal{M}(N)}\frac{\varphi(n_j)}{n_j}\right)(N-n_{\mathcal{M}(N)}+1)\nonumber\\
&=& (N+1)\left(\sum_{j=0}^{ \mathcal{M}(N)}\frac{\varphi(n_j)}{n_j}\right) - \sum_{k=0}^{ \mathcal{M}(N)}n_k\frac{\varphi(n_k)}{n_k}\nonumber\\
&=& (N+1)\mathfrak{M}(N)- \sum_{k=0}^{ \mathcal{M}(N)} \varphi(n_k).\label{Gmar233}\end{aligned}$$ By the fact that $n_{k+1}\geq 2n_k$, one has $$\sum_{k=0}^{\mathcal{M}(N)}n_k\leq N\sum_{k=0}^{\mathcal{M}(N)}\frac{1}{2^k}\leq 2N.$$ This implies $$\label{Gmar234}
\sum_{k=0}^{ \mathcal{M}(N)} \varphi(n_k)\leq 2N.$$ By and , we have $$N\mathfrak{M}(N)\leq O(1) \sum_{n=1}^N \mathfrak{M}(n)$$ We finish the proof.
We will split the proof Theorem \[thmnewhar\] into two parts.
\[Lithm1\] Let $\mathcal{D}=\{n_k\}$ be a pseudo-absolute value sequence and $\mathfrak{M}(n)$ be given by . Suppose $\psi:\mathbb{N}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^+$ is non-increasing and $$\label{GLi3}
\sum_{n}\ \psi(n) \mathfrak{M}(n) <\infty.$$ Then for almost every $\alpha$, the inequality $$|{n}|_{\mathcal{D}}|n\alpha-p|\leq \psi (n)$$ has finitely many coprime solutions $(n,p)\in{\mathbb{N}}\times{\mathbb{Z}}$. In particular, for any $\epsilon>0$, $$\liminf_{n\to\infty} n \mathfrak{M}(n)(\log n)^{1+\epsilon} |{n}|_{\mathcal{D} } ||{n\alpha}||^{\prime} = 0$$ holds for a zero Lebesgue measure set $\alpha\in{\mathbb{R}}$.
The proof of Theorem \[Lithm1\] is based on Borel-Cantelli Lemma. Without loss of generality, assume $\alpha\in[0,1)$. Define $${\mathcal E}_n={\mathcal E}_n(\psi_0)=\bigcup_{p=1 \atop
(p,n)=1}^n\left(\frac{p-\psi_0(n)}{n},\frac{p+\psi_0(n)}{n}\right),$$ where $$\psi_0(n)= \frac{ \psi(n)}{ |{n}|_{\mathcal{D}}}.$$ By the proof of Theorem \[thm2\], in order to prove Theorem \[Lithm1\], we only need to show $$\sum_{n} \lambda( {\mathcal E}_n)<\infty.$$ Like , one has $$\label{eqnli4}
\sum_{n=1}^N \frac{\varphi(n)\psi(n)}{n|{n}|_{\mathcal{D}}} \, = \, \sum_{n=1}^N
\left(\psi(n)-\psi(n+1) \right) \sum_{m=1}^n \frac{\varphi(m)}{m|{m}|_{\mathcal{D}}}
+ \psi(N+1)\sum_{m=1}^N \frac{\varphi(m)}{m|{m}|_{\mathcal{D}}}.$$ We estimate the inner sums here (denote $d_{k+1}=n_{k+1}/n_k$) by $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{m=1}^n \frac{\varphi(m)}{m|{m}|_{\mathcal{D}}}&=\sum_{n_k\leq n}\sum_{\substack{m=1\\n_k|m,~n_{k+1}\nmid m}}^n\frac{\varphi(m)}{m|{m}|_{\mathcal{D}}}\\
&=\sum_{n_k\leq n}\sum_{\substack{1\le m\le n/n_k\\d_{k+1}\nmid m}}\frac{\varphi(n_km)}{m}\\
&\le \sum_{n_k\leq n}\varphi (n_k)\sum_{\substack{1\le m\le n/n_k\\d_{k+1}\nmid m}}1\\
&\le n\sum_{n_k\leq n}\frac{\varphi (n_k)}{n_k},\\
&= n\mathfrak{M}(n),\end{aligned}$$ where the first inequality holds by the fact that $$\varphi(nm)\leq m\varphi(n).$$ Therefore, by and , one has $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=1}^N\lambda({\mathcal E}_n) &\leq& \sum_{n=1}^N\frac{2\psi_0(n)}{n}\varphi(n)\\
&=& 2\sum_{n=1}^N \frac{\varphi(n)\psi(n)}{n|{n}|_{\mathcal{D}}}\\
&\leq& C \sum_{n=1}^N
\left(\psi(n)-\psi(n+1) \right) n\mathfrak{M}(n)+C\psi(N+1)N\mathfrak{M}(N)\\
&\leq& C \sum_{n=1}^N
\left(\psi(n)-\psi(n+1) \right) \sum_{j=1}^n\mathfrak{M}(j)+C\psi(N+1)N\mathfrak{M}(N)
\\
&\leq& \sum_{n=1}^{N+1} C\psi(n)\mathfrak{M}(n).\end{aligned}$$ Combining with assumption , $\sum_{n} \lambda( {\mathcal E}_n)<\infty$ follows.
The remaining part of Theorem \[thmnewhar\] needs more energy to prove. In the previous two sections, we used Duffin-Schaeffer theorem to complete the proof. Now, we will apply the following lemma to finish our proof.
[@Li2 Theorem 1.17]\[Har\] Let $\psi:\mathbb{N}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ be a non-negative function. Suppose $$\label{GLi1}
\sum_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}: G_n\geq 3}\frac{\log G_n}{n\cdot \log\log G_n}=\infty,$$ where $$\label{Gli2}
G_n=\sum_{k=2^{2^n}+1}^{2^{2^{n+1}}}\frac{\psi(k)\varphi(k)}{k}.$$ Then for almost every $\alpha$, the inequality $$|n\alpha -p|\leq \psi (n)$$ has infinitely many coprime solutions $(n,p)\in {\mathbb{N}}\times{\mathbb{Z}}$.
The next lemma is easy to prove by Möbius function or follows from Lemma \[lem1\] ($k=1$) directly.
\[keysection2li\] For any $d\in {\mathbb{N}}$, we have $$\sum_{\substack{n=N_1\\d\nmid n}}^{N_2}\frac{\varphi (n)}{n}\ge \max\{0, \frac{4}{\pi^2}(N_2-N_1)-O(\log N_2)\}\quad\text{for all }~ 0<N_1<N_2.$$
The sharp bound $\frac{4}{\pi^2}$ can be achieved when $d=2$.
\[zeroone\] Let $\psi:{\mathbb{N}}\to {\mathbb{R}}$ be non-negative function and $\lim_{n\to\infty}\psi(n)=0$. Define $${\mathcal E}_n(\psi)=\bigcup_{p=1 \atop
(p,n)=1}^n\left(\frac{p-\psi(n)}{n},\frac{p+\psi(n)}{n}\right).$$ Then the following claims are true.
Zero-one law
: $\lambda(\limsup{\mathcal E}_n(\psi))\in\{0,1\}$ [@Gallzeroone].
Subhomogeneity
: For any $t\geq 1$, $\lambda(\limsup{\mathcal E}_n(t\psi))\leq t\lambda(\limsup{\mathcal E}_n(\psi))$ [@Li2].
We need another lemma.
\[apple\] Let $\mathcal{D}=\{n_k\}$ be a pseudo-absolute value sequence. Then $$\label{18equ2}
\sum _{n_k\leq n} n_k\log\frac{n}{n_k}\leq Cn,$$ and $$\label{18equ3}
\sum_{2^{2^N}\leq n_k\leq 2^{2^{N+1}}}\frac{1}{\log n_k}=O(1).$$
Since $\{n_k\}$ is a pseudo-absolute value sequence, there exists at most one $n_k$ such that $2^j\leq n_k<2^{j+1}$. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\sum _{n_k\leq n} n_k\log\frac{n}{n_k} &\leq& \sum_{j=0}^{\log_2 n} \sum_{2^j\leq n_k<2^{j+1}} n_k\log \frac{n}{n_k}\\
&\leq& \sum_{j=0}^{\log_2 n} 2^{j+1}\log \frac{n}{2^j} \\
&\leq& Cn.\end{aligned}$$ This proves .
Similarly, we have
$$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=2^{2^N}+1}^{2^{2^{N+1}}}\frac{1}{\log n_k} &\leq& \sum_{j=2^N}^{2^{N+1}} \sum_{2^j\leq n_k<2^{j+1}} \frac{1}{\log n_k}\\
&\leq& O(1) \sum_{j=2^N}^{2^{N+1}} \frac{1}{j} \\
&=& O(1).\end{aligned}$$
We finish the proof.
After the preparations, we can prove the case $\epsilon=0$ of Theorem \[thmnewhar\].
\[Lithm2\] Let $\mathcal{D}=\{n_k\}$ be a pseudo-absolute value sequence and $\mathfrak{M}(n)$ be given by . Then for almost every $\alpha\in{\mathbb{R}}$ $$ \liminf_{n\to\infty}n \mathfrak{M}(n)(\log n) |{n}|_{\mathcal{D} }||{n\alpha}||^\prime =0.$$
Without loss of generality, assume $\alpha\in[0,1)$. Let $$\psi_0(n) =\frac{1}{ |{n}|_{\mathcal{D} } n\mathfrak{M}(n)(\log n)},$$ and $$\psi(n) =\frac{1}{ n\mathfrak{M}(n)(\log n)}.$$ It suffices to show that there exists some $c>0$ such that $$\label{Gli2last}
G_N=\sum_{n=2^{2^N}+1}^{2^{2^{N+1}}}\frac{\psi_0(n)\varphi(n)}{n}>c$$ for $N\in{\mathbb{N}}$. Indeed, if holds, then for any $\varepsilon>0$, there exists some $C>0$ such that $$\sum_{n=2^{2^N}+1}^{2^{2^{N+1}}}\frac{C\varepsilon\psi_0(n)\varphi(n)}{n}\geq 3 \text{ for all } N.$$ Applying Lemma \[Har\] (letting $\psi=C\varepsilon\psi_0$), one has $$\label{sub}
\lambda(\limsup{\mathcal E}_n(C\varepsilon\psi_0))=1.$$ Applying Theorem \[zeroone\] (Subhomogeneity) to , we obtain $$\lambda({\limsup\mathcal E}_n(\varepsilon\psi_0))\geq \frac{1}{C}.$$ By zero-one law of Theorem \[zeroone\], we have $$\lambda(\limsup{\mathcal E}_n(\varepsilon\psi_0))=1.$$ Thus for any $\varepsilon>0$, we have that for almost every $\alpha$, the inequality $$|n\alpha -p|\leq \varepsilon\psi _0(n)$$ has infinitely many coprime solutions $(n,p)\in {\mathbb{N}}\times{\mathbb{Z}}$. This implies that for almost every $\alpha\in{\mathbb{R}}$ $$ \liminf_{n\to\infty}n \mathfrak{M}(n)(\log n) |{n}|_{\mathcal{D} }||{n\alpha}||^\prime =0.$$ Now we focus on the proof of .
As usual, we have $$\sum_{n=2^{2^N}+1}^{2^{2^{N+1}}}\frac{\varphi(n)\psi(n)}{n|{n}|_{\mathcal{D}}}$$ $$\label{equ11liwen1}
= \sum_{n=2^{2^N}+1}^{2^{2^{N+1}}}
\left(\psi(n)-\psi(n+1) \right) \sum_{j=2^{2^N}+1}^n \frac{\varphi(j)}{j|{j}|_{\mathcal{D}}}
+ \psi(2^{2^{N+1}}+1) \sum_{j=2^{2^N}+1}^{2^{2^{N+1}}} \frac{\varphi(j)}{j|{j}|_{\mathcal{D}}}.$$ Direct computation yields to $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j=2^{2^N}+1}^n \frac{\varphi(j)}{ j|{j}|_{\mathcal{D}}}&=\sum_{k:1\leq n_k\leq n}\sum_{\substack{j=2^{2^N}+1\\n_{k } |j,~n_{k+1}\nmid j}}^n\frac{\varphi(j)}{ j|{j}|_{\mathcal{D}}}\nonumber\\
&=\sum_{n_k\leq n}\sum_{\substack{ \frac{2^{2^N}+1}{n_k}\le j\le \frac{n}{n_k}\\d_{k +1} \nmid j}} \frac{\varphi(n_kj)}{j}\nonumber\\
&\ge\sum_{n_k\leq n}\varphi(n_k)\sum_{\substack{ \frac{2^{2^N}+1}{n_k}\le j\le \frac{n}{n_k}\\d_{k +1} \nmid j}} \frac{\varphi(j)}{j}\nonumber\\
&\ge \frac{4}{\pi^2} \sum_{n_k\leq n} \varphi(n_k )\max\{0,\frac{n-2^{2^N}}{n_k}-O\left(\log(\frac{n}{n_k})\right)\}\nonumber\\
&\ge \frac{4}{\pi^2} \sum_{n_k\leq n} \frac{\varphi(n_k )}{n_k}\left( ( n-2^{2^N})-O(n_k\log\frac{n}{n_k})\right)\nonumber\\
&\ge \frac{4}{\pi^2} \mathfrak{M}(n)( n-2^{2^N})- \sum _{n_k\leq n}O\left(n_k\log\frac{n}{n_k}\right),\label{equ1final}\end{aligned}$$ where the second inequality holds by Lemma \[keysection2li\].
By the definition of $\psi(n)$, we have for $n\neq n_k$, $$\label{18equ5}
\psi(n)-\psi(n+1)=\frac{O(1)}{n^2\mathfrak{M}(n)\log n},$$ and $$\label{18equ6}
\psi(n_k)-\psi(n_k+1)=\frac{O(1)}{n_k\mathfrak{M}^2(n_k)\log n_k}.$$ By , and , one has $$\sum_{n=2^{2^N}+1}^{2^{2^{N+1}}}
\left(\psi(n)-\psi(n+1) \right) \sum _{n_k\leq n} n_k\log\frac{n}{n_k}
+ \psi(2^{2^{N+1}}+1) \sum _{n_k\leq 2^{2^{N+1}}} n_k\log\frac{2^{2^{N+1}}}{n_k}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&\leq& \sum_{n=2^{2^N}+1}^{2^{2^{N+1}}} \frac{O(1)}{n\mathfrak{M}(n)\log n} + \sum_{2^{2^N}\leq n_k\leq 2^{2^{N+1}}}\frac{O(1)}{\mathfrak{M}^2(n_k)\log n_k}+ \frac{O(1)}{\mathfrak{M}(2^{2^{N+1}})}\nonumber\\
&\leq& \frac{O(1)}{\mathfrak{M}^2(2^{2^{N}})} +\frac{O(1)}{\mathfrak{M}(2^{2^{N+1}})}+\frac{ O(1)}{\mathfrak{M}(2^{2^{N}})} \sum_{n=2^{2^N}+1}^{2^{2^{N+1}}} \frac{1}{n\log n} \nonumber\\
&=& \frac{ O(1)}{\mathfrak{M}(2^{2^{N}})},\label{Wen1}\end{aligned}$$ where the second inequality holds by and the third inequality holds because of ($a=2^{2^{N}}$ and $b=2^{2^{N+1}}$) $$\label{18equ7}
\sum_{a}^{b}\frac{1}{n\log n}\asymp \int_a^b \frac{dx}{x\log x}=\log\log b-\log\log a \text { for any } b>a>1.$$
Putting and into , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=2^{2^N}+1}^{2^{2^{N+1}}}\frac{\varphi(n)\psi(n)}{n|{n}|_{\mathcal{D} }} &\geq&\sum_{n=2^{2^N}+1}^{2^{2^{N+1}}} c\left(\frac{1}{n\log n\mathfrak{M}(n)}-\frac{1}{(n+1)\log(n+1)\mathfrak{M}(n+1)} \right)\mathfrak{M}(n)(n-2^{2^N})- \frac{ O(1)}{\mathfrak{M}(2^{2^{N}})}\\
&\geq&
\sum_{n=2^{(2^N+4)}}^{2^{2^{N+1}}} \frac{c}{2}\left(\frac{1}{n\log n\mathfrak{M}(n)}-\frac{1}{(n+1)\log(n+1)\mathfrak{M}(n+1)} \right)n\mathfrak{M}(n)- \frac{ O(1)}{\mathfrak{M}(2^{2^{N}})}\\
&\geq& c\sum_{n=2^{(2^N+4)}}^{2^{2^{N+1}}}\frac{1}{n\log n}- \frac{ O(1)}{\mathfrak{M}(2^{2^{N}})}.
\end{aligned}$$ Using again, $$\sum_{n=2^{(2^N+4)}}^{2^{2^{N+1}}}\frac{1}{n\log n}\asymp 1.$$ This yields that for some $c>0$, $$G_N\geq c.$$ We finish the proof.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
I would like to thank Svetlana Jitomirskaya for introducing to me the Littlewood conjecture and comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. I also thank the anonymous referee for careful reading of the manuscript that has led to an important improvement. The author was supported by the AMS-Simons Travel Grant 2016-2018 and NSF DMS-1700314. This research was also partially supported by NSF DMS-1401204.
[10]{}
D. A. Badziahin. On multiplicatively badly approximable numbers. , 59(1):31–55, 2013.
V. Beresnevich, G. Harman, A. Haynes, and S. Velani. The [D]{}uffin-[S]{}chaeffer conjecture with extra divergence [II]{}. , 275(1-2):127–133, 2013.
J. Bourgain, E. Lindenstrauss, P. Michel, and A. Venkatesh. Some effective results for$\times$ a$\times$ b. , 29(06):1705–1722, 2009.
Y. Bugeaud. Around the [L]{}ittlewood conjecture in [D]{}iophantine approximation. , (1):5–18, 2014.
Y. Bugeaud, A. Haynes, and S. Velani. Metric considerations concerning the mixed [L]{}ittlewood conjecture. , 7(03):593–609, 2011.
Y. Bugeaud and N. Moshchevitin. adly approximable numbers and [L]{}ittlewood-type problems. In [*Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society*]{}, volume 150, pages 215–226. Cambridge Univ Press, 2011.
B. de Mathan and O. Teuli[é]{}. Problemes diophantiens simultan[é]{}s. , 143(3):229–245, 2004.
R. Duffin and A. Schaeffer. Khintchine’s problem in metric [D]{}iophantine approximation. , 8(2):243–255, 1941.
M. Einsiedler, A. Katok, and E. Lindenstrauss. Invariant measures and the set of exceptions to [L]{}ittlewood’s conjecture. , pages 513–560, 2006.
M. Einsiedler and D. Kleinbock. Measure rigidity and $p$-adic [L]{}ittlewood-type problems. , 143(03):689–702, 2007.
H. Furstenberg. Disjointness in ergodic theory, minimal sets, and a problem in [D]{}iophantine approximation. , 1:1–49, 1967.
P. Gallagher. Approximation by reduced fractions. , 13:342–345, 1961.
P. Gallagher. Metric simultaneous diophantine approximation. , 37:387–390, 1962.
S. Harrap and A. Haynes. The mixed [L]{}ittlewood conjecture for pseudo-absolute values. , 357(3):941–960, 2013.
A. K. Haynes, A. D. Pollington, and S. L. Velani. The [D]{}uffin-[S]{}chaeffer conjecture with extra divergence. , 353(2):259–273, 2012.
L. Li. A note on the [D]{}uffin-[S]{}chaeffer conjecture. , 8(2):151–156, 2013.
L. Li. The [D]{}uffin–[S]{}chaeffer-type conjectures in various local fields. , 62(3):753–800, 2016.
Y. Peres and W. Schlag. Two [E]{}rd[ő]{}s problems on lacunary sequences: chromatic number and [D]{}iophantine approximation. , 42(2):295–300, 2010.
A. D. Pollington and R. C. Vaughan. The [$k$]{}-dimensional [D]{}uffin and [S]{}chaeffer conjecture. , 37(2):190–200, 1990.
O. Strauch. Duffin-[S]{}chaeffer conjecture and some new types of real sequences. , 40(41):233–265, 1982.
[^1]: The present example and the following one are from [@harrap2013mixed].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Motivated by understanding the quality of tractable convex relaxations of intractable polytopes, Ko et al. gave a closed-form expression for the volume of a standard relaxation ${\mathscr{Q}}(G)$ of the boolean quadric polytope (also known as the (full) correlation polytope) ${\mathscr{P}}(G)$ of the complete graph $G=K_n$. We extend this work to structured sparse graphs. In particular, we (i) demonstrate the existence of an efficient algorithm for $\operatorname{vol}({\mathscr{Q}}(G))$ when $G$ has bounded treewidth, (ii) give closed-form expressions (and asymptotic behaviors) for $\operatorname{vol}({\mathscr{Q}}(G))$ for all stars, paths, and cycles, and (iii) give a closed-form expression for $\operatorname{vol}({\mathscr{P}}(G))$ for all cycles. Further, we demonstrate that when $G$ is a cycle, the simple relaxation ${\mathscr{Q}}(G)$ is a very close model for the much more complicated ${\mathscr{P}}(G)$. Additionally, we give some computational results demonstrating that this behavior of the cycle seems to extend to more complicated graphs. Finally, we speculate on the possibility of extending some of our results to cactii or even series-parallel graphs.'
address:
- 'Dept. of I&OE, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.'
- 'Dept. of Mathematics, U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland, USA.'
author:
- Jon Lee
- Daphne Skipper
bibliography:
- 'volume.bib'
title: |
Volume computation for sparse\
boolean quadric relaxations
---
volume ,boolean quadric polytope ,correlation polytope ,mixed-integer non-linear optimization ,order polytope ,counting linear extensions ,bounded treewidth ,cut polytope
52B11 ,52A38 ,90C26 ,90C10
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
For a simple undirected graph $G=(V,E)$ with vertex set $V:=\{1,2,\ldots,n\}$ and edge set $E\subset \{(i,j) ~:~ 1\leq i<j \leq n\}$, we let $m:=|E|$. The *(graphical) boolean quadric polytope* ${\mathscr{P}}(G)$ is the convex hull in dimension $d:= n+\binom{n}{2}$ of the set of binary solutions $\{x_i, y_{ij}: i \in V, i<j \in V\}$ to the system: $$x_ix_j=y_{ij} \mbox{, for each edge } (i,j) \in E.$$ When $G$ is the complete graph $K_n$, we have the well-known boolean quadric polytope (or *(full) correlation polytope*) ${\mathscr{P}}(K_n)$.
The polytope ${\mathscr{P}}(G)$ is contained in and naturally modelled by ${\mathscr{Q}}(G)$, the solution set in $\mathbb{R}^d$ of the linear inequalities $$\begin{aligned}
y_{ij} &~\geq~ 0, \tag{F0}\label{facet0} \\
y_{ij} &~\leq~ x_i, \tag{F1}\label{facet1} \\
y_{ij} &~\leq~ x_j, \tag{F2}\label{facet2} \\
x_i + x_j &~\leq~ 1 + y_{ij}, \tag{F3}\label{facet3}\end{aligned}$$ for $(i,j) \in E$, in which the variables are now relaxed to real values, which here amounts to the continuous interval $[0,1]$.
Padberg heavily investigated these fundamental polytopes, describing families of facet-describing inequalities, the affine equivalence of these polytopes with the cut polytope (and its relaxations) of a complete graph, and much more (see [@Padberg1989]); also see [@BQ4] and [@BQ5]. Under the name of correlation polytopes, further early work concerning geometry and complexity appeared as [@Pitowsky1991]; also see [@DezaLaurent]. The boolean quadric polytope and related polytopes are fundamental to state-of-the-art approaches (both exact branch-and-bound methods and approximation algorithms) for NP-hard max-cut problems; see [@Wiegele2010] and [@GW1995]. Improvements in how the geometry can be exploited computationally have recently been discovered; see [@BQ1]. Additionally, the boolean quadric polytope and its relaxations are fundamental to a recent successful approach to general box-constrained quadratic-optimization problems; see [@BGL]. Relatives of the boolean quadric polytope appear in other combinatorial problems; see [@BQ3] and [@BQ2], for example. Recent work on the currently hot area of extension complexity (for example, see [@CCZ2010]) showed that these polytopes do not have compact extended formulations (i.e., they are not projections of polytopes with a polynomial number of facets and variables); see [@Fiorini2015] and [@Kaibel2015]. An implication of Padberg’s work is that there is an efficient algorithm to decide if a linear function is optimized over ${\mathscr{Q}}(G)$ by some integer extreme point. In very recent work, [@Nikolaev2016] studied a natural generalization of ${\mathscr{Q}}(G)$ and found that the corresponding problem is NP-complete.
Although we concentrate on the boolean quadric polytope ${\mathscr{P}}(G)$ of a graph $G$ (and its relaxations), it is well known that ${\mathscr{P}}(G)$ is intimately related, via a linear transformation, to the cut polytope of the graph $G+u$: for which a new vertex $u$ is joined to every vertex of $G$ (see [@BQ4]). In fact, the determinant of that linear transformation is known (see [@KLS1997]), and so every volume result concerning ${\mathscr{P}}(G)$ and its relaxations immediately gives a volume result concerning the cut polytope of $G+u$ and related relaxations.
Lee and Morris (see [@LM1994]) introduced the idea of using volume as a measure for evaluating relaxations of combinatorial polytopes. They were particularly motivated by the now hot area (for example, see [@LeeLeyffer]) of optimizing nonlinear functions over polytopes. Lee and Morris obtained results comparing uncapacitated facility-location polytopes with their natural relaxations and stable-set polytopes with their relaxations (also see [@Steingr]). In particular, [@LM1994] demonstrated that in a precise asymptotic sense, natural relaxations should be adequate when the number of customers increases much faster than the number of potential facilities. Their work on volume-based comparison for facility-location relaxations was borne out in computational experiments done with later-available convex mixed-integer nonlinear-optimization solvers like `Bonmin` (see [@Lee2007]). In other recent work of this type, volume was used to engineer an aspect of the “spatial-branch-and-bound” approach to non-convex mixed-integer nonlinear-optimization; see [@SpeakmanLee2015], [@SpeakmanYuLee], [@SpeakmanLee_Branching].
In [@KLS1997], Ko, Lee, and Steingr[í]{}msson established that the $d$-dimensional volume of ${\mathscr{Q}}(K_n)$ is $2^{2n-d}n!/(2n)!$. This work can be seen as a key first step in comparing ${\mathscr{Q}}(K_n)$ with ${\mathscr{P}}(K_n)$ via volume. Unfortunately, we still do not have a good estimate of the volume of ${\mathscr{P}}(K_n)$, but the suspicion is that it is substantially smaller than that of ${\mathscr{Q}}(K_n)$.
At the other extreme, as compared to $K_n$, when $G$ has no edges, ${\mathscr{Q}}(G)=[0,1]^d$, the $d$-dimensional unit hypercube $\{(x,y) ~:~ x\in [0,1]^n, y \in [0,1]^{\binom{n}{2}}\}$. In what follows, we consider the volume of ${\mathscr{Q}}(G)$ for cases when $0<|E(G)| < \binom{n}{2}$. In particular, we focus our attention on sparse $G$.
Our interest in studying the boolean quadric polytope and its relaxations for sparse graphs, from the viewpoint of volumes, is based on: (i) the fundamental role that the boolean quadric polytope has been playing in combinatorial optimization through recent times, (ii) the generally easier tractability of combinatorial-optimization problems on sparse graphs (see [@BK2008]), and (iii) the recent success of using volume as a means of comparing relaxations.
In our volume calculations for ${\mathscr{Q}}(G)$, we are able to consider inequalities \[facet1\] and \[facet2\] (largely) independently from \[facet3\]. For convenience, we define an additional (well-known) polytope arising from $G$. Let ${\mathscr{O}}(G)$ denote the *order polytope* of $G$ (see [@Stanley1986]): the subset of $[0,1]^d$ satisfying inequalities of the form \[facet1\] and \[facet2\] (but not necessarily \[facet3\]) for edges $(i,j) \in E$. We use the notation $\operatorname{vol}_d()$ to denote the $d$-dimensional volume of a convex body in $\mathbb{R}^d$. We first observe a very simple and useful formula for the volumes of the polytopes that we associate with a graph $G$, given the volumes of the polytopes associated with the connected components of $G$.
\[crossproduct\] Let $G = (V,E)$ be a simple graph with connected components $G_i = (V_i, E_i)$, $i = 1, 2, \dots, k$. Then $$\operatorname{vol}_d(\mathscr{X}(G)) = \prod_{i=1}^k \operatorname{vol}_{d_i}(\mathscr{X}(G_i)),$$ where $\mathscr{X} \in \left\{{\mathscr{P}}, {\mathscr{Q}}, {\mathscr{O}}\right\}$, $d = |V| + \binom{|V|}{2}$, and $d_i = |V_i| + |E_i|$.
If $i < j \in V$, but $(i,j) \notin E$, the variable $y_{i j}$ appears in no inequalities defining $\mathscr{X}(G)$ other than $0 \leq y_{ij} \leq 1$. Each of these variables contribute a unit multiplier to the $d$-dimensional volume calculation of $\mathscr{X}(G)$; in other words, we can ignore them in our volume formulae.
Because the connected components of $G$ share no common vertices or edges, the polytopes $\mathscr{X}(G_i), i \in \{1, 2, \dots, k\},$ are defined on pairwise disjoint sets of variables. The result then easily follows by noting that volumes multiply under cross products.
If $G$ is a matching with $m\geq 1$ edges, then $\operatorname{vol}(G)=1/6^m$.
Follows easily from Lemma \[crossproduct\] and Ko et al.’s formula applied to the one-edge graph $K_2$.
Note that Lemma \[crossproduct\] allows us to mostly restrict our focus to connected graphs. Even when we consider graphs with multiple connected components, we can omit $x$ variables for isolated vertices and $y$-variables that do not represent edges of $G$ without affecting volumes. In this way, it really does not matter whether we regard our polytopes to be in $\mathbb{R}^{n+\binom{n}{2}}$ or $\mathbb{R}^{n+m}$, so often we will omit the dimension and just write $\operatorname{vol}(\cdot)$. An exception to this is when we carry out asymptotic analysis, see §\[sec:asymp\], where the dimension of the ambient space is important.
We conclude this section with a brief overview of the rest of the paper. In §\[sec:order\], we mildly extend the relationship from [@KLS1997] between ${\mathscr{Q}}(G)$ and ${\mathscr{O}}(G)$ for a graph $G$, and point out how for graphs of bounded treewidth (e.g., series-parallel graphs), we can then compute $\operatorname{vol}({\mathscr{Q}}(G))$ in polynomial time. In the three sections that follow, we develop closed-form expressions for simple families of sparse graphs (in particular, stars, paths and cycles). In doing so, we are then able to carry out some asymptotics to gain useful insights. Furthermore, our analyses serve to demonstrate how complicated the solution can be even for very simple classes of sparse graphs, giving some indication that a non-trivial algorithm really is needed for graphs of bounded treewidth. In §\[sec:stars\], we give a closed-form expression for $\operatorname{vol}({\mathscr{Q}}(G))$, when $G$ is a star. In §\[sec:paths\], we give a closed-form expression for $\operatorname{vol}({\mathscr{Q}}(G))$, when $G$ is a path. Stars and paths are of course forests, and so in those cases, as established by Padberg ([@Padberg1989 Proposition 8]), we have that $\operatorname{vol}({\mathscr{Q}}(G))=\operatorname{vol}({\mathscr{P}}(G))$. In §\[sec:cycles\], we give closed-form expressions for $\operatorname{vol}({\mathscr{Q}}(G))$ *and* $\operatorname{vol}({\mathscr{P}}(G))$, when $G$ is a cycle. We note that our closed-form expressions involve factorial and Euler numbers. For information about calculating them efficiently, we refer the reader to [@Borwein1985], [@BrentHarvey2011], and [@Farach-Colton2015]. In §\[sec:asymp\], we make asymptotic analyses of the formulae that we have. In particular, we find that $\operatorname{vol}({\mathscr{Q}}(G))$ and $\operatorname{vol}({\mathscr{P}}(G))$ are quite close when $G$ is a cycle. In §\[sec:exper\], we report on computational experiments designed to see how the behavior of cycles may show up for more complex graphs. In §\[sec:conclusions\], we describe an avenue for further investigation.
Throughout, we assume familiarity with basic notions in graph theory (see [@West], for example) and polyhedral theory (see [@LeeCombOpt], for example). But briefly, we will summarize important facts and terminology related to polytopes. As is common, for a polytope $P\subset \mathbb{R}^d$, the *dimension* $\dim(P)$ is the maximum number of affinely independent points in $P$, minus 1. If $\dim(P)=d$, then $P$ is *full dimensional*. An inequality $\alpha'x \leq \beta$ is *valid* for $P$ if is satisfied by all points in $P$. The *face* of $P$ *described by* the valid inequality $\alpha'x \leq \beta$ is $\{x\in P ~:~ \alpha'x = \beta\}$. Faces of polytopes are again polytopes, and the faces of dimension one less than that of $P$ are its *facets*. For a full-dimensional polytopes $P$, there are a finite number of facets, each facet-describing inequality is unique up to a positive scaling, and $P$ is the solution set of its facet-describing inequalities.
Order polytopes {#sec:order}
===============
The following two results reduce the problem of calculating the volumes of ${\mathscr{O}}(G)$ and ${\mathscr{Q}}(G)$ to that of counting the number of linear extensions of a certain poset (partially-ordered set). In particular, let $({\mathscr{V}}(G), \prec)$ denote the poset on $${\mathscr{V}}(G) = \{x_i ~:~ i \in V\} \cup \{y_{ij} ~:~ (i,j) \in E\},$$ with $y_{ij} \prec x_i$ and $y_{ij} \prec x_j$, for all edges $(i,j) \in E$. This poset is known as the *incidence poset* of $G$. Let $e({\mathscr{V}}(G), \prec)$ denote the number of linear extensions of $({\mathscr{V}}(G), \prec)$; i.e., the number of order-preserving permutations of ${\mathscr{V}}(G)$.
\[le\_to\_volO\] Let $G=(V,E)$ be a simple graph. Then $$\operatorname{vol}({\mathscr{O}}(G)) = \frac{e({\mathscr{V}}(G), \prec)}{d!},$$ where $d = |V|+|E|$.
Our polytope ${\mathscr{O}}(G)$ is an order polytope as described by Stanley in [@Stanley1986]; this result follows directly from Corollary 4.2 in the same paper.
\[volO\_to\_volQ\] Let $G=(V,E)$ be a simple graph. Then $$\operatorname{vol}({\mathscr{Q}}(G)) ~=~ \frac{\operatorname{vol}({\mathscr{O}}(G))}{2^{|E|}} ~=~ \frac{e({\mathscr{V}}(G), \prec)}{d!2^{|E|}} ,$$ where $d = |V|+|E|$.
We proceed as in the proofs of Proposition 1, Corollary 2, and Proposition 3 in [@KLS1997]. The primary difference in our case is that we omit variables $y_{ij}$ for which $(i,j) \notin E$.
Define $\hat{{\mathscr{Q}}}(G) := 2{\mathscr{Q}}(G)$ to be the solution set of $$\begin{aligned}
y_{ij} &~\leq~ x_i, \label{ineq1}\\
y_{ij} &~\leq~ x_j, \label{ineq2}\\
x_i + x_j &~\leq~ 2 + y_{ij}, \label{ineq3} \\
y_{ij} &~\geq~ 0,\end{aligned}$$ for edges $(i,j) \in E$. It is clear that $\operatorname{vol}(\hat{{\mathscr{Q}}}(G))=2^d \operatorname{vol}({\mathscr{Q}}(G))$, where $d = |V|+|E|$. Via the same argument as in [@KLS1997], we partition $\hat{{\mathscr{Q}}}(G)$ into $2^{|V|}$ equi-volume polytopes: $$R_a := \{(x,y) \in \hat{{\mathscr{Q}}}(G): a \leq x \leq a + \mathbf{1}\}, a \in \{0,1\}^{|V|},$$ where $\mathbf{1}$ is the $d$-vector $(1,1,\dots,1)$. In the case of $R_0$, the inequality is rendered vacuous, so that $R_0$ is an order polytope with $$\operatorname{vol}(R_0) = \frac{e({\mathscr{V}}(G), \prec)}{d!}.$$ We conclude that $$\operatorname{vol}({\mathscr{Q}}(G))
~=~ \frac{\operatorname{vol}(\hat{{\mathscr{Q}}}(G))}{2^d}
~=~ \frac{2^{|V|} \operatorname{vol}(R_0)}{2^d}
~=~ \frac{e({\mathscr{V}}(G), \prec)}{2^{|E|} d!}.$$
To find the volumes of the relaxation polytopes ${\mathscr{O}}(G)$ and ${\mathscr{Q}}(G)$, we must count the number of linear extensions of $({\mathscr{V}}(G), \prec)$. In general, counting the number of linear extensions of a poset is [\#]{}P-complete; see [@BrWi]. We are particularly interested in situations when counting the number of linear extensions of $({\mathscr{V}}(G), \prec)$ is easier, due to some structured sparsity of $G$.
For *any* poset $(N, \prec)$, we can consider its *directed cover graph* $\mathcal{DC}(N, \prec)$, having vertex set $N$ and an edge from vertex $i$ to distinct vertex $j$ when $i \prec j$ and there is no $k$, distinct from $i$ and $j$, with $i \prec k \prec j$. We let $\mathcal{C}(N, \prec)$ denote the *cover graph*, ignoring the edge directions in $\mathcal{DC}(N, \prec)$.
Cover graphs of incidence posets have been studied (see [@Trotter2014], for example). We are interested in sparsity properties of $\mathcal{C}(G):=\mathcal{C}({\mathscr{V}}(G), \prec)$, the cover graph of the incidence poset of $G$. See Figure \[covergraph\] for an example of a simple graph $G$ and the related directed cover graph $\mathcal{DC}(G)$.
It is clear that $\mathcal{C}(G)$ inherits all of the graph properties of $G$ that are inherited by edge subdivision. For example, if $G$ is a tree, cycle, cactus, or series-parallel graph, then $\mathcal{C}(G)$ is a tree, cycle, cactus, or series-parallel graph, respectively. Furthermore, if $G$ has treewidth bounded by $k$, then $\mathcal{C}(G)$ has treewidth bounded by $k$: whenever $G$ has treewidth $k$, then inserting a vertex on each edge leaves the treewidth at $k$ (this is mentioned and used in many papers, but see [@Lozin Lemma 1] where it is explicitly stated and proved). Besides trees ($k=1$), cycles ($k=2$), cactii ($k=2$), and series-parallel graphs ($k=2$), we can consider outer-planar graphs ($k=2$) and Halin graphs ($k=3$).
Structured sparsity of $\mathcal{C}(G)$ can be exploited. [@Atkinson] and [@Atkinson1990] give polynomial-time algorithms for counting the number of linear extensions when $\mathcal{C}(N, \prec)$ is a tree. [@Chang] extended this to the case in which $\mathcal{C}(N, \prec)$ is a cactus (also see[@Atkinson]). [@Kangas2016] extended this to to the case in which $\mathcal{C}(N, \prec)$ has bounded treewidth. We have then the following fundamental result.
For the class of graphs of treewidth bounded by any constant, in polynomial time, we can calculate $\operatorname{vol}({\mathscr{O}}(G))$ and $\operatorname{vol}({\mathscr{Q}}(G))$.
Interestingly, [@BrWi] proved that counting the number of linear extensions of a poset is [\#]{}P-complete even for posets of height 3, and they conjectured that this is true even for posets of height 2. The height-2 situation is very relevant to our investigation because our posets $({\mathscr{V}}(G), \prec)$ have height 2. However, our posets are rather special posets of height 2, in that all of our $y$ vertices have degree 2, so a positive complexity result is more likely. In any case, Brightwell and Winkler asserted[^1] that: (i) the complexity for the general height-2 case is still open; (ii) there seems to be no work on counting linear extensions of incidence posets; (iii) there is no compelling reason to believe that the case of incidence posets should be easier than general height-2 posets.
\[font=, node/.style=[shape=circle,draw=black,fill=white!20, text=black,minimum width=0.5cm,thick]{}, arc/.style=[->,>=stealth,thick]{}, edge/.style=[thick]{}\]
\(1) \[node\] at (-1,0) [1]{}; (2) \[node\] at (1,0) [2]{}; (3) \[node\] at (3,1.5) [3]{}; (4) \[node\] at (3,-1.5) [4]{};
\(1) to node \[auto\] [ ]{} (2); (2) to node \[auto\] [ ]{} (3); (3) to node \[auto\] [ ]{} (4); (2) to node \[auto\] [ ]{} (4);
\(5) \[draw\] at (5,0) [$x_1$]{}; (6) \[draw\] at (8,0) [$x_2$]{}; (7) \[draw\] at (11,2) [$x_3$]{}; (8) \[draw\] at (11,-2) [$x_4$]{}; (56) \[draw\] at (6.5,0) [$y_{12}$]{}; (67) \[draw\] at (9.5,1) [$y_{23}$]{}; (78) \[draw\] at (11,0) [$y_{23}$]{}; (68) \[draw\] at (9.5,-1) [$y_{23}$]{};
\(5) to node \[auto\] [ ]{} (56); (6) to node \[auto\] [ ]{} (56); (6) to node \[auto\] [ ]{} (67); (7) to node \[auto\] [ ]{} (67); (7) to node \[auto\] [ ]{} (78); (8) to node \[auto\] [ ]{} (78); (6) to node \[auto\] [ ]{} (68); (8) to node \[auto\] [ ]{} (68);
Stars {#sec:stars}
=====
Let $S_m$ denote a star with $m \geq 1$ edges.
\[lem:starLE\] For $m\geq 1$, $$e({\mathscr{V}}(S_m),\prec) = 2^m(m!)^2.$$
Let the vertex set of the star be $V:=\{0,1,\ldots,m\}$, and let vertex $0$ be the center of the star. For convenience, we count the reverse linear extensions of $e({\mathscr{V}}(S_m),\prec)$, in which $x_0$ and $x_k$ appear to the left of $y_{0,k}$.
For $i = 0, 1, \dots,m$, the number of permissible permutations of ${\mathscr{V}}(S_m)$ in which $x_0$ appears in position $i+1$ and all other $x$ variables are ordered by index is given by $$\left(i! \binom{2m-i}{i} \right) \left(\frac{ (2(m-i))!}{2^{m-i}(m-i)!} \right).$$ The first factor counts the number of ways to place $y_{0,1}, y_{0,2}, \dots, y_{0,i}$ into the $2m-i$ positions to the right of $x_0$ in no particular order. The second factor counts the placement of the pairs $x_k, y_{0,k}$, for $i+1 \leq k \leq m,$ in the remaining $2(m-i)$ positions to the right of $x_0$ with $x_k \prec y_{0,k}$ and the $x_k$ ordered by index.
Incorporating all possible positions of $x_0$ and permutations of the $x_k, y_{0,k}$ pairs for $1 \leq k \leq m$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
e({\mathscr{V}}(S_m),\prec) &~=~ m! \sum_{i=0}^m i! \binom{2m-i}{i} \left(\frac{ (2(m-i))!}{2^{m-i}(m-i)!} \right) \\
&~=~ m! \sum_{i=0}^m \frac{(2m-i)!}{(m-i)!2^{m-i}} \\
&~=~ 2^m (m!)^2 \sum_{i=0}^m \binom{2m-i}{m-i} \frac{1}{2^{2m-i}} \\
&~=~ 2^m (m!)^2 \sum_{{\ell}=0}^m \binom{m+{\ell}}{{\ell}} \frac{1}{2^{m+{\ell}}}.\end{aligned}$$ To see that $\sum_{{\ell}=0}^m \binom{m+{\ell}}{{\ell}} \frac{1}{2^{m+{\ell}}} = 1$, rewrite the summation as $$\sum_{{\ell}=0}^m \binom{m+{\ell}}{{\ell}}\left[ \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^{m+1}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^{{\ell}} + \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^{m+1}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^{{\ell}}\right],$$ which represents the probability that a fair coin will land on the same side (heads or tails) exactly $m+1$ times somewhere between flips $m+1$ and $2m+1$. This identity is a special case (in which $x= \frac{1}{2}$) of an identity apparently due to Gosper (see [@HAKMEM1972 Item 42]).
Combining Lemma \[lem:starLE\] and Theorem \[volO\_to\_volQ\], we obtain the following result.
\[thm:starvol\] For $m \geq 1$, $$\operatorname{vol}({\mathscr{Q}}(S_m)) ~=~
\frac{\operatorname{vol}({\mathscr{O}}(S_m))}{2^m} ~=~
\frac{(m!)^2}{(2m+1)!}.$$
Paths {#sec:paths}
=====
We will see that the so-called odd “Euler numbers” appear in the formulae for the volumes of polytopes associated with paths (and cycles). There are several closely related sequences that are called “Euler numbers”, so there can be considerable confusion. Following [@Stanley2012], an *alternating permutation* of $\{1, 2,\ldots, k\}$ is a permutation so that each entry is alternately greater or less than the preceding entry. The *Euler number* $A_k$, $k\geq 1$, is the number of such alternating permutations, and *André’s problem* is determining the $A_k$. For small values, we have $$A_0:=1,~A_1=1,~A_2=1,~A_3=2,~A_4=5,~A_5=16,~A_6=61,~A_7=272.$$
Even-indexed Euler numbers are also called *zig numbers*, and the odd-indexed ones are called *zag numbers*. Also, the even-indexed ones are called *secant numbers*, and the odd-indexed ones are called *tangent numbers*. The latter names come from André who established the following pretty result.
\[thm:andre\] The Maclaurin series for $\sec(x)$ is $\sum_{m=0}^\infty \frac{A_{2m}}{(2m)!}x^{2m}$, and the Maclaurin series for $\tan(x)$ is $\sum_{m=0}^\infty \frac{A_{2m+1}}{(2m+1)!}x^{2m+1}$, both having radius of convergence $\pi/2$.
Note that Euler worked with the odd-indexed ones, and defined them not combinatorially but rather via the Maclaurin series for $\tan(x)$ (see [@Stanley2012]).
Let $P_m$ denote a path with $m\geq 0$ edges.
\[le\_path\] For $m\geq 0$, $$e({\mathscr{V}}(P_m),\prec) = A_{2m+1}.$$
Figure \[pathcover\] is a diagram of $\mathcal{C}(P_m)$. The number $e({\mathscr{V}}(P_m),\prec)$ counts the number of permutations $\phi$ of $$\{x_1,~ y_{1,2}, ~x_2, ~y_{2,3}, ~x_3, ~\dots, ~x_{m}, ~y_{m, m+1}, ~x_{m+1}\},$$ such that $$\phi(x_1) > \phi(y_{1,2}) < \phi(x_2) > \phi(y_{2,3}) < \dots > \phi(y_{m,m+1}) < \phi(x_{m+1}).$$
\[font=, node/.style=[draw=black,fill=white!20, text=black,minimum width=0.8cm,thick]{}, arc/.style=[->,>=stealth,thick]{}, edge/.style=[thick]{}\] /.style=[text=black, minimum width=0.5cm, thick]{}
(x1) \[node\] at (0,0) [$x_1$]{}; (x2) \[node\] at (3,0) [$x_2$]{}; (xn1) \[node\] at (9,0) [$x_{n+1}$]{}; (y12) \[node\] at (1.5,-1.5) [$y_{12}$]{}; (y23) \[node\] at (4.5,-1.5) [$y_{23}$]{};
(ynn1) \[node\] at (7.5,-1.5) [$y_{n,n+1}$]{};
(x1) to node \[auto\] [ ]{} (y12); (x2) to node \[auto\] [ ]{} (y12); (x2) to node \[auto\] [ ]{} (y23); (xn1) to node \[auto\] [ ]{} (ynn1); at (6, -.75) [$\dots$]{};
In other words, $e({\mathscr{V}}(P_m), \prec)$ is precisely the number of alternating permutations of a $(2m+1)$-element set, which is given by the odd Euler number, $A_{2m+1}$.
Combining Lemma \[le\_path\] and Theorems \[le\_to\_volO\] and \[volO\_to\_volQ\], we obtain the following result.
\[thm:pathvol\] For $m\geq 0$, $$\operatorname{vol}({\mathscr{Q}}(P_m)) ~=~ \frac{\operatorname{vol}({\mathscr{O}}(P_m))}{2^m} ~=~ \frac{A_{2m+1}}{2^m(2m+1)!}.$$
Because of André’s Theorem, we can see the volumes of the boolean quadric polytopes corresponding to paths in the McLaurin series expansion of tangent.
$$\sum_{m \geq 0} 2^m \operatorname{vol}({\mathscr{Q}}(P_m))x^{2m+1} ~=~ \tan(x).$$
Cycles {#sec:cycles}
======
In this section we obtain a first success at fully analyzing a situation where ${\mathscr{Q}}(G)$ is different from ${\mathscr{P}}(G)$. Let $C_m$ be a simple cycle with $m\geq 3$ edges.
\[lem:cycleLE\] For $m \geq 3$, $$e({\mathscr{V}}(C_m),\prec) = mA_{2m-1}.$$
The number of cyclically alternating permutations of length $2m$ is precisely $mA_{2m-1}$; see [@Kreweras].
Combining Theorem \[lem:cycleLE\] and Theorem \[volO\_to\_volQ\], we obtain the following result.
\[vol\_QCm\] For $m \geq 3$, $$\operatorname{vol}({\mathscr{Q}}(C_m)) ~=~
\frac{\operatorname{vol}({\mathscr{O}}(C_m))}{2^m} ~=~
\frac{mA_{2m-1}}{2^m(2m)!}.$$
Combining Theorems \[vol\_QCm\] and \[thm:pathvol\], we obtain the following result.
For $m \geq 3$, $$\operatorname{vol}({\mathscr{Q}}(C_m)) ~=~
\operatorname{vol}({\mathscr{Q}}(P_{m-1}))\big/ 4.$$
Padberg made a careful analysis of the facets of ${\mathscr{P}}(G)$ when $G$ is a cycle (see [@Padberg1989]). We summarize the relevant parts in the remainder of this paragraph. Let $G=(V,E)$ be a simple graph containing simple cycle $C = (V(C), E(C))$. Let $A$ be an odd cardinality subset of $E(C)$ and define $$\begin{aligned}
S_0 &~:=~ \{i \in V(C): i \text{ is incident to no elements of } A\}; \\
S_1 &~:=~ \{i \in V: i \notin V(C) \text{ or } i \text{ is incident to exactly $1$ element of } A\}; \\
S_2 &~:=~ \{i \in V(C): i \text{ is incident to $2$ elements of } A\}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $V = S_0 \cup S_1 \cup S_2$.
\[thm:oddpad\] The *odd cycle inequality* $OC(A)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i \in S_2}x_i ~-~ \sum_{i \in S_0}x_i ~+ \sum_{(i,j) \in E\backslash A}y_{ij} ~- \sum_{(i,j) \in A} y_{ij} &~\leq~ \Bigl\lfloor |A|/2 \Bigr\rfloor, \tag{F4}\label{oddcyclefacet}\end{aligned}$$ is a valid inequality of ${\mathscr{P}}(G)$ and cuts off the vertex ${{v^{0}}}$ of ${\mathscr{Q}}(G)$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
x_i &= \textstyle \frac{1}{2}, \text{ for } i \in V, \\
y_{ij} &= \textstyle \frac{1}{2}, \text{ for } (i,j) \in E\backslash A, \text{ and}\\
y_{ij} &= 0, \text{ for } (i,j) \in A \cup (E\backslash E(C)).\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, when $G$ is a cycle, ${\mathscr{P}}(G)$ is the solution set of \[facet0\]-\[oddcyclefacet\], all describing unique facets.
In fact, ${\mathscr{P}}(G)$ is completely described by \[facet0\]-\[oddcyclefacet\] for every series-parallel graph $G$ (see [@Padberg1989 Theorem 10]).
Next, we look carefully at the parts of ${\mathscr{Q}}(G)$ cut off by distinct odd cycle inequalities arising from a single simple cycle $C$ of $G$. We will see that they are disjoint, and for the special case that $G = C$, the cut off parts all have the same volume which we can calculate. Note that this is a similar behavior to so-called “clipping inequalities” applied to the standard unit hypercube (see [@CopperLee]).
\[lem:disj\] Let $G$ be a simple graph containing simple cycle $C$. Let $A$ and $B$ be distinct odd-cardinality subsets of $E(C)$. The odd cycle inequalities $OC(A)$ and $OC(B)$ remove disjoint portions of ${\mathscr{Q}}(G)$.
Let $A$ and $B$ be distinct odd-cardinality subsets of $E(C)$. Let $S_0, ~S_1$, and $S_2$ be as defined above for $A$. Let $T_0,~ T_1,$ and $T_2$ be the corresponding subsets of $V$ related to $B$. Suppose that $(\hat{x},\hat{y})\in {\mathscr{Q}}(G)$ violates both $OC(A)$ and $OC(B)$. That is, $$\sum_{i \in S_2}\hat{x}_i ~-~ \sum_{i \in S_0}\hat{x}_i ~+ \sum_{(i,j) \in E\backslash A}\hat{y}_{ij} ~- \sum_{(i,j) \in A}\hat{y}_{ij} ~>~ \Bigl\lfloor |A|/2 \Bigr\rfloor$$ and $$\sum_{i \in T_2}\hat{x}_i ~-~ \sum_{i \in T_0}\hat{x}_i ~+ \sum_{(i,j) \in E\backslash B}\hat{y}_{ij} ~- \sum_{(i,j) \in B} \hat{y}_{ij} ~>~ \Bigl\lfloor |B|/2 \Bigr\rfloor.$$ Adding these inequalities, canceling terms with opposite signs, we have $$\begin{gathered}
\label{sumofOCs}
\sum_{i \in S_2 \cap T_1}\hat{x}_i ~+~ \sum_{i \in S_1 \cap T_2}\hat{x}_i ~+~ 2\sum_{i \in S_2 \cap T_2}\hat{x}_i ~-~ 2\sum_{(i,j) \in A \cap B}\hat{y}_{ij} \\
~-~ \sum_{i \in S_0 \cap T_1}\hat{x}_i ~-~ \sum_{i \in S_1 \cap T_0}\hat{x}_i ~-~ 2\sum_{i \in S_0 \cap T_0}\hat{x}_i ~+~ 2\sum_{(i,j) \in E\backslash (A \cup B)}\hat{y}_{ij} \\
~>~ \frac{|A|+|B|}{2} -1.\end{gathered}$$
Because $(\hat{x},\hat{y})\in {\mathscr{Q}}(G)$, we can employ $\ref{facet0}-\ref{facet3}$. Starting with , add $\hat{y}_{ij} - \hat{x}_i -\hat{x}_j \geq -1$ for $(i,j) \in A \cap B$, and $\hat{x}_i - \hat{y}_{ij} \geq 0$ and $\hat{x}_j - \hat{y}_{ij} \geq 0$ for $(i,j) \in E(C)\backslash(A\cup B)$. All of the $\hat{x}$ terms cancel out and we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{simplifiedOCs}
\sum_{(i,j) \in A \cap B}\hat{y}_{ij} ~>~ \frac{|A|+|B|}{2} - |A \cap B|.\end{aligned}$$ We can apply non-negativity of the $\hat{y}_{ij}$ to eliminate the remaining $\hat{y}_{ij}$ terms, arriving at $$\begin{aligned}
0 ~>~ \frac{|A|+|B|}{2} - |A \cap B| ~\geq~ \min\left\{|A|,|B|\right\} - |A \cap B| ~\geq~ 0,\end{aligned}$$ a contradiction. Therefore, we cannot have $(\hat{x},\hat{y})\in {\mathscr{Q}}(G)$ violating both $OC(A)$ and $OC(B)$.
The following characterization of the subset of ${\mathscr{Q}}(C_m)$ that is removed by an odd-cycle inequality is apparent from the proof of Theorem 9 in [@Padberg1989].
\[cutoffsimplex\] (Padberg [@Padberg1989]) Let $A$ be any odd-cardinality subset of the edges of $C_m$. Let $v^0$ denote the fractional vertex of ${\mathscr{Q}}(C_m)$ removed by $OC(A)$ (as described in Theorem \[thm:oddpad\]). Let the polytope $W$ be the closure of the set removed from ${\mathscr{Q}}(C_m)$ by $OC(A)$.
The vertex $v^0$ is non-degenerate, and $W$ has the following properties:
- the $2m+1$ vertices of $W$ are $v^0$ and the $2m$ integer vertices of ${\mathscr{P}}(C_m)$ that satisfy $OC(A)$ with equality;
- the $2m+1$ facets of $W$ are the ones described by $OC(A)$ and the set of inequalities $\{y_{ij} \geq 0, ~x_i + x_j \leq y_{ij} + 1: (i,j) \in A\} \cup \{y_{ij} \leq x_i, ~y_{ij} \leq x_j: (i,j) \in E(C_m)\backslash A\}$;
- (hence) $W$ is a $2m$-dimensional simplex (in $\mathbb{R}^{2m}$).
\[cutoffhalf\] The volume removed from ${\mathscr{Q}}(C_m)$ by a single odd-cycle constraint is $\frac{1}{2(2m)!}$.
For the $m$-cycle $C_m$, we define vertex set $V := \{1,2,\dots,m\}$ and edge set $E := \{(1,2), (2,3), \dots, (m-1,m),(m,1)\}$. In the context of this proof, we adopt the order of the coordinates of $\mathbb{R}^{2m}$ to match the order that the corresponding vertices and edges appear in $C_m$, starting at vertex 1 and ending at edge $(m,1)$. For clarity, we also adopt the heavier notation $y_{(i,j)} ~(:= y_{ij})$ throughout this proof. Specifically, we consider $v \in \mathbb{R}^{2m}$ as $$v := (x_1, ~y_{(1,2)},~ x_2,~ y_{(2,3)}, \dots, x_{m-1},~ y_{(m-1,m)},~ x_m,~ y_{(m,1)}).$$
Suppose that $A$ is any odd-cardinality subset of $E$. By Lemma \[cutoffsimplex\], the closure of the portion of ${\mathscr{Q}}(C_m)$ cut off by $OC(A)$ is a simplex, which we denote by $W$.
For each edge $(i,j)$ of $C_m$, there are four facets of $W$ (those described by inequalities of type \[facet0\]-\[facet3\]) that define the coordinates (of points in ${\mathscr{Q}}(C_m)$) corresponding to edge $(i,j)$ and its end nodes, $i$ and $j$: $y_{(i,j)}$, $x_i$, and $x_j$. We introduce the notation $\mathcal{F}0_{(i,j)}$ to indicate the facet described by an inequality of type \[facet0\] that corresponds to edge $(i,j)$. We define $\mathcal{F}1_{(i,j)}$, $\mathcal{F}2_{(i,j)}$, and $\mathcal{F}3_{(i,j)}$ similarly.
Lemma \[cutoffsimplex\] also provides the complete facet description of $W$. In particular, there are two facets of $W$ corresponding to each $(i,j) \in E$ chosen among $\mathcal{F}0_{(i,j)}$-$\mathcal{F}3_{(i,j)}$. The choice depends on whether or not $(i,j)$ is in $A$. For each edge $(i,j) \in A$, $W$ has the two facets $\mathcal{F}0_{(i,j)}$ (described by $y_{(i,j)} \geq 0$) and $\mathcal{F}3_{(i,j)}$ (described by $x_i + x_j \leq 1 + y_{(i,j)}$). For each edge $(i,j) \in \bar{A} := E \backslash A$, $W$ has the two facets $\mathcal{F}1_{(i,j)}$ (described by $y_{(i,j)} \leq x_i$) and $\mathcal{F}2_{(i,j)}$ (described by $y_{(i,j)} \leq x_j$). These $2m$ facets, along with the facet described by $OC(A)$, are all of the facets of $W$.
As with any full-dimensional simplex, every extreme point of $W$ is defined by the intersection of all but one of its facets. In this way, there is a one-to-one correspondence between the extreme points of $W$ and the facets of $W$. We say that extreme point $v$ of $W$ *arises by relaxing the facet $W_v$*, where $W_v$ is the single facet of $W$ that does not contain $v$.
Let $v^0$ be the extreme point of $W$ that arises by relaxing the facet described by $OC(A)$; i.e., $W_{v^0}$ is the facet described by $OC(A)$. As noted above for facets, there are two extreme points of $W$ relating to each $(i,j) \in E$, which we denote $v^{(i,j)_{a}}$ and $v^{(i,j)_{b}}$. It will be important later to know exactly which facet is relaxed to obtain each of these extreme points, and so we define the following:
[if $(i,j) \in A$,]{} $$W_{v^{(i,j)_{a}}} = \mathcal{F}0_{(i,j)} ~~~\text{ and }~~~ W_{v^{(i,j)_{b}}} = \mathcal{F}3_{(i,j)};$$ if $(i,j) \in \bar{A}$, $$W_{v^{(i,j)_{a}}} = \mathcal{F}1_{(i,j)} ~~~\text{ and }~~~ W_{v^{(i,j)_{b}}} = \mathcal{F}2_{(i,j)}.$$
We can express the volume of the simplex $W$ via the well-known formula $$\operatorname{vol}(W) = \frac{1}{(2m)!} | \det (M) |,$$ where $$M:=
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
(v^{(1,2)_{a}}-v^0)' \\
(v^{(1,2)_{b}}-v^0)' \\
(v^{(2,3)_{a}}-v^0)' \\
\vdots \\
(v^{(m,1)_{b}}-v^0)'
\end{array}
\right],$$ where $v'$ represents the transpose of column vector $v$. Our task is to show that $\det(M) = \pm 1/2$. In particular, we will define an upper-triangular matrix $\tilde{M}$ obtained from $M$ via certain elementary row operations that leave the determinant unchanged (replacing a row with the sum of itself and a scalar multiple of another row), and show that $\det(M) = \det(\tilde{M})= \pm 1/2$.
We turn our focus to the extreme points of $W$, which determine the rows of $M$. For precision, we introduce superscripts to the coordinates of the extreme points of $W$ matching the superscripts of the extreme points; e.g., $v^{(1,2)_a} := $ $$(x^{(1,2)_a}_1, ~y^{(1,2)_a}_{(1,2)},~ x^{(1,2)_a}_2,~ y^{(1,2)_a}_{(2,3)}, \dots, x^{(1,2)_a}_{m-1},~ y^{(1,2)_a}_{(m-1,m)},~ x^{(1,2)_a}_m,~ y^{(1,2)_a}_{(m,1)})$$ denotes the extreme point of $W$ that arises by relaxing either $\mathcal{F}0_{(1,2)}$ (if $(1,2) \in A$) or $\mathcal{F}1_{(1,2)}$ (if $(1,2) \in \bar{A}$).
By Theorem \[thm:oddpad\], the coordinates of $v^0$ are: $$\begin{aligned}
x^0_i &= \textstyle \frac{1}{2}, \text{ for } i \in V; \\[3pt]
y^0_{(i,j)} &= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0, & \text{ for } (i,j) \in A; \\
\frac{1}{2}, & \text{ for } (i,j) \in \bar{A}.
\end{array} \right.\end{aligned}$$
By Lemma \[cutoffsimplex\], each of the extreme points of $W$ of the form ${{v^{(i,j)_a}}}$ or ${{v^{(i,j)_b}}}$, $(i,j) \in E$, is also an extreme point of ${\mathscr{P}}(C_m)$ and therefore 0/1-valued. Focusing on the coordinates of ${{v^{(i,j)_a}}}$, we note that $x^{(i,j)_a}_i$, $y^{(i,j)_a}_{(i,j)}$, and $x^{(i,j)_a}_j$ must satisfy the inequality describing $W_{{{v^{(i,j)_a}}}}$ with strict inequality and must satisfy the inequality describing $W_{{{v^{(i,j)_b}}}}$ as an equation. A similar statement can be made about ${{v^{(i,j)_b}}}$, which must not be contained in $W_{{{v^{(i,j)_b}}}}$ and must be contained in $W_{{{v^{(i,j)_a}}}}$. For every $(i,j) \in E$, the 0/1 values of the coordinates $x^{(i,j)_*}_i$, $y^{(i,j)_*}_{(i,j)}$, and $x^{(i,j)_*}_j$ of ${{v^{(i,j)_*}}}$ for $* \in \{a,b\}$, depend on whether or not $(i,j) \in A$ and are uniquely determined by the two facets $W_{{{v^{(i,j)_a}}}}$ and $W_{{{v^{(i,j)_b}}}}$ of $W$. Table \[tab:ij\_values\] gives these values.
\[tab:ij\_values\]
$(i,j)\in$ $*$ ${{v^{(i,j)_*}}}$ *must satisfy* $x^{(i,j)_*}_i$ $y^{(i,j)_*}_{(i,j)}$ $x^{(i,j)_*}_j$
------------ ----- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------- ----------------------- ----------------- --
$a$ $y^{(i,j)_a}_{(i,j)} > 0$, $x^{(i,j)_a}_i + x^{(i,j)_a}_j = 1+ y^{(i,j)_a}_{(i,j)} $ 1 1 1
$b$ $y^{(i,j)_b}_{(i,j)} = 0$, $x^{(i,j)_b}_i + x^{(i,j)_b}_j < 1+ y^{(i,j)_b}_{(i,j)}$ 0 0 0
$a$ $y^{(i,j)_a}_{(i,j)} < x^{(i,j)_a}_i $, $y^{(i,j)_a}_{(i,j)} = x^{(i,j)_a}_j$ 1 0 0
$b$ $y^{(i,j)_b}_{(i,j)} = x^{(i,j)_b}_i $, $y^{(i,j)_b}_{(i,j)} < x^{(i,j)_b}_j $ 0 0 1
For $(k,\ell) \in E\backslash \{(i,j)\}$ and $* \in \{a,b\}$, there are *two* possible options for the coordinates $x^{(i,j)_*}_{k}$, $y^{(i,j)_*}_{(k,\ell)}$, and $x^{(i,j)_*}_{\ell}$ of $v^{(i,j)_*}$, allowed by the facets $W_{v^{(k,\ell)_a}}$ and $W_{v^{(k,\ell)_b}}$, which $v^{(i,j)_*}$ must be contained in. If $(k,\ell) \in A$, then $v^{(i,j)_*}$ must satisfy \[facet0\]$_{(k,\ell)}$ and \[facet3\]$_{(k,\ell)}$ with equality, and if $(k,\ell) \in \bar{A}$, then $v^{(i,j)_*}$ must satisfy \[facet1\]$_{(k,\ell)}$ and \[facet2\]$_{(k,\ell)}$ with equality. We summarize the possible values of $x^{(i,j)_*}_{k}$, $y^{(i,j)_*}_{(k,\ell)}$, and $x^{(i,j)_*}_{\ell}$ in Table \[tab:kl\_values\].
\[tab:kl\_values\]
--------------- ------------------------------ ----------------- -------------------------- ----------------------
$(k,\ell)\in$ $v^{(i,j)_*}$ *must satisfy* $x^{(i,j)_*}_k$ $y^{(i,j)_*}_{(k,\ell)}$ $x^{(i,j)_*}_{\ell}$
1 0 0
0 0 1
1 1 1
0 0 0
--------------- ------------------------------ ----------------- -------------------------- ----------------------
Now we are ready to describe how we transform the matrix $M$ into an upper-triangular matrix $\tilde{M}$. We use $A_r$ to denote row $r$ of matrix $A$. We define $$\tilde{M} :=
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
M_1 \\
M_2 + M_1 \\
M_3 \pm M_2 \\
M_4 + M_3 \\
\vdots \\
M_{2m-1} \pm M_{2m-2} \\
M_{2m} + M_{2m-1}
\end{array}
\right]
=
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
(v^{(1,2)_a} - v^0)' \\
(v^{(1,2)_b} - v^0)' + (v^{(1,2)_a} - v^0)' \\
(v^{(2,3)_a} - v^0)' \pm (v^{(1,2)_b} - v^0)' \\
(v^{(2,3)_b} - v^0)' + (v^{(2,3)_a} - v^0)' \\
\vdots \\
(v^{(m,1)_a} - v^0)' \pm (v^{(m-1,m)_b} - v^0)' \\
(v^{(m,1)_b} - v^0)' + (v^{(m,1)_a} - v^0)' \\
\end{array}
\right],$$ where the choice of $\tilde{M}_r := M_r + M_{r-1}$ versus $\tilde{M}_r:=M_r - M_{r-1}$, for $r \in \{3,5 \dots, 2m-1\}$, will be described below. Already, we can see that $\det(\tilde{M}) = \det(M)$, and $M_{1,1} = x^{(1,2)}_1-x^{0}_1 = \pm \frac{1}{2}$. In what follows, we completely specify the odd-indexed rows of $\tilde{M}$, and demonstrate that $\tilde{M}$ is upper-triangular with $|\tilde{M}_{r,r}| = 1$, for $r \in \{2,3,\dots,2m\}$.
$\tilde{M}$ has six different row types, which we consider in cases 1 through 6 below. The calculation of $\tilde{M}_{r}$, for even $r = 2i \in \{2,4,\dots,2m\}$, requires the two extreme points $v^{(i,j)_a}$ and $v^{(i,j)_b}$ of $W$, which arise by relaxing the two facets of $W$ associated with the same edge: $(i,j)$. In case 1, $(i,j) \in A$, and in case 2, $(i,j) \in \bar{A}$.
For odd index $r \in \{3, 5, \dots, 2m-1\}$, let $i = (r+1)/2$; the calculation of $\tilde{M}_r$ involves two vertices, $v^{(h,i)_b}$ and $v^{(i,j)_a}$, that arise by relaxing facets associated with adjacent edges $(h,i)$ and $(i,j)$ of $C_m$. Cases 3, 4, 5, and 6 cover all possible combinations of inclusion/exclusion of $(h,i)$ and $(i,j)$ in the set A. We can now specify, for $r \in \{3, 5, \dots, 2m-1\}$, $$\tilde{M}_{r} :=
\left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
M_r - M_{r-1}, & \text{ if } (h,i) \in A; \\
M_r + M_{r-1}, & \text{ if } (h,i) \in \bar{A}. \\
\end{array}
\right.$$
**Case 1:** $r = 2i \in \{2,4,\dots,2m\};~ (i,j) \in A.$
The columns of $\tilde{M}$ correspond to the coordinates of $v = (v_1, v_2, v_3, \dots, v_{2m}) = (x_1, y_{(1,2)}, x_2, \dots, y_{(m,1)})$, so that for $r=2i$, columns $r-1$, $r$, and $r+1$ correspond to variables $x_i$, $y_{(i,j)}$, and $x_j$, respectively. Referring to Table \[tab:ij\_values\], we have the following values for calculating coordinates $r-1$, $r$, and $r+1$ of $\tilde{M}_r = (v^{(i,j)_b} + v^{(i,j)_a} - 2v^0)'$:
$x^*_i$ $y^*_{(i,j)}$ $x^*_j$
--------------- --------- --------------- ---------
$v^0$ 1/2 0 1/2
$v^{(i,j)_a}$ 1 1 1
$v^{(i,j)_b}$ 0 0 0
;
so in this case we have $$\begin{array}{lcccr}
\tilde{M}_{r,r-1} &=& x^{(i,j)_b}_i + x^{(i,j)_a}_i - 2x^0_i &=& 0,\\
\tilde{M}_{r,r} &=& y^{(i,j)_b}_{(i,j)} + y^{(i,j)_a}_{(i,j)} - 2y^0_{(i,j)} &=& 1,\\
\tilde{M}_{r,r+1} &=& x^{(i,j)_b}_j + x^{(i,j)_a}_j - 2x^0_j &=& 0.
\end{array}$$
Now we consider the remaining odd-index coordinates of $\tilde{M}_r$, which correspond to all remaining $x$-variables (besides $x_i$ and $x_j$). Consider traversing the coordinates of $v^{(i,j)_a}$ and $v^{(i,j)_b}$ to the right (in the direction of higher indices), starting from the $x_j$ coordinate of both. Referring to Table \[tab:kl\_values\], if the next edge $(j,\hat{j})$ (adjacent to $(i,j)$) is in $A$, then $$(x^{(i,j)_a}_j, y^{(i,j)_a}_{(j,\hat{j})},x^{(i,j)_a}_{\hat{j}}) = (1,0,0)$$ and $$(x^{(i,j)_b}_j, y^{(i,j)_b}_{(j,\hat{j})},x^{(i,j)_b}_{\hat{j}}) = (0,0,1).$$ If $(j,\hat{j}) \in \bar{A}$, then $$(x^{(i,j)_a}_j, y^{(i,j)_a}_{(j,\hat{j})},x^{(i,j)_a}_{\hat{j}}) = (1,1,1)$$ and $$(x^{(i,j)_b}_j, y^{(i,j)_b}_{(j,\hat{j})},x^{(i,j)_b}_{\hat{j}}) = (0,0,0).$$ Notice that whether or not $(j,\hat{j})$ is in $A$, $x^{(i,j)_a}_{\hat{j}}$ and $x^{(i,j)_b}_{\hat{j}}$ have opposite values, as was initiated at $x_j$. In fact, due to the possible coordinates of each triple $(x^{(i,j)_*}_k, y^{(i,j)_*}_{(k,\ell)},x^{(i,j)_*}_{\ell})$ (see Table \[tab:kl\_values\]), as we traverse the coordinates of $v^{(i,j)_a}$ and $v^{(i,j)_b}$ from left to right starting at $x_j$, including wrapping around to $x_1$ and continuing to $x_i$ (because this is a cycle), we see that, for all $k \in V$, $x^{(i,j)_a}_{k}$ and $x^{(i,j)_b}_{k}$ maintain an opposite pattern throughout the vector, so that $x^{(i,j)_a}_{k} + x^{(i,j)_b}_{k} = 1$, and therefore $\tilde{M}_{r, 2k-1} = x^{(i,j)_a}_{k} + x^{(i,j)_b}_{k} - 2x^0_{k} = 0$.
We complete the computation of $\tilde{M}_{r}$ by considering the rest of its even-index coordinates, which correspond to $y$-variables. Again, we refer to Table \[tab:kl\_values\]. Let $(k,\ell) \in E\backslash \{(i,j)\}$. If $(k,\ell) \in A$, then $y^{(i,j)_a}_{(k,\ell)} = y^{(i,j)_b}_{(k,\ell)} = y^0_{(k,\ell)} = 0$. If $(k,\ell) \in \bar{A}$, $y^{(i,j)_a}_{(k,\ell)}$ and $y^{(i,j)_b}_{(k,\ell)}$ have opposite values (as described above for $x^{(i,j)_a}_{\ell}$ and $x^{(i,j)_b}_{\ell}$ ), and $y^0_{(k,\ell)} = 1/2$. In either case, $\tilde{M}_{r,2k} = y^{(i,j)_a}_{(k,\ell)} + y^{(i,j)_b}_{(k,\ell)} - 2y^0_{(k,\ell)} = 0$.
In summary, $$\tilde{M}_{r,k} =
\left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
1, & \text{ if } k = r, \\
0, & \text{ otherwise}.
\end{array}
\right.$$
**Case 2:** $r = 2i \in \{2,4,\dots,2m\};~ (i,j) \in \bar{A}.$
Again we have $\tilde{M} = (v^{(i,j)_b} + v^{(i,j)_a} - 2v^0)'$. According to Table \[tab:ij\_values\], we have for indices $r-1$, $r$, and $r+1$,
$x^*_i$ $y^*_{(i,j)}$ $x^*_j$
--------------- --------- --------------- ---------
$v^0$ 1/2 1/2 1/2
$v^{(i,j)_a}$ 1 0 0
$v^{(i,j)_b}$ 0 0 1
,
so that $$\begin{array}{lcccr}
\tilde{M}_{r,r-1} &=& x^{(i,j)_b}_i + x^{(i,j)_a}_i - 2x^0_i &=& 0,\\
\tilde{M}_{r,r} &=& y^{(i,j)_b}_{(i,j)} + y^{(i,j)_a}_{(i,j)} - 2y^0_{(i,j)} &=& -1,\\
\tilde{M}_{r,r+1} &=& x^{(i,j)_b}_j + x^{(i,j)_a}_j - 2x^0_j &=& 0.
\end{array}$$ As in Case 1 (and by a similar argument), the remainder of the coordinates of $\tilde{M}_r$ are all zero. In summary, $$\tilde{M}_{r,k} =
\left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
-1 & \text{ if } k = r; \\
0 & \text{ otherwise}.
\end{array}
\right.$$
**Case 3:** $r = 2i-1 \in \{3,5,\dots,2m-1\}; ~ (h,i),~(i,j) \in A.$
In this case, we take $\tilde{M}_r := M_r - M_{r-1} = (v^{(i,j)_a} - v^{(h,i)_b})'$. Extreme points $v^{(h,i)_b}$ and $v^{(i,j)_a}$ arise by relaxing facets associated with two adjacent edges, $(h,i)$ and $(i,j)$, respectively. In all, five variables appear in these two facets: $x_h$, $y_{(h,i)}$, $x_i$, $y_{(i,j)}$, and $x_j$, corresponding to column indices $r-2$, $r-1$, $r$, $r+1$, and $r+2$, respectively. Referring to both Tables \[tab:ij\_values\] and \[tab:kl\_values\] as appropriate, we obtain the values,
$x^*_{h}$ $y^*_{(h,i)}$ $x^*_i$ $y^*_{(i,j)}$ $x^*_j$
--------------- ----------- --------------- --------- --------------- ---------
$v^{(h,i)_b}$ 0 0 0 0 1
$v^{(i,j)_a}$ 0 0 1 1 1
,
and we can now calculate, $$\begin{array}{lcccr}
\tilde{M}_{r,r-1} &=& y^{(i,j)_a}_{(h,i)} - y^{(h,i)_b}_{(h,i)} &=& 0,\\
\tilde{M}_{r,r} &=& x^{(i,j)_a}_i - x^{(h,i)_b}_i &=& 1,\\
\tilde{M}_{r,r+1} &=& y^{(i,j)_a}_{(i,j)} - y^{(h,i)_b}_{(i,j)} &=& 1.
\end{array}$$
Unlike in cases 1 and 2, the $x$-coordinates in the last column of the table above match in $v^{(h,i)_b}$ and $v^{(i,j)_a}$; i.e., $x^{(h,i)_b}_k = x^{(i,j)_a}_k$, for $k \in \{h, j\}$. As described in case 1, the $x$-coordinates maintain the same (matching, in this case) pattern throughout (except at $x_i$). So for all $k \in V\backslash \{i\}$, $x^{(h,i)_b}_k = x^{(i,j)_a}_k$. Therefore, $x^{(i,j)_a}_k - x^{(h,i)_b}_k = 0$, for $k \in V\backslash \{i\}$.
For the $y$-coordinates of $\tilde{M}_r$ (besides those in the table above), we refer to Table \[tab:kl\_values\]. Noting that $v^{(h,i)_b}$ and $v^{(i,j)_a}$ match on all $x$-coordinates, they must also match at the rest of the $y$-coordinates. For example, if $(k,\ell) \in A\backslash \{(h,i),(i,j)\}$, and $x^{(h,i)_b}_k = x^{(i,j)_a}_k = 1$, then by Table \[tab:kl\_values\], $y^{(h,i)_b}_{(k,\ell)} = y^{(i,j)_a}_{(k,\ell)} = 0$ (and $x^{(h,i)_b}_{\ell} = x^{(i,j)_a}_{\ell} = 0$). That is, there is only one choice for the threesome $(x^*_k,~ y^*_{(k,\ell)},~ x^*_{\ell})$ in Table \[tab:kl\_values\], once the $(k,\ell)$ is fixed with respect to belonging to $A$ or $\bar{A}$, and $x^*_k$ is fixed to either 0 or 1, for $* \in \{(h,i)_b,(i,j)_a\}$. We can conclude that $y^{(i,j)_a}_{(k,\ell)} - y^{(h,i)_b}_{(k,\ell)} = 0$, for $(k,\ell) \in E\backslash \{(h,i),(i,j)\}$.
In summary, $$\tilde{M}_{r,k} =
\left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
1, & \text{ if } k \in \{r, r+1\}, \\
0, & \text{ otherwise}.
\end{array}
\right.$$
**Case 4:** $r = 2i-1 \in \{3,5,\dots,2m-1\}; ~ (h,i),~(i,j) \in \bar{A}.$
In this case, we take $\tilde{M}_r = M_r + M_{r-1} = (v^{(i,j)_a} + v^{(h,i)_b} - 2v^0)'$. As in case 3, the two involved extreme points arise by relaxing facets corresponding to two adjacent edges, and so involve five adjacent variables, with $x_i$ corresponding to column index $r$. We obtain the following table of values:
$x^*_{h}$ $y^*_{(h,i)}$ $x^*_i$ $y^*_{(i,j)}$ $x^*_j$
--------------- ----------- --------------- --------- --------------- ---------
$v^0$ 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2
$v^{(h,i)_b}$ 0 0 1 1 1
$v^{(i,j)_a}$ 1 1 1 0 0
,
leading to $$\begin{array}{lcccr}
\tilde{M}_{r,r-1} &=& y^{(i,j)_a}_{(h,i)} + y^{(h,i)_b}_{(h,i)} - 2y^0_{(h,i)} &=& 0,\\
\tilde{M}_{r,r} &=& x^{(i,j)_a}_i + x^{(h,i)_b}_i - 2x^0_{i} &=& 1,\\
\tilde{M}_{r,r+1} &=& y^{(i,j)_a}_{(i,j)} + y^{(h,i)_b}_{(i,j)} - 2y^0_{(i,j)} &=& 0.
\end{array}$$ Following similar arguments as those in the previous cases, all other coordinates of $M_r$ are zero, so that $$\tilde{M}_{r,k} =
\left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
1, & \text{ if } k = r, \\
0, & \text{ otherwise}.
\end{array}
\right.$$
**Case 5:** $r = 2i-1 \in \{3,5,\dots,2m-1\}; ~ (h,i) \in A, ~(i,j) \in \bar{A}.$
As in case 3, we take $\tilde{M}_r := M_r - M_{r-1} = (v^{(i,j)_a} - v^{(h,i)_b})'$, and again the $x$-coordinates in the outside columns ($x_h$ and $x_j$) match:
$x^*_{h}$ $y^*_{(h,i)}$ $x^*_i$ $y^*_{(i,j)}$ $x^*_j$
--------------- ----------- --------------- --------- --------------- ---------
$v^{(h,i)_b}$ 0 0 0 0 0
$v^{(i,j)_a}$ 0 0 1 0 0
,
so $v^{(h,i)_b}$ and $v^{(i,j)_a}$ agree in all coordinates except in $x_i$ (index $r$): $$\tilde{M}_{r,k} =
\left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
1, & \text{ if } k = r, \\
0, & \text{ otherwise}.
\end{array}
\right.$$
**Case 6:** $r = 2i-1 \in \{3,5,\dots,2m-1\}; ~ (h,i) \in \bar{A},
~(i,j) \in A.$
In this last case, we set $\tilde{M}_r = M_r + M_{r-1} = (v^{(i,j)_a} + v^{(h,i)_b} - 2v^0)'$, and we have
$x^*_{h}$ $y^*_{(h,i)}$ $x^*_i$ $y^*_{(i,j)}$ $x^*_j$
--------------- ----------- --------------- --------- --------------- ---------
$v^0$ 1/2 1/2 1/2 0 1/2
$v^{(h,i)_b}$ 0 0 1 0 0
$v^{(i,j)_a}$ 1 1 1 1 1
.
We omit the details, which are similar to previous cases, but the result is $$\tilde{M}_{r,k} =
\left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
1, & \text{ if } k \in \{r, r+1\}, \\
0, & \text{ otherwise}.
\end{array}
\right.$$
This concludes our proof that $\tilde{M}$ is upper triangular with diagonal coordinates $$|\tilde{M}_{r,r}| =
\left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
1/2, & \text{ if } r = 1, \\
1, & \text{ otherwise},
\end{array}
\right.$$ and the result follows.
Combining Theorem \[vol\_QCm\] with Lemmas \[lem:disj\] and \[cutoffhalf\], we obtain the following result — a closed-form expression for the volume of the boolean quadric polytope of a cycle.
\[volPCm\] For $m \geq 3$, $$\operatorname{vol}({\mathscr{P}}(C_m)) ~=~ \operatorname{vol}({\mathscr{Q}}(C_m))-\frac{2^{m-1}}{2(2m)!} ~=~ \frac{m A_{2m-1}}{2^m (2m)!}-\frac{2^{m-2}}{(2m)!}.$$
Asymptotics {#sec:asymp}
===========
In this section, we make some asymptotic analyses. In doing so, we hope to learn something about the behavior of the polytopes that we are studying, as problem sizes grows. This type of analysis follows the spirit of many of the results in [@LM1994]. Furthermore, it is not simple to compare the combinatorial formulae that we have derived, and so asymptotics provides a clear lens for comparing. After invoking Stirling’s formula or André’s Theorem as appropriate, our asymptotic results can be checked with `Mathematica`.
We demonstrate for a wide variety of graphs, in particular: complete graphs (Proposition \[prop:asymp\_QKn\]), stars and paths (Corollary \[cor:asympSP\]), and cycles (first half of Corollary \[cor:asympCm\]), that ${\mathscr{Q}}$ is a large portion of the unit hypercube. This is important for putting into context all current and future results on volumes of boolean quadric polytopes and their relaxations.
A highlight of this section is a demonstration that the volume of ${\mathscr{Q}}$ outside of ${\mathscr{P}}$ is quite small, compared to the volume of ${\mathscr{Q}}$, when $G$ is a single long cycle (Corollary \[cor:asympCm\]); this is despite the fact that when $G$ is a single long cycle, the description of ${\mathscr{P}}$ is much heavier than that of ${\mathscr{Q}}$. In sharp contrast to this, we demonstrate that when $G$ is a collection of many small cycles (in fact, triangles), then the volume of ${\mathscr{Q}}$ outside of ${\mathscr{P}}$ is quite large, compared to that of ${\mathscr{Q}}$ (Corollary \[cor:Q3\]), while the description of ${\mathscr{P}}$ is *not* much heavier than that of ${\mathscr{Q}}$. In particular, we see that for graphs having each edge in exactly one cycle, we can get very different behaviors. Graphs with each edge in at most one cycle are cactus forests. So, as discussed more in §\[sec:conclusions\], it becomes interesting to try and get an efficient algorithm for calculating the volume of ${\mathscr{P}}$ for a cactus forest; note that non-trivial cactus forests have treewidth 2, so we already have an efficient algorithm for calculating the volume of ${\mathscr{Q}}$.
As indicated in [@LM1994], it is natural to compare sets in $\mathbb{R}^d$ by comparing the $d$-th roots of their volumes. Because we take $d$-th roots, we have to be precise about the ambient dimension $d$ for our polytopes. So in what follows we assume that our graphs have no isolated vertices, and we always regard our polytopes as being in dimension $d=n+m$, the least dimension that makes sense (rather than in dimension $n+\binom{n}{2}$).
As we have mentioned at the outset, [@KLS1997] established the $d$-dimensional volume of ${\mathscr{Q}}(K_n)$ to be $2^{2n-d}n!/(2n)!$, where $d=n+\binom{n}{2}$. Invoking Stirling’s formula, it is easy to check the following calculation.
\[prop:asymp\_QKn\] $$\label{asymp_QKn}
\lim_{n \to \infty} \operatorname{vol}_{d}({\mathscr{Q}}(K_n))^{1/d} ~=~ \frac{1}{2},$$ where $d=n+\binom{n}{2}$.
This is quite substantial, as the volume of the entire unit hypercube and its $d$-th root are of course unity. It is an outstanding open problem, first posed in [@KLS1997] and which we would like to highlight, to understand how close $\operatorname{vol}_{d}({\mathscr{Q}}(K_n))$ and $\operatorname{vol}_{d}({\mathscr{P}}(K_n))$ are, asymptotically.
When $G$ is a forest, ${\mathscr{P}}$ and ${\mathscr{Q}}$ are the same. Still it is interesting to compare the asymptotics of ${\mathscr{Q}}(G)$ and ${\mathscr{Q}}(G')$ when connected $G$ and $G'$ have the same number of edges. Our next result does this for two very different trees on $m$ edges.
\[cor:asympSP\] $$\label{asymp_QSm}
\lim_{m \to \infty} \operatorname{vol}_{2m+1}({\mathscr{Q}}(S_m))^{1/(2m+1)} ~=~ \frac{1}{2}$$
and
$$\label{asymp_QPm}
\lim_{m \to \infty} \operatorname{vol}_{2m+1}({\mathscr{Q}}(P_m))^{1/(2m+1)} ~=~ \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\pi}
~\approx~ 0.450158.$$
It is easy to check using Stirling’s formula.
By Theorem \[thm:pathvol\], we have that $\operatorname{vol}_{2m+1}({\mathscr{Q}}(P_m)) = \frac{A_{2m+1}}{2^m(2m+1)!}$. By André’s Theorem \[thm:andre\], we have $$A_k /k! = \frac{4}{\pi} \left(\frac{2}{\pi}\right)^k +
\mathcal{O}\left(
\left(\frac{2}{3\pi}\right)^k
\right)$$ (see [@Stanley_Alt_Survey]). Combining these facts, follows easily.
It is interesting to observe that the path and star, both on $m$ edges and $m+1$ vertices, and hence having their associated polytopes naturally living in dimension $2m+1$, behave substantially similarly though non-trivially differently, from our point of view.
Next, we demonstrate that for $C_m$, the volume of ${\mathscr{Q}}$ is quite large compared to the volume of ${\mathscr{Q}}$ that is outside of ${\mathscr{P}}$. So, we have a family of examples demonstrating that ${\mathscr{P}}$ can have a description that has many more inequalities than ${\mathscr{Q}}$, while their volumes are very close. In particular, when $G$ is a cycle, ${\mathscr{Q}}$ has only $4m$ facets, while ${\mathscr{P}}$ has $4m + 2^{m-1}$ facets.
\[cor:asympCm\]
$$\label{asymp_QCm}
\lim_{m \to \infty} \operatorname{vol}_{2m}({\mathscr{Q}}(C_m))^{1/2m} ~=~ \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\pi} ~\approx~ 0.450158$$
and
$$\label{asymp_QCm_diff}
\lim_{m \to \infty}
m \times \operatorname{vol}_{2m}\left({\mathscr{Q}}(C_m) \setminus {\mathscr{P}}(C_m)\right)^{1/2m} ~=~
\frac{e}{\sqrt{2}}.$$
By Theorem \[vol\_QCm\], we have that $\operatorname{vol}_{2m}({\mathscr{Q}}(C_m)) = \frac{A_{2m-1}}{2^{m+1}(2m-1)!}$. Using again André’s Theorem and Stirling’s formula (as in the proof of Corollary \[cor:asympSP\]), follows easily.
Because ${\mathscr{P}}(C_m) \subseteq {\mathscr{Q}}(C_m)$, Theorem \[volPCm\] implies that $$\operatorname{vol}_{2m}\left({\mathscr{Q}}(C_m) \setminus {\mathscr{P}}(C_m)\right) = 2^{m-2}/(2m)!.$$ Invoking Stirling’s formula, we have $$\operatorname{vol}_{2m}({\mathscr{Q}}(C_m) \setminus {\mathscr{P}}(C_m))^{1/2m} \sim \left(\frac{2^{m-2}}{\sqrt{4m \pi}\left(\frac{2m}{e}\right)^{2m}}\right)^{1/2m} \sim \frac{e}{m\sqrt{2}},$$ and follows.
We note that because $P_m$ is a forest, ${\mathscr{P}}(P_m)={\mathscr{Q}}(P_m)$. While of course $C_m$ is not a forest, and so ${\mathscr{P}}(C_m)\not={\mathscr{Q}}(C_m)$. One way this different behavior manifests itself is in the explosion of the number of facets for ${\mathscr{P}}(C_m)$. But in some sense the graphs $P_m$ and $C_m$ do not look very different, and we see this echoed in the facts that: (i) the asymptotic behavior of their volumes is identical (compare and ), and (ii) ${\mathscr{Q}}(P_m) \setminus {\mathscr{P}}(P_m) =\emptyset$ while $\operatorname{vol}_{2m}({\mathscr{Q}}(C_m) \setminus {\mathscr{P}}(C_m))^{1/2m}$ decays like $e/m\sqrt{2}$, so it is nearly zero.\
From what we have seen so far, it is natural to wonder whether ${\mathscr{P}}(G)$ and ${\mathscr{Q}}(G)$ are always close, when $G$ is sparse. For a natural number $p$, let $C^p_3$ denote a graph that is the disjoint union of $p$ copies of the triangle $C_3$. For $m$ divisible by 3, we wish to compare the behaviors of ${\mathscr{Q}}(C^{m/3}_3)$ and ${\mathscr{Q}}(C^{m/3}_3)\setminus {\mathscr{P}}(C^{m/3}_3)$ with those of ${\mathscr{Q}}(C_m)$ and ${\mathscr{Q}}(C_m)\setminus{\mathscr{P}}(C_m)$.
\[cor:Q3\]
$$\label{Q3}
\operatorname{vol}_{2m}({\mathscr{Q}}(C^{m/3}_3))^{1/2m} ~=~ \left(\frac{1}{120}\right)^{1/6} ~\approx~ 0.450267$$
and
$$\label{Q3_diff}
\operatorname{vol}_{2m}({\mathscr{Q}}(C^{m/3}_3)\setminus{\mathscr{P}}(C^{m/3}_3))^{1/2m} ~=~ \left(\frac{1}{360}\right)^{1/6}
~\approx~ 0.374929.$$
Easily follows from Theorem \[vol\_QCm\], Theorem \[volPCm\] and Lemma \[crossproduct\].
It is very interesting to see, comparing with , that $\operatorname{vol}_{2m}({\mathscr{Q}}(C_m))$ has a remarkably similar behavior to $\operatorname{vol}_{2m}({\mathscr{Q}}(C^{m/3}_3))$, while, comparing with and , $\operatorname{vol}_{2m}\left({\mathscr{Q}}(C_m) \setminus {\mathscr{P}}(C_m)\right)$ is quite small compared to both $\operatorname{vol}_{2m}({\mathscr{Q}}(C_m))$ and to $\operatorname{vol}_{2m}({\mathscr{Q}}(C^{m/3}_3)\setminus{\mathscr{P}}(C^{m/3}_3))$. That is, for one long cycle $C_m$, the polytope ${\mathscr{P}}$, which needs $4m+2^{m-1}$ facets to describe[^2], is well approximated by the polytope ${\mathscr{Q}}$, which needs only $4m$ facets to describe. On the other hand, for a collection of $m/3$ triangles (which has the same number of edges as $C_m$), the polytope ${\mathscr{P}}$ only needs $16m/3$ facets to describe and in this case it is not well approximated by ${\mathscr{Q}}$, which still needs only $4m$ facets to describe.
The takeaway from our comparative asymptotic volume analysis, is that for one long cycle, we get a good approximation of the heavy ${\mathscr{P}}$ using a relatively very-light relaxation ${\mathscr{Q}}$. While for a collection of triangles, we gain a lot using what turns out to be a not-very-heavy refinement of ${\mathscr{Q}}$. We can reasonably hope that this careful analysis gives us a useful message for other sparse graphs, and in pursuit of that, in the next section, we make some computational experiments.
Computational experiments {#sec:exper}
=========================
In this section, we report on computational experiments designed to see what behavior of cycles, seen in §\[sec:asymp\], persists for a family of more complex graphs. In §\[sec:asymp\], we have seen different behaviors for cycles, depending on their lengths. So, we consider a class of graphs that has attributes of both a long cycle and many small cycles. For $n\geq 3$, we define the *$n$-necklace* $N_n$ to be a cycle $C_n$ with a triangle, i.e. $C_3$, “hanging” from each vertex of $C_n$. In Figure \[8necklace\], we depict $N_8$.
![8-necklace[]{data-label="8necklace"}](8necklace.tikz){width=".45\linewidth"}
Our goal is to compare the volumes of various relaxations of ${\mathscr{P}}(N_n)$. We compare them via their $d$-th roots, following the spirit of §\[sec:asymp\]. The polytope ${\mathscr{R}}(N_n)$ is the part of the basic relaxation ${\mathscr{Q}}(N_n)$ that satisfies the $2^{n-1}$ odd cycle inequalities associated with the big cycle $C_n$. The polytope ${\mathscr{T}}(N_n)$ is the part of the basic relaxation ${\mathscr{Q}}(N_n)$ that satisfies the four odd cycle inequalities associated with each triangle $C_3$. Finally, we have the usual boolean quadric polytope ${\mathscr{P}}(N_n)$ of $N_n$, which we note is the intersection of ${\mathscr{R}}(N_n)$ and ${\mathscr{T}}(N_n)$ — this is because $N_n$ is a series-parallel graph, and for series-parallel graphs, ${\mathscr{P}}(N_n)$ is completely described by \[facet0\]-\[oddcyclefacet\] (see [@Padberg1989 Theorem 10]).
Using [LEcount]{} (see [@LeCount] and [@Kangas2016]), we exactly calculated $\left(\operatorname{vol}_{d}({\mathscr{Q}}(N_n))\right)^{1/d}$, for $n=4,\ldots,10$. These numbers appear in the second column of Table \[VN\]. Note that the polytope ${\mathscr{Q}}(N_n)$ lives in dimension $d=7n$. We stopped after $n=10$, due to memory issues. But we can easily observe that to 6 decimal places, we have a clear picture of the limiting constant.
For $n=4,\ldots,12$, we approximated the volumes of several related polytopes, using the [Matlab]{} software [@MatlabVol]. These numbers appear in the remaining columns of Table \[VN\]. Note that in the [Matlab]{} software, we varied the precision ${\varepsilon}$ depending on the dimension, so as to approximate the $d$-th roots to a precision of roughly $\delta=0.0001$. So we set ${\varepsilon}:=
(1+\delta)^d-1$.
Generally, ${\mathscr{T}}(N_n)$ is a very light refinement of ${\mathscr{Q}}(N_n)$, while ${\mathscr{R}}(N_n)$ is a rather heavy refinement. For example, for $n=12$, as compared to ${\mathscr{Q}}(N_{12})$, ${\mathscr{R}}(N_{12})$ uses 2048 extra inequalities, while ${\mathscr{T}}(N_{12})$ uses only 48 extra inequalities, and hence ${\mathscr{P}}(N_{12})$ uses 2096 extra inequalities. What we can easily see is that we almost completely capture ${\mathscr{P}}(N_n)$ with the very light ${\mathscr{T}}(N_n)$. Furthermore, the very heavy ${\mathscr{R}}(N_n)$ leaves a significant gap to ${\mathscr{P}}(N_n)$. In summary, the messages of Corollaries \[cor:asympCm\] and \[cor:Q3\] extend to more complicated situations: *odd cycle inequalities seem to be more important for short cycles than long cycles.* We note that this echoes the message of [@SparseMolinaro], where sparse inequalities are shown to have more power than dense ones (in certain structured settings).
$$\begin{array}{ccccc}
\hline
n & {\mathscr{Q}}& \mathscr{R} & \mathscr{T} & {\mathscr{P}}\\
\hline
4 & 0.573963 & 0.425950 & 0.396662 & 0.399680 \\
5 & 0.573963 & 0.426805 & 0.400130 & 0.399400 \\
6 & 0.573963 & 0.426061 & 0.399665 & 0.399436 \\
7 & 0.573963 & 0.428294 & 0.400695 & 0.400313 \\
8 & 0.573963 & 0.426034 & 0.399421 & 0.400937 \\
9 & 0.573963 & 0.425517 & 0.399619 & 0.400723 \\
10 & 0.573963 & 0.426842 & 0.401514 & 0.400903 \\
11 & $*$ & 0.426218 & 0.400749 & 0.400700 \\
12 & $*$ & 0.426597 & 0.400482 & 0.400965
\end{array}$$
Future work {#sec:conclusions}
===========
A very challenging open problem is to get a polynomial-time algorithm for calculating $\operatorname{vol}({\mathscr{P}}(G))$ when $G$ is a series-parallel graph (briefly, the class of graphs having no $K_4$ graph minor). As we have mentioned, in this case, ${\mathscr{P}}(G)$ is completely described by \[facet0\]-\[oddcyclefacet\]. Even for the subclass of outerplanar graphs (briefly, the class of graphs having no $K_4$ nor $K_{2,3}$ graph minor), this is already very challenging because the number of cycles in such a graph can be exponential (in fact $>\Omega(1.5^n)$, see [@deMier2012]). A more manageable problem would be to restrict our attention to the further subclass of cactus forests, i.e. graphs where each edge is in no more than one cycle — they can also be understood as the class of graphs having no diamond (i.e., $K_4$ minus an edge) graph minor. The necklaces $N_n$ (see §\[sec:exper\]) are cactus graphs. Cactus graphs occur in a wide variety of applications, e.g., location theory, communication networks, and stability analysis (see [@Novak] and the references therein). Cactus graphs can be recognized in linear time, via a depth-first search approach (see [@Novak] and [@Zmazek2003]), and of course the number of cycles in such a graph is at most $n/3$. We do note that we can apply Lemma \[lem:disj\], which tells us that odd cycle inequalities from the same odd cycle cut off disjoint parts of ${\mathscr{Q}}(G)$. But it already seems to be quite a challenging problem to characterize the volume of ${\mathscr{Q}}(G)$ cut off by a single odd cycle inequality (seeking to generalize Lemma \[cutoffhalf\]).
For a class of inequalities and a given point, the associated *separation problem* is to determine (if there is) an inequality in the class that is not satisfied by the point. It is very well known (see [@GLS]) that efficiently being able to solve the separation problem for the inequalities that describe a polytope is equivalent to efficiently being able to optimize a linear function on that polytope. It is interesting to note that while odd cycle inequalities can be separated in $\mathcal{O}(n^3)$ time (see [@Barahona1989]), we can actually devise a very simple $\mathcal{O}(n^2)$ approach for cactus graphs. First, we enumerate the simple cycles of the cactus graph. Then for each simple cycle, we merely have to check, for a given fixed $(x,y)$ if there is an $A$ for which \[oddcyclefacet\] is violated. The simplest way to see how to proceed involves using the affine equivalence of ${\mathscr{P}}(K_n)$ with the cut polytope of $K_{n+1}$ (see [@BQ6]). For the cut polytope (which has variables indexed only by edges), the odd cycle inequalities can be written in the form: $$\label{oddcycle_cutpolytope}
\sum_{e\in F} (1-z_e) + \sum_{e\in C\setminus F} z_e \geq 1,$$ where $C$ is a cycle and $F\subset C$ has odd cardinality. Using an idea in [@CopperLee proof of Proposition 1.7], for a point $\bar{z}$, we can let $$F':= \left\{ e\in C ~:~ \bar{z}_e > 1/2\right\}.$$ Then $\bar{z}$ can violate only if $|F\Delta F'|\leq 1$, where $F\Delta F':=(F\cup F')\setminus (F\cap F')$ (that is, the usual *symmetric difference* of $F$ and $F'$). So either $F'$ has odd cardinality and we need only check for $F=F'$, or $F$ has even cardinality, and we need only check for the at most $|C|$ (odd) sets $F$ satisfying $|F\Delta F'|= 1$.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
J. Lee was partially supported by ONR grants N00014-14-1-0315 and N00014-17-1-2296. The authors gratefully acknowledge Komei Fukuda (developer of [cdd]{}) and Benno Büeler and Andreas Enge (developers of [VINCI]{}); use of their software was invaluable for formulating conjectures that became theorems.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[^1]: January 16, 2017, private communication.
[^2]: for ${\mathscr{P}}(C_m)$, there are $4m$ facets corresponding to inequalities of the type \[facet0\]-\[facet3\] (4 per edge), and $2^{m-1}$ facets corresponding to inequalities of the type \[oddcyclefacet\] ($2^{m-1}$ odd subsets of an $m$-element set); see [@Padberg1989]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- '[Fazle Karim$^{1}$, Somshubra Majumdar$^{2}$, Houshang Darabi$^{1}$, and Samuel Harford$^{1}$]{}[^1] [^2]'
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: 'Multivariate LSTM-FCNs for Time Series Classification'
---
=1
fnsymbolarabic
Convolutional neural network, long short term memory, recurrent neural network, multivariate time series classification
Introduction
============
Background Works {#Background Works}
================
Multivariate LSTM Fully Convolutional Network {#LSTMFCN}
=============================================
Network Architecture
--------------------
Network Input
-------------
Experiments {#Experiments}
===========
Evaluation Metrics
------------------
Datasets
--------
Results
-------
Conclusion & Future Work {#conclusion}
========================
[^1]: $^{1}$Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago,IL
[^2]: $^{2}$Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Late in October 1911, eighteen leading scientists from all over Europe met to the first of a famous sequence of Solvay conferences in Brussels. This historical meeting was mainly devoted to “ The Theory of Radiation and the Quanta”, at a time when the foundations of physics were totally shaken. Although “nothing positive came out” (Einstein), it is interesting to see the diverging attitudes of Europe’s most famous scientists in the middle of the quantum revolution. After a few general remarks about the conference, I shall focus on some of the most interesting contributions and discussions. Einstein, at 32 the youngest, was clearly most aware of the profound nature of the crises. He gave the final talk entitled “The Present State of the Problem of Specific Heats”, but he put his theme into the larger context of the quantum problem, and caused a barrage of challenges, in particular from Lorentz, Planck, Poincaré, and others.'
author:
- |
Norbert Straumann\
Institute for Theoretical Physics University of Zürich,\
Winterthurerstrasse 190, CH–8057 Zürich, Switzerland
title: On the first Solvay Congress in 1911
---
Introduction
============
The Belgian chemist Ernest Solvay (1839-1922) became a very rich man with his invention of industrial soda production. Because he was convinced that his odd ideas on natural science, physics in particular, were important, he was eager to discuss these with some of Europe’s top physicists. Walther Nernst made clever use of this interest, and suggested that Solvay may fund an elite gathering at which leading scientists would listen to his ideas on gravitation, Brownian motion, radioactivity, etc.
{height="0.4\textheight"}
\[ES:Fig-1\]
Late in October eighteen of Europe’s most famous scientists gathered in the Grand Hotel Metropole in Brussels to discuss “The Theory of Radiation and the Quanta”, that seemed to fundamentally overshadow classical physics. The following list of invited people[^1] is indeed impressive:
H. A. Lorentz (Leiden), as Chairman.
*From Germany*:
W. Nernst (Berlin)
M. Planck (Berlin)
H. Rubens (Berlin)
A. Sommerfeld (München)
W. Wien (Würtzburg)
E. Warburg (Charlottenburg).
*From England*:
Lord Rayleigh (London)
J. H. Jeans (Cambridge)
E. Rutherford (Manchester)
*From France*:
M. Brillouin (Paris)
Madame Curie (Paris)
P. Langevin (Paris)
J. Perrin (Paris)
H. Poincaré (Paris)
*From Austria*:
A. Einstein (Prag)
F. Hasenöhrl (Vienna)
*From Holland*:
H. Kamerlingh Onnes (Leiden)
J. D. van der Waals (Amsterdam)
*From Denmark*:
M. Knudsen (Copenhagen)
{height="0.4\textheight"}
\[SC:Fig-2\]
[*Notes* on Fig. 2. Left to right seated: Walter Nernst; Marcel-Louis Brillouin; E. Solvay; Hendrik Lorentz; Emil Warburg; Jean-Baptiste Perrin; Wilhelm Wien; Marie Curie; Henri Poincaré. Left to right standing: Robert Goldschmidt; Max Planck; Heinrich Rubens; Arnold Sommerfeld; Frederick Lindemann; Maurice de Broglie; Martin Knudsen; Friedrich Hasenöhrl; G. Hostelet; E. Herzen; Sir James Jeans; Ernest Rutherford; Heike Kamerlingh-Onnes; Albert Einsten; Paul Langevin. Further remarks: M. de Broglie (the elderly brother of Louis de Broglie), F. Lindemann and R.B. Goldschmidt were appointed as secretaries; G. Hostelet and E. Herzen were co-workers of E. Solvay. Solvay was not present at the time the photo was taken; his photo was pasted onto this one for the official release (resulting in a rather big head).]{}
During the preparation phase of the congress, with W. Nernst as its organizer, several participants were asked to write detailed reports, that were then sent in advance to the invited members. These formed the basis of the discussions, and also the main part of the proceedings [@Euck]. The authors that contributed are: Lorentz, Jeans, Warburg, Rubens, Planck, Knudsen, Perrin, Nernst, Kamerlingh Onnes, Sommerfeld, Langevin, and Einstein. The discussions on these reports, that are often of great historical interest, are also fully included in the proceedings. For today’s physics teachers, I recommend especially Perrin’s beautiful lecture, which is an exhaustive review of the experimental evidence in favor of the existence of atoms.[^2] Some of the reports are in my opinion not of great historical interest. For example, in his lengthy contribution Sommerfeld introduced a version of the quantum hypothesis, which he considered to be compatible with *classical* electrodynamics.[^3] He postulated that in “every purely molecular process” the quantity of action $$\int_{0}^{\tau}\, L\,dt =\frac{h}{2\pi}$$ is exchanged, where $\tau$ is the duration of the process and $L$ the Lagrangian. Then, he applied this hypothesis to an analysis of X rays generated by the impact of electrons, and also to the photoelectric effect. Sommerfeld’s contribution caused extensive discussions and criticism, especially by Einstein[^4]. This document shows how desperate the situation was, but it had little influence on further developments.
In this article, I will concentrate on the foundational aspects of the early quantum theory, the central theme of the first Solvay Congress.[^5] Therefore, I will almost exclusively describe the lectures by Lorentz, Planck, and Einstein, including their discussions by the plenum. These show the widely different views of the participants. With his conception of a wave-particle duality of the free electromagnetic field, Einstein was completely isolated.
Remarks on the report by H. A. Lorentz and its discussion
=========================================================
The first session was devoted to the report of Lorentz in which he discussed various ways of studying the applicability of the law of equipartition to black body radiation.[^6] Lorentz begins by recalling how Lord Rayleigh arrived in 1900 at what is known as the Rayleigh-Jeans formula for the energy distribution $\rho(\nu,T)$ of the black body radiation. Attributing to each mode (oscillator) of the radiation field in a cavity the *equipartition value* $kT$, Rayleigh and Jeans obtained the classic law $$\label{lor1}
\rho(\nu,T)=\frac{8\pi\nu^2}{c^3}kT,$$ with its famous difficulties (ultraviolet catastrophe). At the time of the meeting it was known since years that this formula agrees well with experiment in the region with $h\nu/kT\ll 1$. In his revolutionary paper on the light quantum in 1905, Einstein had independently obtained this law as an unavoidable consequence of classical physics (electrodynamics and mechanics). Because of its complete failure in the Wien regime he then concluded that the radiation field has also particle-like properties. (We will come back to this when we discuss Planck’s and Einstein’s contributions to the congress.)
Much of Lorentz’ report is devoted to classical statistical mechanics and a Hamiltonian formulation of the electromagnetic field in interaction with matter (electrons and neutral particles). Within this framework he arrives at the firm conclusion that for the canonical and microcanonical ensembles the average energy of each mode $(\textbf{k},\lambda)$ of the radiation field in thermodynamic equilibrium is $2\times\frac{1}{2}kT$, because the electric and magnetic parts give equal contributions. Therefore, the Rayleigh-Einstein-Jeans law[^7] for thermodynamic equilibrium is indeed implied by these considerations. At the time, some people (e.g. Jeans) had suggested that the energy exchange between matter and radiation proceeds exceedingly slowly for short wavelengths, so that an equilibrium state is not attained.[^8] However, Lorentz discards this possibility in pointing out, that the empirical spectrum deviates from the Rayleigh-Jeans distribution already considerably in the ultrared and visible parts of the spectrum. With numerical examples he also emphasizes that the proportionality of the radiation intensity at a given wavelength with temperature “is out of the question”.
In addition, Lorentz arrives at the conclusion that the average value of the kinetic energy of a classical electron, with a finite size $a$, must be $\frac{3}{2}kT$, even if radiation with wavelengths $\lambda\leq a$ is cut-off. He summarizes his detailed considerations by stating that a satisfactory radiation formula is definitely outside the classical domain, and that Planck’s constant $h$ has to be explained by completely different considerations.
After this he reviews the recent paper by Einstein and Hopf [@E_H][^9] on Brownian motion of a moving oscillator in the radiation field, and then applies their approach to the motion of a finite size electron. The general method was developed and applied by Einstein already before [@Ein1] , and in a most fruitful manner again several years later (1916). Briefly, Einstein argued as follows. A particle with mass $M$ experiences:\
$\bullet$ a systematic drag force $-Rv$ that leads in a small time interval $(t,t+\tau)$ to the momentum change $-Rv\tau$;\
$\bullet$ an irregular change of momentum $\Delta$ in the time $\tau$, due to fluctuations of the radiation pressure. In thermal equilibrium $$\langle(Mv-Rv\tau+\Delta)^2\rangle=\langle(Mv)^2\rangle.$$ Assuming $\langle v\cdot\Delta\rangle=0$ this implies for sufficiently small $\tau$ the following *fluctuation-dissipation relation*: $$\langle\Delta^2\rangle=2R\langle M v^2\rangle\tau=2RkT\tau.
\label{Eq:2}$$ This is one of the magic equations in Einstein’s early work on Brownian motion and its implications for the structure of radiation.
In the paper of Einstein and Hopf the material particle (atom, molecule) was idealized as a 1-dimensional harmonic oscillator, that also played a crucial role in Planck’s work on black body radiation.
If the free electromagnetic field is described as a classical stochastic field with uncorrelated modes (as a result of translational invariance) and random phases, the rather involved calculations of $R$ and $\langle\Delta^2\rangle$ by Einstein and Hopf led to the following concrete fluctuation-dissipation formula $$\frac{c^3}{48\pi}\frac{\rho_{\nu}^2}{\nu^2}=\langle E_{kin}\rangle\Bigl(\rho_{\nu}-\frac{1}{3}\nu\frac{\partial\rho_{\nu}}{\partial\nu}\Bigr).
\label{Eq:3}$$ Here, the left hand side is proportional to the fluctuation $\langle\Delta^2\rangle/\tau$ (due to interferences), and the expression in the bracket on the right is proportional to $R$. This combination comes from a Lorentz transformation for the spectral energy density $\rho_{\nu}$ from the lab system to the rest system of the particle, in which the particle experiences an anisotropic radiation field. The average of the kinetic energy $E_{kin}$ is defined as the time average. Equation (\[Eq:3\]) holds for general distributions of translational invariant stochastic fields, in particular for equilibrium distributions. This equation is satisfied for the Rayleigh-Jeans distribution, if $\langle E_{kin}\rangle=\frac{1}{2}kT$.
Lorentz expresses some doubts as to whether the high-frequency oscillations of the Planck oscillator can be described by classical mechanics plus electrodynamics. Therefore, he considers instead a classical finite size electron model. Without derivation he presents his key formula for the 1-dimensional kinetic energy $E_{kin}$ in terms of the distribution function: $$\langle E_{kin}\rangle=\frac{c^3}{64\pi}\frac{\int_{0}^{\infty}(\rho_{\nu}^2/\nu^2)\;d\nu}{\int_{0}^{\infty}\rho_{\nu}\;d\nu}.
\label{Eq:4}$$ Lorentz first applies (\[Eq:4\]) for a Rayleigh-Jeans distribution that is sharply cut-off at some limiting frequency $K$, and obtains independent of $K$ $$\langle E_{kin}\rangle=\frac{1}{4}\times\frac{1}{2}kT.
\label{Eq:5}$$ His comment: “I had hoped (...) to find $\langle E_{kin}\rangle=\frac{1}{2}kT$.” (I will come back to this unexpected factor 1/4.)
A great mystery
---------------
A possible equilibrium distribution that satisfies Wien’s displacement law (equivalent to the adiabatic invariance of $\rho(\nu,T)/\nu^3$) must be of the general form $$\rho(\nu,T)=\nu^3\varphi(T/\nu).
\label{Eq:6}$$ Then equation (\[Eq:4\]) can be written as $$\langle E_{kin}\rangle=\frac{c^3}{64\pi} T\; \frac{\int_{0}^{\infty} (\varphi(x)^2/x^6)\;dx}{\int_{0}^{\infty} (\varphi(x)/x^5)\;dx}.
\label{Eq:7}$$ Note that this is *linear* in $T$. Inserting the Planck distribution, Lorentz obtains numerically $$\langle E_{kin}\rangle\simeq \frac{1}{25}\times \frac{1}{2}kT.
\label{Eq:8}$$ This dramatic failure was already the main point of Einstein and Hopf. At the end of their paper they wrote[^10]: Bei kurzwelliger Strahlung geringer Dichte treten Impulsschwankungen anderer Art auf, welche die klassischen “ungeheuer überwiegen”.
Lorentz asks whether it might be possible to overcome the factor 1/25 in (\[Eq:8\]) by choosing a distribution function with a sufficiently sharp maximum such that the numerator in (\[Eq:7\]) becomes larger, without changing the denominator. But that seems to be unlikely, he says, without deviating too much from the empirically successful Planck distribution.
Therefore, he concludes that the energy of electrons in interaction with black body radiation can not reach the value $\frac{3}{2}kT$, *if only interference oscillations are responsible*. There must be other momentum fluctuations of particles (oscillators, electrons) due to irregularities in the radiation field, which are much larger than the classical ones for small density of the radiation energy. In his concise article “Einstein’s contributions to quantum theory” Pauli wrote about the paper of Einstein and Hopf [@pauli]: “This result was disappointing for those who still had the vain hope of deriving Planck’s radiation formula by merely changing the statistical assumption rather than by a fundamental break with the classical ideas regarding the elementary micro phenomena themselves.”
The strange factor 1/4 and an absurd discussion
-----------------------------------------------
Much of the discussion on Lorentz’ report centred around the disturbing factor 1/4 in (\[Eq:5\]). First, Langevin came up with a different calculation of $\langle E_{kin}\rangle$, based on an ordinary differential equation and not considering fluctuations, that produced $\frac{1}{2}kT$, but Lorentz criticized this, because Langevin ignored magnetic forces, and he suggested that the difference might be a result of this omission. After that Poincaré made an irrelevant remark on radiation damping. Then Planck doubted that Einstein’s basic formula (\[Eq:2\]) can be applied to the motion of electrons in the field of black body radiation, and he also proposed another way of computing $\langle E_{kin}\rangle$ that gave the value $\frac{1}{2}kT$. This was, however, completely unphysical, as Lorentz commented. By that Planck effectively reduced his calculation to that of Langevin. At some point Einstein concluded that “neither the consideration of Mr. Langevin nor that of Mr. Planck solves the problem, in my opinion.” Einstein gave, however, no explanation of the factor 1/4, but he was presumably also puzzled.
Hundred years after this discussion I discovered how the wrong factor 1/4 was produced. The reason is entirely trivial: Integrate the fluctuation-dissipation relation (\[Eq:3\]) of Einstein and Hopf over frequencies. If $\rho_{\nu}$ is smooth and vanishes for $\nu\rightarrow\infty$, then one can perform a partial integration in the last term, and obtains exactly the formula (\[Eq:4\]) of Lorentz. However, for the cut-off Rayleigh-Jeans distribution one gets a boundary term whose inclusion compensates the factor 1/4. Presumably, nobody else ever noticed this.
Well ! “If wise men did not err fools would despair.” (W. Goethe)
### Remarks on the missing fluctuations
The missing fluctuations in the Einstein-Hopf fluctuation-dissipation relation were found by Einstein five years after the Solvay congress, when he studied in one of his great papers again the Brownian motion of an atom or molecule in the radiation field. The first part of his famous paper [@ein16] is known to all physicists, because it contains a purely quantum derivation of Planck’s distribution, and also the theoretical foundations of the laser. He thereby introduced the hitherto unknown process of induced emission[^11], next to the familiar ones of spontaneous emission and induced absorption.
The second part of the paper is, however, much less known, but was regarded by Einstein to be the more important. There he shows that in every elementary process of radiation, and in particular in spontaneous emission, an amount $h\nu/c$ of momentum is emitted in a random direction and that the atomic system suffers a corresponding recoil in the opposite direction. This recoil was first experimentally confirmed in 1933 by R.Frisch [@frisch], when he showed that a long and narrow beam of excited sodium atoms widens up after spontaneous emissions have taken place. Using his rules for emission and absorption processes in terms of the coefficients $A$ and $B$ (with two relations among them), Einstein now obtained instead of (\[Eq:3\]) the following extension of the fluctuation-dissipation relation: $$\frac{c^3}{16\pi\nu^2} \Bigl[\rho_{\nu}^2 + \frac{8\pi\nu^2}{c^3} h\nu\rho_{\nu}\Bigr]=\langle E_{kin}\rangle\Bigl(\rho_{\nu}-\frac{1}{3}\nu\frac{\partial\rho_{\nu}}{\partial\nu}\Bigr)
\label{Eq:9}$$ ($\langle E_{kin}\rangle$ is now the kinetic energy of the atom). The second term on the left gives the quantum part of the momentum fluctuations, and is linear in $\rho_{\nu}$. This relation is identically satisfied for the Planck distribution if $\langle E_{kin}\rangle=\frac{3}{2}kT$. It overcomes the small factor $\simeq 1/25$ stressed by Lorentz in his report. Conversely, relation (\[Eq:9\]), considered as a differential equation for $\rho_{\nu}$, implies ‘almost’ the Planck distribution.
The quantum term in (\[Eq:9\]) was not a surprise to Einstein. He had studied momentum fluctuations already in 1909 [@Ein1], in considering the Brownian motion of a mirror which perfectly reflects radiation in a small frequency interval, but transmits for all other frequencies. The final result he commented as follows:
> The close connection between this relation and the one derived in the last section for the energy fluctuation is immediately obvious, and exactly analogous considerations can be applied to it. Again, according to the current theory, the expression would be reduced to the first term (fluctuations due to interference). If the second term alone were present, the fluctuations of the radiation pressure could be completely explained by the assumption that the radiation consists of independently moving, not too extended complexes of energy $h\nu$.
Nobody would follow Einstein’s conception for many years to come. The theme will be taken up again when we come to his talk at the Solvay meeting.
Planck’s report and its plenary discussion
==========================================
In his written report ([@Euck], pp. 77-94) Planck reviews the various theoretical attempts in trying to understand the empirically successful Planck distribution of the black body radiation. As he explicitly states, he does not follow the historical sequence, but that his presentation is guided by the contents. For this reason it may be necessary to briefly recall Planck’s original derivation in December 1900 [@planck1].
Planck’s discovery of energy quanta
-----------------------------------
Sometime before the discovery of his radiation law, Planck had established a relation between the black body distribution function $\rho(\nu,T)$ and the equilibrium energy $\bar{E}_{\nu}$ of a linear oscillator with frequency $\nu$ in thermodynamic equilibrium with the radiation field. We emphasize that this was obtained on the basis of *classical* physics (mechanics and electrodynamics) and reads $$\label{P1}
\rho(\nu,T)=\frac{8\pi\nu^2}{c^3}\bar{E}_{\nu}.$$ (For a textbook derivation, see [@Som].) At this point we argue somewhat backwards. From the relation (\[P1\]) and Planck’s distribution law $$\label{P2}
\rho(\nu,T)=\frac{8\pi\nu^2}{c^3}\frac{h\nu}{e^{h\nu/kT} - 1},$$ originally guessed by Planck on the basis of new measurements, we obtain $$\label{P3}
\bar{E}_{\nu}=\frac{h\nu}{e^{h\nu/kT} - 1}.$$ Using now the thermodynamic relation $dS=\frac{1}{T} dE,\:(E\equiv \bar{E}_{\nu})$ for the entropy of the oscillator, we obtain from (\[P3\]) $$dS=\frac{k}{h\nu} \ln \left (1+\frac{h\nu}{E}\right )dE,$$ thus $$\label{P4}
S=k\left [\left (1+\frac{E}{h\nu}\right )\ln \left (1+\frac{E}{h\nu}\right )-\frac{E}{h\nu}\ln \frac{E}{h\nu}\right ].$$ Conversely, once we understand this expression for the entropy, Planck’s distribution follows, provided we accept the relation (\[P1\]) that was derived with classical physics. (We know that equation (10) indeed holds in Dirac’s radiation theory.)
Now, we present Planck’s first derivation of (\[P4\]), about which Einstein wrote in his ‘Autobiographical Notes’ [@Ein2] in 1949: “the imperfections of which remained at first hidden, which latter fact was most fortunate for the development of physics”. Planck applied Boltzmann’s principle to a system which consists of a large number $N$ of linear oscillators, with the same frequency $\nu$. Let $E_N$ be the total energy and $S_N$ the total entropy of the system. According to Boltzmann $S_N=k \ln W_N$, where $W_N$ is the ‘probability’ of the macro-state. In order to express the number of micro-states belonging to the macro-state, Planck divided the total energy $E_N$ into a large number $P$ of energy elements $\varepsilon: \,E_N=P\varepsilon$, and defined $W_N$ to be the number of ways in which the $P$ *indistinguishable* energy elements can be distributed over $N$ *distinguishable* oscillators. A well-known combinatoric argument gives $$\label{P5}
W_N=\frac{(N-1+P)!}{P! (N-1)!}.$$ If this is accepted, we obtain for the entropy with the Stirling approximation $$\label{P6}
S_N\simeq k[(N+P)\ln (N+P)-N\ln N-P\ln P].$$ For $S=S_N/N$ and $E=E_N/N =\varepsilon P/N$ this becomes equation (\[P4\]) if $\varepsilon=h\nu$.
But how can this counting of the number of micro-states (that led to the Bose-Einstein distribution of 1925) be justified? What is the physical meaning behind Planck’s counting of complexions? Much later (in 1931) Planck referred to it as an “act of desperation (...). I had to obtain a positive result, under any circumstances and whatever cost” [@planck2].
It should be stressed at this point that Planck did *not*, as is often stated, quantize the energy of a material oscillator per se. As we have seen, what he was actually doing in his decisive calculation of the entropy of a harmonic oscillator was to assume that the *total* energy of a large number of oscillators is made up of *finite* energy elements of equal magnitude $h\nu$. He did not propose that the energies of single material oscillators are physically quantized.[^12] Rather, the energy elements $h\nu$ were introduced as a formal counting device that could at the end of the calculation not be set to zero, for, otherwise, the entropy would diverge. These energy elements are at the beginning of the quantum revolution.[^13]
It was Einstein in 1906 who interpreted Planck’s result as follows [@Ein3]:
> Hence, we must view the following proposition as the basis underlying Planck’s theory of radiation: The energy of an elementary resonator can only assume values that are integral multiples of $h\nu$; by emission and absorption, the energy of a resonator changes by jumps of integral multiples of $h\nu$.
His line of thought will be discussed in the next subsection.
In his report, Planck repeated his considerations of 1900 that led to Eq. (\[P4\]), and thus to (\[P3\]). Shortly before the Solvay Congress, L. Natanson had emphasized the arbitrariness of Planck’s counting procedure that led to Eq. (\[P5\]) [@Nat]. (Counting partitions of *indistinguishable* objects – the energy elements – was hardly in the spirit of Boltzmann.) This criticism was accepted by Planck in his report, but he now states that the counting procedure is actually unique[^14], if Einstein’s interpretation, cited above, is adopted.[^15] Then it is at least natural to consider the energy states $h\nu n, \,n=0,1,2, ... $ as cases, whence, in obvious notation, $$W_N= \sharp \left \lbrace\left. (n_1,n_2, ...\,, n_N)\right \vert \sum_{i=1}^{N} n_i =P,\: n_i \in \mathbb{N} _0\right \rbrace.$$ This agrees, of course, with the number (\[P5\]).[^16] Einstein’s main criticism of Planck’s procedure is quoted below (at the beginning of Sect. 3.3).
How did Planck arrive at this interpretation of the energy elements $h\nu$ after his pioneering paper? This is discussed extensively earlier in his report. Briefly, he arrived close to the quantization rule $$\label{P7}
\oint p\,dq=n\, h, \quad n=0,1,2,... \, ,$$ for systems with one degree of freedom. Certainly, his treatment of the harmonic oscillator, that postulates indivisible elementary regions in the $q-p$ – manifold, can be interpreted as an application of this quantization rule: Using $$\label{P8}
\int_{{H\leq E}} dp \,dq =\oint_{{H=E}}p \,dq= n\, h$$ for the Hamilton function of the harmonic oscillator, $H=\frac{1}{2m}p^2 +\frac{1}{2}m\omega^2 q^2$, implies immediately that $E=nh\nu$. Planck emphasizes that the phase space region over which one has to integrate on the left is bounded be an ellipse, and that the surface between $E$ and $E+\varepsilon$ is equal to the “elementary action” $h$. He concludes with: “Bei einem Oszillator von bestimmter Eigenperiode $\nu$ existieren also bestimmte Energieelemente $\varepsilon=h\nu$ insofern, als für die Wahrscheinlichkeit einer bestimmten Energiegrösse lediglich die Anzahl der Energieelemente massgebend ist, die sie umfasst.” \[For an oscillator of given frequency $\nu$ there thus exist definite energy elements $h\nu$ in so far, as for the probability of a given magnitude of energy only the number of energy elements matters, that it contains.\]
It is remarkable that it still took some time until even the most outstanding people correctly applied the quantization rule (\[P7\]) to periodic systems with one degree of freedom. After several wrong attempts, in particular by Einstein and Stern, the correct result for the rotator with fixed axis was only given in 1913 by Ehrenfest. (For this strange story, see [@Hund], p. 36.) Einstein’s report ends, as we shall see, with remarks on rotating molecules. The generalization to higher dimensions was at that time completely unknown. An interesting difficulty was pointed out by Einstein in a remark to Nernst’s lecture (see CPAE, Vol. 3, Doc. 25).
Einstein’s interpretation of Planck’s work
------------------------------------------
In 1906 Einstein re-analysed Planck’s approach, and asked how the classical microcanonical ensemble for large number of oscillators should be modified to obtain formula (\[P3\]) [@Ein3]. We have already quoted his conclusion. Soon afterwards, he studied the same question in the context of the canonical ensemble [@Ein4]. Planck cites this work, and describes it as a second main way to obtain the mean energy (\[P3\]) of a harmonic oscillator. Since Einstein also repeated this approach in his contribution, we discuss it here.
Classically, the canonical partition sum is $$Z=\int e^{-\beta H}\,d\Gamma, \; \beta=1/kT,$$ where $d\Gamma$ is the Liouville measure on phase space. The mean energy is given by $\langle H\rangle=-\frac{\partial}{\partial\beta}\ln Z$. Einstein rewrites $Z$ as $$Z=\int e^{-\beta E}\omega(E)\,dE, \quad \mbox{where} \quad \omega(E)= \int \delta(H-E)\,d\Gamma$$ is the volume of the energy surface $\lbrace H=E\rbrace$. For a harmonic oscillator one obtains $\omega(E)=\mbox{const.},\, Z\propto 1/\beta$, and thus the standard equipartition result $\langle H\rangle=kT$. In quantum theory, Einstein performs the substitution $$\label{ein2}
\omega(E) \longrightarrow \mbox{const} \times\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \delta(E-n\varepsilon), \quad\varepsilon= h\nu,$$ and obtains the crucial formula (\[P3\]). This is then used in the same paper for his theory for the specific heat of solids, to which we will come when discussing Einstein’s contribution at the Solvay Congress.
After this Planck discusses two other ways of obtaining the same results, one of which is more in the spirit of Boltzmann’s statistical conception of entropy. Then he comes to a critical analysis of the current situation. His views are fundamentally different from those of Einstein, because he wanted to maintain by all means Maxwell’s theory in vacuum, and apply the quantum hypothesis only to matter that interacts with radiation. As all the other colleagues (with the exception of J. Stark), he was for many years against Einstein’s light quanta and his particle-wave duality of radiation, to which we will come later in the section on Einstein’ report and its discussion. Already in 1907 Planck wrote to Einstein [@planck3]:
> I am not seeking the meaning of the quantum of action in the vacuum but rather in places where absorption and emission occur, and I assume what happens in the vacuum is rigorously described by Maxwell’s equations.
Discussion of Planck’s report
-----------------------------
The extensive discussion of Planck’s written report, covering 14 pages in the proceedings, was initiated by Einstein. Because of its importance, we quote it in extenso[^17]:
> What I find strange about the way Mr. Planck applies Boltzmann’s equation is that he introduces a state probability $W$ without giving this quantity a physical definition. If one proceeds in such a way, then, to begin with, Boltzmann’s equation does not have a physical meaning. The circumstance that $W$ is equated to the number of complexions belonging to a state does not change anything here; for there is no indication of what is supposed to be meant by the statement that two complexions are equally probable. Even if it were possible to define the complexions in such a manner that the $S$ obtained from Boltzmann’s equation agrees with experience, it seems to me that with this conception of Boltzmann’s principle it is not possible to draw any conclusions about the admissibility of any fundamental theory whatsoever on the basis of the empirically known thermodynamic properties of a system.
The interesting part of the discussion centred on the question of whether, in our terminology, the electromagnetic field in vacuum (“the ether”) could remain classical or had also to be quantized. The question was first taken up by Jeans. In his answer Planck expressed again his view that the quantum of action plays only a role in emission and absorption processes. In this connection Langevin mentioned a paper of Debye from 1910 [@debye], that was also cited in passing by Planck in his report. For me it is astonishing, that Debye’s approach to the Planck distribution did not get more attention. Debye quantized directly the oscillators of the electromagnetic field. Later, in 1913, he applied the same method in his classical theory of the specific heat, every student of physics nowadays learns about. I believe it is appropriate to go briefly through the main steps of Debye’s study. $$\qquad \qquad\qquad\ast\ast\ast \qquad \qquad\qquad\ast\ast\ast \qquad \qquad \ast\ast\ast \qquad\qquad \qquad$$ *Digression*. Debye represents the spectral energy of the radiation field in a cube of volume $V$ as $$\label{debye1}
U_\nu\,d\nu =V \frac{8\pi\nu^2}{c^3} h\nu f(\nu) d\nu \equiv N(\nu) f h\nu d\nu, \quad N(\nu):= V \frac{8\pi\nu^2}{c^3},$$ where $f(\nu)$ is a general frequency distribution function for the energy quanta $h\nu$. Following Planck’s counting, Eq. (\[P5\]), he associates to the number of oscillators $N(\nu)\Delta\nu$ in a small frequency interval $\Delta\nu$ the number (of micro-states) $$\label{debye2}
w=\frac{(N\Delta\nu+Nf\Delta\nu)!}{(N\Delta\nu)!(Nf\Delta\nu)!}.$$ Instead of (\[P6\]), Debye obtains for the entropy $$\label{debye3}
S/k=V \frac{8\pi}{c^3}\int_{0}^{\infty} \lbrace (1+f) \ln (1+f)-f \ln f \rbrace \nu^2\,d\nu$$ for an *arbitrary* state of radiation with a given spectral energy (\[debye1\]). In thermodynamic equilibrium the entropy reaches a maximum for a given total energy $$U=V\frac{8\pi h}{c^3}\int \nu^3 f(\nu)\,d\nu.$$ With the method of Lagrange multipliers, and using the thermodynamic relation $dS/dU=1/T$ to determine the Lagrange multiplier, Debye obtains the distribution function $$f=\frac{1}{e^{h\nu/kT}-1},$$ and Planck’s expression (\[P3\]) for the entropy. $$\qquad \qquad\qquad\ast\ast\ast \qquad \qquad\qquad\ast\ast\ast \qquad \qquad \ast\ast\ast \qquad\qquad \qquad$$
Debye concludes in stating that his derivation does not really prove whether the existence of elementary quanta is a property of the “ether”, as he prefers for the time being, or a property of matter. An unquestionable advantage is, however, that Debye did not have to assume Planck’s relation (\[P1\]), which was derived with classical physics. Einstein’s criticism of Planck’s counting of micro-states applies, of course, also to Debye’s work. Fortunately, it became very fruitful in his theory of the specific heat of solids at low temperatures, published shortly after the Solvay Congress [@debye2].[^18]
At some point Einstein injected the remark: “Objections have often been raised against the application of statistical methods to radiation. But I do not see any reason why these methods should be excluded here.”
Einstein’s report: “*On the Present State of the Problem of Specific Heats*”
============================================================================
The first section of Einstein’s report is entitled: “The connection between specific heats and the radiation formula.” Here one finds equations which appeared already in Planck’s contribution, but the prose is different in important ways. He starts with: “Let thermal radiation, an ideal gas, and oscillators of the kind indicated be enclosed in a volume bounded by perfectly reflecting walls. By virtue of their electric charges, the oscillators must emit radiation and continually receive new momentum from the radiation field. On the other hand, the material point of the individual oscillator collides with gas molecules and in this way exchanges energy with the gas. The oscillators thus bring about an energy exchange between the gas and radiation, and the energy distribution of the system in the state of statistical equilibrium is completely determined by the total energy, if we assume that oscillators of all frequencies are present.”
After that he recalls Planck’s relation (\[P1\]), which was derived on the basis of classical mechanics and Maxwell’s theory. Then Einstein continues with: “On the other hand, statistical mechanics implies the following: If the volume contains only gas and oscillators (without charge), there is a relation between the temperature $T$ and the mean energy $\bar{E}_{\nu}$ of the three-dimensional oscillator of the form $$\label{ein1}
\bar{E}_{\nu}=3kT.$$
But if the oscillators interact simultaneously with the radiation and the gas, then (\[P1\]) and (\[ein1\]) must be satisfied simultaneously if they hold individually in the special cases discussed; for if one of these equations were not satisfied, this would result in a transport of energy, whether between radiation and resonators, or between gas and resonators."
The two equations imply the radiation distribution (\[lor1\]), that should actually be called the Rayleigh-Einstein-Jeans law (for justification, see [@Pais], Sect. 19b). Einstein repeats, what he had stated already in 1905: “This is the only radiation equation that is simultaneously in agreement with our mechanics and electrodynamics.” In view of the fact that it does not correspond to reality, he goes on as follows (which again illustrates the wonderful clarity in Einstein’s reasoning):
> Faced with this failure of our theories to conform to reality, Planck proceeds in the following fashion: He rejects (\[ein1\]), and thereby a foundation in mechanics, but keeps (\[P1\]), even though mechanics has been applied in the derivation of (\[P1\]) as well. He obtains his theory of radiation by replacing (\[ein1\]) by a relation in whose derivation he introduced, for the first time, the quantum hypothesis. However, for what follows, we need neither (\[ein1\]) nor a corresponding relation, but only equation (\[P1\]). Even if we abandon (\[ein1\]), we must adhere to the proposition that (\[P1\]) is valid not only when the oscillator is influenced by the radiation alone, but also when molecules of a gas having the same temperature collide with the oscillator. Because if these molecules were to alter the mean energy of the oscillator, then more radiation would be emitted by the oscillator than it absorbs, or vice versa. Equation (\[P1\]) also remains valid when the energy variations in the resonator are preponderantly determined by the interaction between the oscillator and the gas; it is certainly therefore also valid in the total absence of an interaction with radiation, for example, when the oscillators have no charge whatsoever. The equation is also valid if the body interacting with the oscillator is not an ideal gas but any other kind of body, as long as the oscillator vibrates approximately monochromatically.
Using now Planck’s radiation formula “confirmed to the highest degree of approximation”, the formula (\[P3\]), discussed before by Planck follows. We repeat it here for an oscillator with three degrees of freedom $$\bar{E}_{\nu}=3\frac{h\nu}{e^{h\nu/kT} - 1}.$$ We recall that Einstein had derived this formula in his original paper from 1907 on the specific heat from a quantum version of the canonical ensemble.
Einstein’s model for the specific heat of a solid
-------------------------------------------------
Now Einstein assumes “that one gram-atom of a solid consists of $N_A$ (= Avogadro number) such approximately monochromatic oscillators”, he obtains by differentiation its specific heat ($R=kN_A$) $$\label{ein3}
c_v=3R\frac{(h\nu/kT)^2e^{h\nu/kT}}{\left (e^{h\nu/kT} -1\right )^2}.$$ Einstein demonstrates with an accompanying figure that this simple theory agrees remarkably well with measurements by Nernst. His comment: “Even though systematic differences between the observed and the theoretical values do exist, the agreement is nevertheless astonishing, if one takes into account that each individual curve is completely determined by a single parameter $\nu$, namely the proper frequency of the atom in question.” Referring to work by himself and others, in particular of Madelung, Einstein states: “In my opinion, the cause for this deviation must be sought in the fact that thermal oscillations of the atoms deviate markedly from monochromatic oscillations, and therefore do not actually have a definite frequency but rather a range of frequencies.” I do not elaborate more on this, and also not on a modified formula by Nernst and Lindemann, because soon afterwards Debye [@debye2], and independently Born and Kármán [@born1], [@born2] developed a satisfactory theory in this direction. Later, we will add some remarks on this.
Einstein’s work on specific heat was less profound than his investigations on radiation, but it played an important role because it involved the quantum hypothesis in another domain, in which people like Nernst were experimentally active.[^19]
In §2 of his report, Einstein turns “to the highly important but, unfortunately, mainly unsolved question: How is mechanics to be reformulated so that it does justice to the radiation formula as well as the thermal properties of matter?” First he presents his derivation of the average energy of an oscillator based on (\[ein2\]), i.e., in replacing the energy integral of the classical theory by a sum of oscillator energies $n h\nu$. Einstein’s comment on this is illuminating: “Simple as this hypothesis is, and simple as it is to arrive at Planck’s formula with its aid, it contents strike us as counter-intuitive and outlandish on closer inspection. Let us consider a diamond atom at 73 K: What can be said about the oscillation of the atom on the basis of Planck’s hypothesis? If, with Nernst, we set $\nu=27.3\times 10^{12}$ Hz, we obtain from the oscillator formula $\bar{E}/h\nu=e^{-18.6}$. (...) Only one of $10^8$ atoms oscillates at any given moment, while the others are completely at rest. No matter how firm one’s conviction that our current mechanics is not applicable to such motions, such a picture strikes one as extremely strange.”
Energy fluctuations of a solid
------------------------------
After some supplementary remarks, Einstein considers fluctuations of the energy of a solid body. As in previous work, he derives from Boltzmann’s equation $S=k \ln W$ + const. the statistical probability (Einstein’s expression) $W$. Expanding $S(E)$ about the mean value of the energy $\bar{E}$ of the body, he obtains for the mean square deviation of the energy from the mean value the general result of what we now call Einstein’s fluctuation theory: $$\label{ein4}
\overline{(\Delta E)^2} =- \frac{k}{\partial^2 S/\partial E^2}.$$ Here, $\partial^2 S/\partial E^2$ has to be evaluated for the equilibrium entropy at $\bar{E}$, keeping the volume fixed. In making also use of the thermodynamic relation $\partial^2 S/\partial E^2=-1/c_v T^2$, Einstein arrives at $$\label{ein4'}
\overline{(\Delta E)^2} =k c_v T^2.$$
He emphasizes that this formula is completely general. (He had obtained it in classical statistical mechanics already in 1904.) Inserting his result (\[ein3\]) for the specific heat for $n$ gram-atoms having the frequency $\nu$, and eliminating $T$ with the aid of $$\bar{E}=3n N_A\frac{h\nu}{e^{h\nu/kT} - 1},$$ Einstein obtains the important fluctuation formula $$\label{ein5}
\frac{\overline{(\Delta E)^2}}{\bar{E}^2}=\frac{h\nu}{\bar{E}} +\frac{1}{3n N_A}=\frac{1}{Z_q}+\frac{1}{Z_f},$$ “where $Z_q$ denotes the average number of Planck’s ‘quanta’ found in the body, and $Z_f=3n N_A$ the total number of degrees of freedom of all the atoms of the system taken together.”[^20]
As in his previous work on fluctuations of the radiation field, which gave him enormously important insight, Einstein finds again two terms of completely different origin. We quote:
> The relative fluctuation corresponding to the second term, which is the only fluctuation according to our mechanics, results from the fact that the number of degrees of freedom of the body is finite; it is independent of the magnitude of the energy content. But the relative fluctuation corresponding to the first term has nothing to do with how many degrees of freedom the body has. This fluctuation depends solely on the proper frequency, and the magnitude of the mean energy, and vanishes when this energy is very large. The magnitude of this fluctuation shows an exact agreement with the quantum hypothesis, according to which energy consists of quanta of magnitude $h\nu$, which change their location independently of each other; indeed, neglecting the second term, the equation can be written in the form $$\label{ein6}
> \sqrt{\frac{\overline{(\Delta E)^2}}{\bar{E}^2}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{Z_q}}.$$
Einstein adds lots of comments and difficult questions to this, which are presumably related to his efforts of developing, what he had called in his famous Salzburg lecture of 1909 [@Ein6] “ a kind of fusion of the wave and emission theories of light”. We include here only one of his remarks. Einstein asks: “Does the fluctuation equation just derived exhaust the thermodynamic content of Planck’s radiation formula or of Planck’s equation for the oscillator (\[P3\])? It can easily be seen that this is indeed the case.” Just substitute in the general fluctuation formula (\[ein4’\]), i.e. $$\overline{(\Delta E)^2} =k T^2 \frac{d\bar{E}}{dT},$$ for the left hand side the formula (\[ein5\]), we obtain (\[P3\]) by integration. Thus, Einstein concludes, “a mechanics that would lead to the equation we derived from the energy fluctuations of an ideal solid would also have to lead to Planck’s oscillator formula.” In a third section on “the quantum hypothesis and the general character of the related experiments”, Einstein begins with:
> The positive results produced by the investigations described in the last section can be summarized as follows: When a body absorbs or emits thermal energy by a quasi-periodical mechanism, the statistical properties of the mechanism are such as they would be if the energy were propagated in whole quanta of the magnitude $h\nu$. Though we have little insight into the details of the mechanism by which nature produces this property of these processes, we must expect all the same that the disappearance of such an energy of a periodic character is accompanied by the generation of packets of energy in the form of discrete quanta of magnitude $h\nu$, and second, that energy in discrete quanta of magnitude $h\nu$ must be available, so that energy of a periodic character in the frequency region $\nu$ may be produced. (...) These discontinuities, which we find so off-putting in Planck’s theory, seem really to exist in nature.
>
> The difficulties which stand in the way of formulating a satisfactory theory of these fundamental processes seem insurmountable at this time. From where does an electron in a piece of metal that is struck by Roentgen rays take the great kinetic energy we are seeing in secondary cathode rays? After all, the field of the Roentgen rays impinges on all of the metal; why does only a small portion of electrons attain the velocity of those cathode rays? How is it that the absorbed energy shows up only in relatively exceedingly few places? What distinguishes these places from other places? These and many other questions are being asked in vain.
Rotational energies of two-atomic molecules
-------------------------------------------
We conclude with a remark on Einstein’s final topic, the *average rotational energy of two-atomic molecules*. It is somewhat astonishing that he and others were at the time not able to arrive at the correct expression for the quantized energies of a rotator with a fixed axis. From (\[P7\]) this would have been obvious; this quantization rule leads immediately to the discrete energies $$E_n=\frac{h^2}{8\pi^2 I}\,n^2, \; n=0,1,2, ...\,,$$ where $I$ is the moment of inertia. The mean energy of the rotator is then determined by the corresponding canonical partition sum, as previously for a harmonic oscillator. However, this is not what Einstein does. We have already indicated that it took quite a while until people treated the specific heat of rotating molecules correctly. The discussion after Einstein’s lecture on this shows how confusing the situation was. The correct result by Ehrenfest in 1913 [@Ehren] for a rotator with a fixed axis is presented in an appendix to the proceedings by Arnold Eucken.[^21] In addition, good measurements at low temperatures by him, in particular for molecular hydrogen, became only available in 1912. (The German edition of the conference proceedings appeared with a delay of about two years.)
Discussion on Einstein’s report
-------------------------------
The discussion on Einstein’s written report was opened by Einstein himself. He begins with the following general statements:
> We probably all agree that the so-called quantum theory of today is, indeed, a helpful tool but that it is not a theory in the usual sense of the word, at any rate not a theory that could be developed in a coherent form at the present time. On the other hand, it has also turned out that classical mechanics, which finds its expression in the equations of Lagrange and Hamilton, can no longer be viewed as a useful scheme for the theoretical representation of all physical phenomena. ...
>
> This raises the question of which general laws of physics we can still expect to be valid in the domain with which we are concerned. To begin with, we will all agree that the energy principle is to be retained.
>
> In my opinion, another principle whose validity we must retain unconditionally is Boltzmann’s definition of entropy through probability. It is to this principle that we owe the faint glimmer of theoretical light we now see shed over the question of states of statistical equilibrium in processes of oscillatory character. But there is still the greatest diversity of opinion as regards the content and domain of validity of this principle. I will therefore first present in brief my view about this matter.
Einstein goes on with a rather detailed elaboration[^22], which lead to vivid reactions, in particular by Lorentz, Poincaré, Wien, Nernst, Langevin and Kamerlingh Onnes. In connection with the fluctuation formula (\[ein5\]), Lorentz emphasized correctly, that the term $h\nu/E=1/Z_q$ is “totally incompatible with Maxwell’s equations and with the prevailing views about electromagnetic processes.” He supports this conclusion by Einstein with an independent argument.
Generally speaking, Einstein hardly learned anything from the remarks by his colleagues. I find the comments by Poincaré particularly disappointing.
Some scattered final remarks
============================
The scientific program ended with a general debate. This was opened with some brief remarks by Poincaré. He correctly states that in talks and discussions arguments were often based partly on the old mechanics, but in addition also on hypotheses which are in contradiction to it. This he comments with a statement only a mathematician can make, and which I do not even find funny, namely that it is possible without great trouble to prove any statement, if the proof is based on two contradicting premises. On the bases of such an attitude, quantum mechanics would never have been discovered. The few other comments, in particular by Brillouin, Nernst, Poincaré, and partly by Langevin, are dominated by rather conservative hopes and statements.
However, this debate was at least much more reasonable in comparison to what Ernest Solvay had to say to the scientists in his final speech. Here, just two examples that illustrate his views on science in general, and of physics in particular:
> Aber trotzdem, trotz der schönen auf diesem Conseil erzielten Ergebnisse haben Sie die eigentlichen Probleme, die gegenwärtig im Vordergrund stehen, nicht gelöst, Sie haben noch keinen gangbaren Weg eröffnet zur exakten Bestimmung der einfachsten Grundelemente, die man vom philosophischen Standpunkt als die eigentlichen Bausteine des aktiven Universums anzusehen hat und auf die ich persönlich ganz besonders meine Untersuchungen gerichtet habe. Auch muss ich Ihnen gestehen, dass meine bisherigen Anschauungen, die ich Ihnen in meiner Eröffnungsansprache andeutete, keinerlei Aenderungen erfahren haben. (...)
>
> Inzwischen möchte ich noch dem Wunsche Ausdruck verleihen, dass die Versuche verwirklicht werden mögen, die auf die Erforschung des Ursprungs der Energie der Brownschen Bewegung und der Energie der Radioaktivität hinzielen. Ich bin fest überzeugt, dass diese Energie nicht aus dem Medium stammt, in dem die Brownsche Bewegung vor sich geht und in dem die radioaktiven Körper sich befinden, sondern ihren Ursprung ausserhalb desselben hat. (...).[^23]
Since the German edition of the proceedings appeared with a delay of about two years, the editor – Arnold Eucken – added a detailed appendix on the development in the field since the conference, both experimentally and theoretically. By far the most important theoretical contributions were the theories of Debye [@debye2], and – almost simultaneously – of Born and Karman [@born1], [@born2] on the specific heat of solids. While every student of physics is familiar with Debye’s work, the paper of Born and Karman is less known, but more realistic. The two authors did not make the continuum approximation of Debye, but treated the spectrum of lattice vibrations in more detail by making use of work by Madelung.
Further progress on the specific heat of diatomic molecules has already been indicated. It still took some time until people understood, that at low temperatures the rotationel degrees of freedom are frozen in, a great triumph of the early quantum theory.[^24]
Before the conference, Einstein dubbed in a letter to Besso [@Ein8] the upcoming meeting “the witch’s Sabbath” and complained “My twaddle for the Brussels conference weighs down on me.” After the conference, he wrote to Heinrich Zangger [@Ein9] “Planck stuck stubbornly to some undoubtedly wrong preconceptions”, and he dismissed Poincaré with “ Poincaré was simply negative in general, and, all his acumen notwithstanding, he showed little grasp of the situation.” In another letter to Besso, Einstein gave low marks to the meeting [@Ein10]: “The congress in Brussels resembled the lamentations on the ruins of Jerusalem”, and “nothing positive came out of it.” Einstein was most impressed by H. A. Lorentz, “ein Wunder von Intelligenz und feinem Takt. Ein lebendiges Kunstwerk. Er ist nach meiner Meinung immer noch der intelligendeste unter den anwesenden Theoretikern gewesen.” ( Letter to H. Zangger from 15 November, 1911; CPAE, Vol. 5, Doc. 305.)[^25]
Just as the Solvay Conference was getting under way, the romance between the widowed Marie Curie and Paul Langevin became public. This was, of course, more intersting to the public than anything else, especially because at that very moment it was announced that Madame Curie had won the Nobel Prize in chemistry. After the furor Einstein wrote a gracious letter to her [@Ein11].
I conclude with personal remarks, that look totally disconnected with what was said in this historical account, and may just reflect my advanced age. One often hears that the present day situation in fundamental physics (string theory, loop gravity) has some similarity with the early years of quantum theory, before the great breakthrough – mostly by a young generation – in 1925-26. I find this analogy totally wrong. Without the precision experiments by the Berlin group (Kurlbaum, Rubens, etc.) and the difficult measurements of the specific heat of molecular hydrogen and other diatomic gases at low temperatures, that demonstrated the freezing out of the rotational degrees of freedom, as well as the low temperature measurements of the specific heat of solids by Nernst, Lindemann and others, it is hard to imagine that quantum theory could have been developed. This is, of course, not new, but it may not be inappropriate to be recalled in an article for this journal.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
I am very grateful to Domenico Giulini for detailed constructive criticism of an earlier version of the manuscript, and clarifying discussions. Thanks go to Thibault Damour for useful suggestions and hints to the literature on the Solvay meetings. I thank Günther Rasche for a careful reading of the manuscript.
[10]{} Eucken, A. (Ed.) 1914. *Die Theorie der Strahlung und der Quanten. Verhandlungen auf einer von E. Solvay einberufenen Zusammenkunft (30.Oktober bis 3. November 1911), mit einem Anhang über die Entwicklung der Quantentheorie vom Herbst 1911 bis Sommer 1913*. Knapp, Halle a.S.
A published French translation appeared two years earlier in:\
Paul Langevin and Maurice de Broglie (Eds.) *La théorie du rayonnement et les quanta. Rapports et discussions de la réunion tenue à Bruxelles, du 30 octobre au 3 novembre 1911, sous les auspices de M. E. Solvay.* Paris: Gauthier-Villars, 1912 Perrin, J. 1913. *Les Atomes*. A new edition of the original text has appeared in Flammarion (1991), ISBN 2-08-081225-4; for an English translation, see: J. Perrin, *Atoms*, Van Nostrand (1916) Galison, P. 2007. Solvay Redivivus. In *The Quantum Structure of Space and Time*, Proceedings of the 23rd Solvay Conference on Physics, Edited by D. Gross, M. Henneaux, and A. Sevrin, World Scientific Publishing, p.1-18 Einstein, A. 1987 – 2010. CPAE: *The collected papers of Albert Einstein*, Edited by J. Stachel [*et al.*]{}, Vols. 1-12, Princeton University Press, Princeton Einstein, A. 1909. On the present State of the Radiation Problem. CPAE, Vol. 2, Doc. 56 Einstein, A. and L. Hopf. 1910. Statistical Investigation of a Resonator’s Motion in a Radiation Field. CPAE, Vol. 3, Doc. 8 Pauli, W. 1949. Einstein’s Contributions to Quantum Theory. In [*Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist*]{}, edited by P.A.Schilpp (Illinois: The Library of Living Philosophers), p.149-160 Einstein, A. 1916. On the Quantum Theory of Radiation. CPAE, Vol.6, Doc.38 Frisch, R. 1933. Experimenteller Nachweis des Einsteinschen Strahlungsrücksto[ß]{}es. *Zeitschrift für Physik*, **86**: 42-48 Planck, M. 1900. Zur Theorie des Gesetzes der Energieverteilung im Normalspektrum. *Verhandlungen d. Deutschen physikal. Gesellschaft* **2**:237-245 Planck, M. 1911. Eine neue Strahlungshypothese. *Verhandlungen d. Deutschen physikal. Gesellschaft* **13**:138-148 Sommerfeld, A. 1952. *Vorlesungen über Theoretische Physik. Band V. Thermodynamik und Statistik*, §20. Klemm G.M.B.H., Wiesbaden Einstein, A. 1949. Autobiographical Notes. In [*Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist*]{}, edited by P.A.Schilpp (Illinois: The Library of Living Philosophers), p.2-94 Planck, M. 1931. Letter from Max Planck to Robert W. Wood, *Archive for the History of Quantum Physics*, Microfilm 66, 5 Einstein, A. 1906. On the Theory of Light Production and Light Absorption. CPAE, Vol. 2, Doc. 34 Natanson, L. 1911. Über die statistische Theorie der Strahlung. *Phys. Zeitschr.* **12**:659-666 Hund, F. 1967. *Geschichte der Quantentheorie*, Bibliographisches Institut, Mannheim; transl. Gordon Reece, *The History of Quantum Theory*. Harper and Row, New York Einstein, A. 1907. Planck’s Theory and the Theory of specific Heat. CPAE, Vol. 2, Doc. 38 Planck, M. 1907. Letter from Planck to Einstein, CPAE, Vol. 5, Doc. 47 Einstein, A. 1909. On the present Status of the Radiation Problem. CPAE, Vol. 2, Doc. 56 Debye, P. 1910. Der Wahrscheinlichkeitsbegriff in der Theorie der Strahlung. *Ann. d. Phys.* **33**:1427-1434 Debye, P. 1912. Zur Theorie der spezifischen Wärme. *Ann. d. Phys.* **39**:789-839 Pais, A. 1982. *‘Subtle is the Lord...’: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein*. Oxford University Press, Oxford Born, M. and T. v. Kármán. 1912. Über Schwingungen in Raumgittern. *Phys. Zeitschr.* **13**:297-309 Born, M. and T. v. Kármán. 1913. Zur Theorie der spezifischen Wärme. *Phys. Zeitschr.* **14**:15-19 Einstein, A. On the Development of ou Views concerning the Nature and Constitution of Radiation. CPAE, Vol. 2, Doc. 60 Ehrenfest, P. 1913. Bemerkung betreffs der spezifischen Wärme zweiatomiger Gase. *Verh. D. Phys. Ges.* **15**:451-457 Einstein, A. 1910. Ueber das Boltzmann’sche Prinzip und und einige aus ihm zu ziehende Folgerungen. www.pgz.ch/history/einstein/index.html; to appear in CPAE Einstein, A. 1910. The Theory of the Opalescence of homogeneous Fluids and liquid Mixtures near the ctitical State. CPAE, Vol. 3. Doc. 9 Einstein, A. 1911. Letter from Einstein to Besso. CPAE, Vol. 5, Doc. 283 Einstein, A. 1911. Letter from Einstein to Zangger. CPAE, Vol. 5, Doc. 305 Einstein, A. 1911. Letter from Einstein to Besso. CPAE, Vol. 5, Doc. 331 Einstein, A. 1911. Letter from Einstein to Marie Curie, Vol. 5, Doc. 312a (This letter is included at the beginning of CPAE, Vol. 8, p.7.)
[^1]: Lord Rayleigh and J. D. van der Waals were not present at the meetings. A letter by Rayleigh is included in the proceedings of the conference.
[^2]: In 1913 Perrin published a more extended version in his his classic book “Les Atomes” [@perr].
[^3]: Title of Sommerfeld’s report: “Die Bedeutung des Wirkungsquantums für unperiodische Molekularprozesse in der Physik”, ([@Euck], pp. 252-317). \[The significance of the of action quantum for non-periodic processes in physics.\]
[^4]: Einstein had shortly before the conference criticized in a letter to Besso that Sommerfeld postulated his hypothesis on the role of collision times without any theory. He also discusses some problems with Sommerfeld’s hypothesis in the last section of his own report.
[^5]: For a not technically oriented broad discussion that covers several Solvay meetings, including the first one, I refer to [@gali], and references therein.
[^6]: The title is “Die Anwendungen des Satzes von der gleichmässigen Energieverteilung auf die Strahlung” ([@Euck], pp. 10-40). \[The applications of the theorem of the uniform energy distribution on radiation.\]
[^7]: Einstein’s paper from March 1905 was before Jeans’ contribution im May 1905.
[^8]: For Jeans the partition law is correct, but ‘the supposition that the energy of the ether is in equilibrium with that of matter is utterly erroneous in the case of ether vibrations of short wavelength under experimental conditions.’
[^9]: References to papers that have appeared in the *Collected Papers of Albert Einstein* (CPAE) [@Ein0] are always cited by volume and document of CPAE.
[^10]: “additional kinds of momentum fluctuations are discernible (...) which, in the case of short-wave radiation of low density, enormously overwhelm those obtained from the theory”.
[^11]: Einstein’s derivation shows that without assuming a non-zero probability for induced emission one would necessarily arrive at Wien’s instead of Planck’s radiation law.
[^12]: \[foot:Planck\] In 1911 Planck even formulated a ‘new radiation hypothesis’, in which quantization only applies to the process of light emission but not to that of light absorption [@planck1911]. Planck’s explicitly stated motivation for this was to avoid an effective quantization of oscillator energies as a *result* of quantization of all interaction energies. It is amusing to note that this new hypothesis led Planck to a modification of his radiation law, which consisted in the addition of the temperature-independent term $h\nu/2$ to the energy of each oscillator, thus corresponding to the oscillator’s energy at zero temperature. This seems to be the first appearance of what soon became known as ‘zero-point energy’.
[^13]: There is the story (which I heard from M. Fierz) that Planck used the letter $h$ for his constant, because since the times of Cauchy the differential quotient of a function was defined as the limit of a difference quotient, in which the increment of the argument – universally denoted by $h$ in all text books since then – is approaching 0.
[^14]: In a footnote Planck writes: “This calculation is completely unambivalent and in particular no longer contains the indefiniteness about which L. Natanson has recently spoken with justification.” \[“Diese Berechnung ist vollkommen eindeutig und enthält insbesondere nichts mehr von der Unbestimmtheit, welche L. Natanson neuerdings mit Recht zur Sprache gebracht hat.”\]
[^15]: It is somewhat disturbing that Planck does not refer to Einstein at this point.
[^16]: In passing we note that this number is equal to the degeneracy of an energy state with energy $h\nu\,P$ of $N$ quantum mechanical oscillators. For this reason, Planck got the same entropy that is implied by the microcanonical ensemble of quantum statistics.
[^17]: This is a summary of Einstein’s critique he had earlier presented in [@Ein5], pp. 187-188.
[^18]: Debye gave a talk on his theory in March 1912 at a meeting of the Swiss Physical Society, and published a brief version in the *Arch. de Genève* shortly afterwards. During this time, after Einstein had left for Prag, Debye was Prof. at the at the University of Zürich.
[^19]: Nernst presented at the Solvay Congress a detailed report on his measurements. The fitting formula proposed by him and Lindemann had no theoretical basis, but it later turned out that it agrees numerically surprisingly well with Debye’s result over a wide range of temperatures ($0<\Theta/T <4$).
As noted before, F. A. Lindemann was, together with R. Goldschmidt and M. de Broglie, appointed as secretary of the conference. He was the youngest attendee. Frederick Lindemann did his doctoral thesis with Nernst. Much later he became scientific advisor to Winston Churchill. He was made *Lord Cherwill* in 1941 and Viscount Cherwill in 1956. To physicist he is, for instance, known for the *Lindemann melting criterion*.
[^20]: We note that for $N$ quantum mechanical oscillators with equal frequencies $\nu$, one readily obtains for the expectation value of the Hamiltonian $\langle H\rangle=N h\nu \bar{n},\,\bar{n}$ = mean occupation number of one oscillator, and for the variance $\sigma^2(H)$ $$\frac{\sigma^2(H)}{\langle H\rangle^2}=\frac{1}{N}\Bigl(1+\frac{1}{\bar{n}}\Bigr).$$
[^21]: Quantization of rotators with two degrees of freedom in the framework of the old quantum theory (Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization rules) began only in 1915 by M. Planck, F. Reiche, E.C. Kemble, N. Bohr, and others.
[^22]: This has much in common with initial sections of his paper on critical opalescence he had submitted about a year before [@Ein7]. For readers, who know German, it is interesting to compare Einstein’s presentation with an interesting manuscript for a talk he has given at a meeting of the Physical Society of Zürich on November 1910 with the title: *‘Ueber das Boltzmann’sche Prinzip und und einige aus ihm zu ziehende Folgerungen’* . This document was found only a few years ago (see [@pgz]).
[^23]: “But in spite of the beautiful results achieved at this congress, you have not solved the real problems that remain at the forefront. You have not yet opend a practicable path for the exact determination of the simplest basic elements, which one has to regard from a philosophical point of view as the proper building blocks of the active Universe, and to which I personally have particularly directed my investigations. And I must tell you that my prevailing views, which I have indicated to you in my opening speech, have not changed at all.
Meanwhile, I would like to give expression to the desire that attempts will be realized, which call for research towards the search of the origin of the energy of Brownian motion, and the energy of radioactivity. I am firmly convinced that this energy does not originate from the medium in which Brownian motion takes place or in which radioactive bodies are situated, but have their origin outside of it.”
[^24]: A full understanding of the specific heat of diatomic molecules became only possible with the advent of the new quantum mechanics. Especially for molecular hydrogen, things were only settled after Heisenberg had predicted in 1927 – on the basis of Pauli’s exclusion principle – two distinct species, called ortho and para hydrogen, that interact only very weakly.
[^25]: \[Lorentz\] “is a marvel of intelligence and exquisite tact. A living work of art. In my opinion, he was among the theoreticians present still the most intelligent.”
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Quantum coherence can be used to infer the presence of a detector without triggering it. Here we point out that, according to quantum mechanics, such interaction-free measurements cannot be perfect, i.e., in a single-shot experiment one has strictly positive probability to activate the detector. We formalize the extent to which such measurements are forbidden by deriving a trade-off relation between the probability of activation and the probability of an inconclusive interaction-free measurement. Our description of interaction-free measurements is theory independent and allows derivations of similar relations in models generalizing quantum mechanics. We provide the trade-off for the density cube formalism, which extends the quantum model by permitting coherence between more than two paths. The trade-off obtained hints at the possibility of perfect interaction-free measurements and indeed we construct their explicit examples. Such measurements open up a paradoxical possibility where we can learn by means of interference about the presence of an object in a given location without ever detecting a probing particle in that location. We therefore propose that absence of perfect interaction-free measurement is a natural postulate expected to hold in all physical theories. As shown, it holds in quantum mechanics and excludes the models with multipath coherence.\
\
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.98.022108
author:
- 'Z. Zhao'
- 'S. Mondal'
- 'M. Markiewicz'
- 'A. Rutkowski'
- 'B. Dakić'
- 'W. Laskowski'
- 'T. Paterek'
title: |
Paradoxical consequences of multipath coherence:\
perfect interaction-free measurements
---
A sample is seen under the microscope due to photons scattered from it. Similarly, essentially all our knowledge about the physical world comes from probes directly interacting with the objects of interest. Yet, quantum mechanics offers another possibility for enquiring whether an object is present at a given location—the interaction-free measurement [@Elitzur1993]. It is possible by interferometric techniques to prepare a single quantum particle in superposition having one arm in a suspected location of the object and with the measurement scheme which, from time to time, identifies the presence of the object arguably without directly interacting with it [@Elitzur1993; @QuantOpt.6.119; @PhysRevLett.74.4763; @HAFNER1997563; @PhysRevA.57.3987; @AppPhysB.123.12; @PhysRevA.90.042109; @Paraoanu2006]. We ask here if interaction-free measurements could be made perfect and provide nontrivial information about the presence of the object, even if in each and every run the particle and the object to be detected do not interact directly. Within quantum formalism the answer is negative, for which we provide an elementary argument as well as a quantitative relation covering this conclusion as a special case.\
One could therefore say that we have identified yet another no-go theorem for quantum mechanics similar to no-cloning [@no-cloning; @PLA.92.271], no-broadcasting [@PhysRevLett.76.2818; @PhysRevLett.100.090502] or no-deleting [@no-deleting]. Their importance comes from pinpointing special features of the quantum formalism (and the world) which can then be preserved or relaxed one by one when studying candidate physical theories. In this spirit, here we explore the possibility of perfect interaction-free measurements in the framework of density cubes [@NJP.16.023028]. The basic idea behind this framework is to represent states by higher-rank tensors, density cubes, in direct analogy to quantum mechanical density matrices. In this way, more than two classically exclusive possibilities can be coherently coupled, giving rise to genuine multipath interference absent in quantum mechanics [@NJP.16.023028; @ModPhysLettA.9.3119]. The particular interferometer employed to theoretically demonstrate the multipath interference has a feature, also noted by Lee and Selby [@FoundPhys.47.89], that the particle is never found in one of the paths inside the interferometer but the presence of a detector in that path affects the final interference fringes. It is exactly this property that we shall exploit for the perfect interaction-free measurement.\
The observation that quantum mechanics does not give rise to multipath coherence was made for the first time about 20 years ago [@ModPhysLettA.9.3119] and was linked to the validity of Born’s rule: since the number of particles around a given point on the screen is proportional to the square of the sum of the probability amplitudes, only products of two amplitudes are responsible for the interference. Experiments were set up to look for genuine multipath interference and to test the Born rule [@Science.329.418; @FoundPhys.42.742; @NewJPhys.14.113025; @NewJPhys.19.033017]. In addition to being of fundamental interest, these experiments also have practical implications, as it has been shown that multipath interference provides an advantage over quantum mechanics in the task called the “three collision problem” [@FoundPhys.47.89] and may be advantageous over quantum algorithms [@NJP.18.033023], although this is not the case in searching [@NJP.18.093047]. Up to now essentially all experimental data confirms the absence of genuine multipath interference and the consistency of the Born rule.These findings are also supported by additional theoretical research. Namely, models with genuine multipath interference were shown to be at variance with a number of postulates: purity principles [@NJP.16.123029; @Entropy.19.253; @1701.07449], tomography via single-path and double-path experiments [@FoundPhys.41.396; @UdudecThesis], possibility of defining composite systems [@JPhys.41.355302] and experiments giving a definite (single) outcome [@1611.06461]. The present contribution adds to this line of research. We identify paradoxical consequences of particular models with multi-path coherence that are phrased solely in operational terms and hence make the models highly unlikely to describe natural processes.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[SEC\_IFM\] we introduce interaction-free measurements and formally define perfect interaction-free measurement in a theory-independent way. We show that in all models where processes are assigned probability amplitudes, satisfying natural composition laws, there are no perfect interaction-free measurements and also no genuine multipath interference. Furthermore, we derive within quantum formalism a trade-off relation characterizing interaction-free measurements, which explicitly shows the impossibility of such perfect measurements. We then move to the density cube model and for completeness gather in Sec. \[SEC\_CUBES\] all its elements necessary for our purposes. Similarly to the quantum case, we derive the trade-off relation within the density cube model, which now opens up the possibility of perfect interaction-free measurement. Sec. \[SEC\_PIFM\] provides explicit examples of such measurements. The first example uses a three-path interferometer having the property that the particle is never found in the path where we place the detector, but the interaction-free measurement fails $50\%$ of the time. (We prove that this cannot be improved using the class of interferometers considered.) In next example, we provide an $N$-path interferometer giving rise to perfect interaction-free measurement and a vanishing probability of failure in the limit $N \to \infty$. We conclude in Sec. \[SEC\_CONCLUDE\].
Interaction-free measurements {#SEC_IFM}
=============================
We begin with the original scheme by Elitzur and Vaidman [@Elitzur1993]. The idea is presented and described in Fig. \[FIG\_MZ\]. The problem is famously dramatized by considering the presence or absence of a single-particle-sensitive bomb, the tradition we shall also follow.
For a general interferometer (with many paths and arbitrary transformations replacing the beam splitters in Fig. \[FIG\_MZ\]) one always starts by tuning it to destructive interference in at least one of its output ports. In this way, if the click in one of these ports is observed we conclude that the bomb is present in the setup. This constitutes a successful interaction-free measurement and we denote its probability by $P_!$. If the particle emerges in any other output port, we cannot make any definite statement as this happens both in the absence and presence of the bomb. The result is therefore inconclusive and we denote its probability by $P_?$. Finally, if the bomb is present, the probe particle triggers it with probability $P_*$. Clearly we have exhausted all possibilities and therefore $$P_* + P_? + P_! = 1.
\label{EQ_P_NORM}$$
![Interaction-free measurement and the relevant parameters. A tuned Mach-Zehnder interferometer, as in panel (a), is moved to the location where there might be a bomb in the upper arm. The probe particle triggers the bomb, single-particle-sensitive detector $D_*$, via path (b) with probability $P_*$. The measurement is inconclusive if the particle takes path (c) because the detector labeled $D_?$ also fires when there is no bomb, see (a). The probability of an inconclusive result is denoted by $P_?$. Finally, the measurement succeeds if the top detector clicks and this happens with probability $P_!$, see (d). The measurement is termed interaction-free, because had the particle interacted with the bomb, it would trigger it, and it did not.[]{data-label="FIG_MZ"}](fig1b.png){width="9cm"}
Perfect interaction-free measurement
------------------------------------
We call an interaction-free measurement perfect when statistics of single-shot experiments with the same interferometer shows $$P_* = 0 \quad \textrm{ and } \quad P_? < 1,
\label{PIFM}$$ i.e., when the bomb never explodes, and yet from time to time, we are certain it was there. The paper ends with an example where both of these probabilities are zero.
It should be emphasized that this definition involves only probabilities in certain experimental scenarios and hence it is independent of the underlying physical theory. Now we show that a broad class of physical models, including quantum mechanics, does not permit perfect interaction-free measurements.
No perfect interaction-free measurements in amplitude models
------------------------------------------------------------
In quantum mechanics, the condition $P_* = 0$ implies a vanishing probability amplitude for the particle to propagate along the path of the bomb. This means that the first (generalized) beam splitter never sends the particle to that path and hence it is irrelevant whether one places a bomb there or not, i.e., $P_? = 1$. The same conclusion holds in any theory that assigns probability amplitudes to physical processes and demands that the vanishing probability of the process implies a vanishing amplitude, e.g., the probability is an arbitrary power of the amplitude. It is intriguing in the present context that many of such models do not give rise to multipath coherence. If the amplitudes are complex numbers (or even pairs of real numbers), their natural composition laws lead to Feynman rules, i.e. probability $\sim$ amplitude$^2$ [@IntJThPhys.27.543; @PRA.81.022109]. Sorkin’s original argument then demonstrates the absence of multi-path interference [@ModPhysLettA.9.3119].
This elementary argument excludes the possibility of perfect interaction-free measurements in quantum mechanics. We therefore ask to what extent are such measurements forbidden. The answer is phrased as a trade-off relation between the probability of detonation and the probability of an inconclusive result. It shows that the inconclusive result happens more and more often with a decreasing probability of triggering the bomb.
Quantum trade-off
-----------------
![A general interferometer used to derive the trade-off relations. The particle is injected into the first path from the left. It enters the interferometer via transformation $\mathcal{T}_1$ and leaves it via transformation $\mathcal{T}_2$. Inside the interferometer the bomb is present in the first path.[]{data-label="FIG_IFM"}](fig_tradeoff){width="6cm"}
Consider a general interferometer as shown in Fig. \[FIG\_IFM\]. We present the trade-off between $P_*$ and $P_?$ for arbitrary mixed quantum states but keeping the second transformation unitary, i.e. $\mathcal{T}_2 = \mathcal{U}_2$. Let us denote by $\rho$ the density matrix of the particle inside the interferometer, right after the first transformation. The probability to trigger the bomb is given by $$P_* = {\left \langle 1 \right |} \rho {\left | 1 \right\rangle}.$$ If the bomb is not triggered, the state $\rho$ gets updated to $\tilde \rho$ satisfying: $$\tilde \rho = \frac{1}{1 - P_*} (\mathds{1} - {{\left | 1 \right\rangle}{\left \langle 1 \right |}}) \rho (\mathds{1} - {{\left | 1 \right\rangle}{\left \langle 1 \right |}}),
\label{EQ_TILDER}$$ where $\mathds{1}$ is the identity operator in the space of density matrices. Accordingly, the particle at the output of the interferometer is described by $\mathcal{U}_2 \,\tilde \rho \,\mathcal{U}_2^\dagger$. The probability of an inconclusive result is given by the chance that now the particle is observed at those output ports ${\left | s \right\rangle}$ in which it might be present if there was no bomb: $$P_? = (1- P_*) \sum_s {\left \langle s \right |} \mathcal{U}_2 \,\tilde \rho\, \mathcal{U}_2^\dagger {\left | s \right\rangle},
\label{EQ_P?T}$$ where we multiplied by $(1- P_*)$ to account for the renormalisation in $\tilde \rho$. In Appendix \[SEC\_APP\_QUANTUM\] we derive the following trade-off relation: $$\begin{aligned}
P_? & \ge & 1 - 2 P_* + P_* {\left \langle 1 \right |} E(\rho) {\left | 1 \right\rangle} \nonumber \\
& \ge & (1 - P_*)^2, \label{EQ_QUANTUMT}\end{aligned}$$ where $E(\rho)$ is the projector on the support of $\rho$, i.e. $E(\rho) = \sum_r {{\left | r \right\rangle}{\left \langle r \right |}}$ for $\rho = \sum_r p_r {{\left | r \right\rangle}{\left \langle r \right |}}$. The last inequality in (\[EQ\_QUANTUMT\]) follows from convexity, ${\left \langle 1 \right |} E(\rho) {\left | 1 \right\rangle} \ge {\left \langle 1 \right |} \rho {\left | 1 \right\rangle}$. We now discuss special cases of this trade-off in order to illustrate the tightness of the bound and for future comparison with the model of density cubes.
First of all, due to convexity, the lower bound is saturated by pure states. In other words, pure states are the best for interaction-free measurements. Note also that in quantum formalism, by starting with a pure state $\rho$ one always obtains a pure state $\tilde \rho$ after the measurement. It turns out that the cube model does not share this property.
Any density matrix $\rho$ that does not contain coherence to the state ${\left | 1 \right\rangle}$, i.e. has vanishing off-diagonal elements in the first row and column when $\rho$ is written in a basis including ${\left | 1 \right\rangle}$, is useless for interaction-free measurements. If there is no coherence to state ${\left | 1 \right\rangle}$, then either (i) one of the eigenvectors of $\rho$ is this state or (ii) all the eigenvectors are orthogonal to ${\left | 1 \right\rangle}$. In the case (i) we find ${\left \langle 1 \right |} E(\rho) {\left | 1 \right\rangle} = 1$ and hence: $$P_? \ge 1 - P_*.$$ This combined with the normalisation condition (\[EQ\_P\_NORM\]), means that there is no place for a successful interaction-free measurement, i.e. $P_! = 0$. In the case (ii) we note that $P_* = 0$ and hence the lower bound in (\[EQ\_QUANTUMT\]) already shows that $P_? = 1$. This demonstrates quantitatively the impossibility of perfect interaction-free measurements. Finally, we note that the trade-off just derived holds for an arbitrary interferometer (with the second transformation being unitary) and that it is independent of the number of paths. For example, the inequality (\[EQ\_QUANTUMT\]) is saturated by taking the discrete Fourier transform as both transformations in the interferometer with an arbitrary number of paths. This again will differ in the density cube model.
Density cubes {#SEC_CUBES}
=============
The trade-off relation just derived captures the impossibility of perfect interaction-free measurement in the quantum formalism. We show here that their absence is a natural postulate which disqualifies certain extensions of quantum mechanics, namely, the density cube model [@NJP.16.023028]. This model has been introduced in order to incorporate the possibility of multipath coherence, and we shall first say a few words about where exactly could such an extension show up in an experiment. Sorkin introduced the following classification [@ModPhysLettA.9.3119]. Quantum mechanics gives rise to second-order interference because the interference pattern observed on the screen behind two open slits, I12, cannot be understood as a simple sum of patterns when each individual slit is closed, i.e., $I_{12} - I_1 - I_2 \ne 0$. However, the interference fringes observed in a triple-slit experiment are always reducible to a simple combination of double-slit and single-slit patterns, namely, $I_{123} = I_{12} + I_{13} + I_{23} - I_1 - I_2 - I_3$. Similar statements hold for higher numbers of slits. Why does quantum mechanics “stop” at second-order interference? How would a model that gives rise to third-order and higher-order interference look? The density cube formalism provides the answer to the latter question. In principle it could show up in triple-slit experiments. However, the present paper finds that this is unlikely because the cubes allow for perfect interaction-free measurements.
In order to keep the present work self-contained, we first review the elements of the cubes model.We then derive the trade-off relation between $P_?$ and $P_*$ within the density cubes framework, which hints at the possibility of perfect interaction-free measurement. Finally, we provide explicit examples of such measurements.
Probability
-----------
The main difference between quantum mechanics and the cubes framework is that instead of a density matrix, one assigns a rank-$3$ tensor (density cube) to a given physical configuration. The density cube $C$ can have complex elements $C_{jkl} \in \mathbb{C}$. The density cubes are assumed to be Hermitian in the sense that exchanging two indices produces a complex conjugated element, e.g., $$C_{jkl} = C_{kjl}^*.$$ Hermitian cubes form a real vector space with inner product $$(M,C) = \sum_{j,k,l = 1}^N M_{jkl}^* C_{jkl},
\label{EQ_BORN}$$ where each index of the tensor runs through values $1,\dots,N$. Therefore, one naturally defines the probability of observing an outcome corresponding to cube $M$ in a measurement on a physical object described by cube $C$ by the above inner product. This is in close analogy to the Born rule in quantum mechanics, which in the same situation assigns probability ${\mathrm{Tr}}(M C) = \sum_{j,k = 1}^N M_{jk}^* C_{jk}$, with $M$ and $C$ being density matrices. In this way the model of the density cubes extends the self-duality between states and measurements present in quantum mechanics [@NJP.12.033034; @1110.6607].
States
------
We shall consider two types of density cubes: the quantum cubes which represent quantum states in the density cube model and nonquantum cubes (with triple-path coherence) that extend the quantum set. The former are constructed from quantum states and are in one-to-one relationwith the quantum states. While nonquantum cubes are also constructed starting from a quantum state, one can choose various combinations for the triple-path coherence terms to construct several distinct nonquantum cubes corresponding to a given quantum state.
The sets of allowed density cubes and their transformations are not yet fully characterized and it is not our aim to characterize them in this paper. We will rather focus on specific density cubes and transformations, which will be shown to be consistent and will produce perfect interaction-free measurements.
### Quantum cubes
Consider the following mapping between a density matrix $\rho$ and a cube $C^Q$: $$\begin{array}{rclcl}
C_{jjj}^Q & = & \rho_{jj}, & & \\
C_{jjk}^Q & = & \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} \, \textrm{Re}(\rho_{jk}), & \textrm{ for } & j < k, \\
C_{jkk}^Q & = & \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} \, \textrm{Im}(\rho_{jk}),& \textrm{ for } & j<k, \label{EQ_Q_CUBE} \\
C_{jkl}^Q & = & 0, & \textrm{ for } & j \ne k \ne l.
\end{array}$$ Note that all the terms $C_{jkl}^Q$ where the three indices are different are set to zero, meaning that these cubes do not admit any three-path coherence. The remaining elements can be computed using the Hermiticity rule. This mapping preserves the inner product between the states, and hence quantum mechanics and the density cube model with this set of cubes are physically equivalent.
### Non-quantum cubes
We now extend the set of quantum cubes and allow for non-trivial triple-path coherence by mapping every quantum state $\rho$ to the following family of cubes: $$\begin{aligned}
C_{jjj} & = & \frac{1}{N-1}(1-\rho_{jj}),\nonumber \\
C_{jjk} & = & \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} \frac{1}{N-1} \, \textrm{Re}(\rho_{jk}),\quad \textrm{ for } \quad j < k, \nonumber\\
C_{jkk} & = & \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} \frac{1}{N-1} \, \textrm{Im}(\rho_{jk}),\quad \textrm{ for } \quad j < k, \nonumber\\
C_{1jk}(\gamma) & = & \sqrt{\frac{1}{3}} \frac{1}{N-1} \, \omega^{f(\gamma,j,k)}, \quad \textrm{ for } \quad 1<j<k, \nonumber\\\label{eq:rho1jk}\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega = \exp(- i 2\pi / N)$ is the $N$th complex root of unity and $f(\gamma,j,k) = \{ 1,\dots, N \}$. The parameter $\gamma = 1, \dots, N$ enumerates different cubes that can be constructed from a given quantum state. Again, the remaining elements can be completed using the Hermiticity rule. We provide explicit examples of interesting non-quantum cubes in Sec. \[SEC\_PIFM\] and Appendix \[SEC\_APP\_ONEQ\]. Note that for simplicity we choose to place the bomb in the first path of the interferometer and therefore consider cubes where the three-path coherence involves only the first path (labeled by index $1$) and two other paths. All the terms $C_{jkl}$, with three different indices, each of which is strictly greater than $1$, are set to zero.
Measurement
-----------
We shall only be interested in enquiring about the particle’s path at various stages of the evolution. Furthermore, we will focus on checking whether the particle is in the first path or not. Clearly this measurement is allowed in quantum mechanics, and we choose vector $(1 \, 0 \, 0 )^T$ to represent the particle moving along the first (out of three) paths inside the interferometer. The corresponding quantum cube looks as follows, see Eq. (\[EQ\_Q\_CUBE\]), in the case of the triple-path experiment: $$\begin{aligned}
M_1 & = & \left\{
\left( \begin{array}{ccc} 1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{array} \right),
\left( \begin{array}{ccc} 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{array} \right),
\left( \begin{array}{ccc} 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0& 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{array} \right)
\right\},\nonumber\\ \end{aligned}$$ where the three $3 \times 3$ matrices describing the cube have elements $C_{1jk}$, $C_{2jk}$ and $C_{3jk}$, respectively. The probability that a particle described by cube $C$ is found in the first path is $(M_1,C)$.
It is essential to the interaction-free measurement to describe the state of the particle after it has *not* been found in a particular path. Here the model of density cubes follows quantum mechanics and it is assumed that the cube describing the system changes as a result of measurement. If the particle is found in the $n$th path, its state gets updated $C \to M_n$, where $M_n$ is the quantum cube corresponding to a particle propagating along the $n$th path. If the particle is not found in the $n$th path, the model follows the generalized Lüder’s state update rule: it erases from the cube all elements $C_{jkl}$ with $j,k,l = n$, and renormalizes the remaining elements. Following our three-path example, if the particle is not found in the first path its generic cube $C$ gets updated to cube $\tilde C$ with elements $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{
\left( \begin{array}{ccc} 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{array} \right),
\left( \begin{array}{ccc} 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \tilde C_{222} & \tilde C_{223} \\
0 & \tilde C_{232} & \tilde C_{233}
\end{array} \right),
\left( \begin{array}{ccc} 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0& \tilde C_{322} & \tilde C_{323} \\
0 & \tilde C_{332} & \tilde C_{333}
\end{array} \right)
\right\},\nonumber\\
\label{EQ_RED}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\tilde{C}_{jkl} = \frac{1}{1- C_{111}} C_{jkl},
\label{rhotildaelements}$$ is the cube element renormalised by the probability that the particle is not in the first path.
At this stage we must ensure that all postmeasurement cubes are allowed within the model. This is immediately clear if one begins with a quantum cube. For the nonquantum cubes we note that we only consider those cubes which have three-path coherence to the first path and we only enquire whether the particle is in the first path or not. If the measurement does not find the particle in the first path, all these coherences are updated to zero and accordingly, the postmeasurement cube is a quantum one.
Cubes trade-off
---------------
We are now ready to present the trade-off relation between $P_*$ and $P_?$ for a general interferometer in Fig. \[FIG\_IFM\]. Our trade-off relation holds for the transformation $\mathcal{T}_2$ that preserves the inner product, while having an additional assumption on the structure of the cube $C$ describing the particle inside the interferometer right after $\mathcal{T}_1$. We assume that after the particle has propagated through the whole interferometer in the case of no bomb, the cube at the output does not have any two-path and three-path coherence: $$\mathcal{T}_2(C) = \sum_s p_s M_s.
\label{EQ_CUBESASSUMPTION}$$ We ensure this is always fulfilled in our examples. Similarly to the quantum case, the probabilities entering the trade-off are defined as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
P_* & = & (M_1,C), \nonumber \\
P_? & = & (1- P_*) \sum_s (M_s,\mathcal{T}_2(\tilde C)),\end{aligned}$$ where the cube $\tilde C$ represents the particle inside the interferometer after the measurement in the first path has not found the particle there \[see Eq. (\[EQ\_RED\])\]. In Appendix \[SEC\_APP\_CUBES\] we derive the trade-off relation within the cubes model: $$P_? \ge \frac{(1-P_*)^2}{N-1}.
\label{EQ_CUBET}$$ It is illustrated in Fig. \[FIG\_REGIONS\]. One recognises that for $N=2$ this relation reduces to the one derived in quantum mechanics. For two-path interferometers this is not surprising as in this case the density cube model reduces to standard quantum formalism [@NJP.16.023028]. For a higher number of paths, this relation emphasizes that independence of the number of paths is a special quantum feature.
![Trade-off between the probability to trigger the bomb $P_*$ and the probability of an inconclusive result $P_?$ within the cubes model and quantum mechanics. The straight line illustrates the trivial bound $P_* + P_? = 1$. All other region borders give lower bounds on the value of $P_?$ as a function of $P_*$. The available region for any $N$ (number of paths inside the interferometer) contains also the regions for all lower values of $N$. The quantum trade-off coincides with the case of $N = 2$. Perfect interaction-free measurements occur if the allowed values on the vertical axis are less than $1$.[]{data-label="FIG_REGIONS"}](fig3-v3.pdf){width="9cm"}
Relation (\[EQ\_CUBET\]) opens up the possibility of perfect interaction-free measurements. Indeed, for all $N \ge 3$ one finds that the right-hand side is strictly less than 1 even if $P_* = 0$. Furthermore, both probabilities $P_*$ and $P_?$ can in principle be brought to zero in the limit $N \to \infty$. In the next section we provide explicit examples of perfect interaction-free measurements which achieve the lower bound set by the trade-off relation (\[EQ\_CUBET\]).
Examples of perfect interaction-free measurements {#SEC_PIFM}
-------------------------------------------------
We present in detail the workings of the perfect interaction-free measurement in the case of a three-path interferometer with emphasis on the features departing from the quantum formalism. The subsequent section provides the generalization to $N$ paths. We discuss the main idea here and refer to Appendix \[SEC\_APP\_T\] for the details.
### Three paths
![A perfect interaction-free measurement within the density cube model. Both transformations are the same and they have the property that $\mathcal{T}^2 = \mathds{1}$. Therefore, if there is no bomb the particle which enters through the first path always leaves the interferometer along the first path. The cube describing the particle inside the interferometer has only triple-path coherences to the first path and yet vanishing element $C_{111}$. Therefore the particle is never found along the first path inside the interferometer and the bomb never detonates, $P_* = 0$. However, the presence of the bomb removes the triple-path coherences from the cube. In this case, the second transformation evolves the particle to the first output port only with probability $P_? = \frac{1}{2}$. See main text for details.[]{data-label="FIG_PIFM3"}](fig4.png){width="8cm"}
Consider the setup described in Fig. \[FIG\_PIFM3\]. The transformation $\mathcal{T}_1 = \mathcal{T}_2 = \mathcal{T} \circ \mathcal{D}$ is chosen to consist of (quantum mechanical) complete dephasing of two-path coherences, $\mathcal{D}$, followed by the transformation $\mathcal{T}$ defined in Eq. (16) of Ref. [@NJP.16.023028], which we will here review for completeness. The reason behind this composition of operations is that $\mathcal{T}$ is only defined on a subset of cubes and it might be that it is impossible to extend it consistently to the whole set of cubes. The role of the dephasing is then to bring an arbitrary cube to the subset on which $\mathcal{T}$ is known to act consistently. The dephasing operation is defined to remove completely all two-path coherences in a cube and leave unaffected the diagonal elements $C_{nnn}$ and triple-path coherences $C_{jkl}$ with all indices different. Since this operation acts only on the quantum part of the cube it produces allowed cubes. Transformation $\mathcal{T}$ has matrix representation $$\mathcal{T} = \frac{1}{2} \left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
1 & 0 & 1 & \omega^* & \omega \\
1 & 1 & 0 & \omega & \omega^* \\
1 & \omega & \omega^* &1 & 0 \\
1 & \omega^* & \omega & 0 & 1
\end{array}
\right),$$ when written in the following sub-basis of Hermitian cubes: $$\begin{aligned}
B_1 & = & M_1, \qquad B_2 = M_2, \qquad B_3 = M_3, \nonumber \\
B_4 & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}
\left\{
\left( \begin{array}{ccc} 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{array} \right),
\left(\begin{array}{ccc} 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0
\end{array} \right),
\left(\begin{array}{ccc} 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{array} \right)
\right\}, \nonumber \\
B_5 & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}
\left\{
\left( \begin{array}{ccc} 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0
\end{array} \right),
\left(\begin{array}{ccc} 0 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{array} \right),
\left(\begin{array}{ccc} 0 & 0 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{array} \right)
\right\}.\nonumber\\\label{EQ_subbasis}\end{aligned}$$ That is, given an arbitrary cube $C$ in this subspace, the transformation $\mathcal{T}$ acts upon it via ordinary matrix multiplication on the vector representation of $C$, i.e., a five-dimensional column vector with $j$th component given by $(C,B_j)$. As already alluded to, this subspace consists of cubes which have no two-path coherences but solely three-path coherences and diagonal terms. It is now straightforward to verify that $\mathcal{T}$ is an involution in the considered subspace, i.e. $\mathcal{T}^2 = \mathds{1}$. Accordingly, if the particle enters the interferometer through the first path, it is always found in the first output port of the setup. This adheres to our assumption (\[EQ\_CUBESASSUMPTION\]) as the output cube is simply $M_1$. The transformation T is different from an arbitrary unitary transformation as it produces triple-path coherence inside the interferometer. The particle injected into the first path is described by the cube $M_1$, which in the considered subspace corresponds to the vector $(1 \, 0 \, 0 \, 0 \, 0)^T$, and one can verify that the corresponding cube after application of $\mathcal{T}$ is $\mathcal{T}(M_1) = \frac{1}{2}(B_2 + B_3 + B_4 + B_5) = C $, which is also given by $$\frac{1}{2}\left\{
\left( \begin{array}{ccc} 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & \frac{1}{ \sqrt{3}} \\
0 & \frac{1}{ \sqrt{3}} & 0
\end{array} \right),
\left(\begin{array}{ccc} 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{ \sqrt{3}} \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
\frac{1}{ \sqrt{3}} & 0 & 0
\end{array} \right),
\left(\begin{array}{ccc} 0 & \frac{1}{ \sqrt{3}} & 0 \\
\frac{1}{ \sqrt{3}} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{array} \right)
\right\}.$$ Note that it is a pure cube, i.e., $(C,C) = 1$, and it contains solely three-path coherences and elements $C_{222}$ and $C_{333}$. The essential feature we are utilizing for perfect interaction-free measurement is the presence of these coherences even though the probability to find the particle in the first path vanishes: $$P_* = (M_1,C) = 0.$$ A similar statement for quantum states does not hold. If the probability to locate a quantum particle in the first path vanishes, all coherences to this path must vanish, as otherwise the corresponding density matrix has negative eigenvalues.
If the bomb is present inside the interferometer but is not triggered, the state update rule dictates erasure of all elements $C_{jkl}$ with any of $j,k,l = 1$. We obtain the following cube: $$\tilde C = \left\{
\left( \begin{array}{ccc} 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{array} \right),
\left(\begin{array}{ccc} 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \frac{1}{2} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{array} \right),
\left(\begin{array}{ccc} 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \frac{1}{2}
\end{array} \right)
\right\}.$$ It contains no coherences whatsoever and it is mixed, i.e., $(\tilde C, \tilde C) = \frac{1}{2}$. We started with a pure cube and post-selected a mixed one. This is also not allowed within the quantum formalism, where any pure state ${\left | \psi \right\rangle} = \sum_{n = 1}^N \alpha_n {\left | n \right\rangle}$ gets updated to another pure state $|\tilde \psi \rangle = \sum_{n=2}^N \tilde \alpha_n {\left | n \right\rangle}$, with $\tilde \alpha_n = \alpha_n / \sqrt{1-|\alpha_1|^2}$.
Finally, we evolve $\tilde C = \frac{1}{2} M_2 + \frac{1}{2} M_3$ through the second transformation and find that $\mathcal{T}(\tilde C)$ is given by (dephasing has no effect here): $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\{
\left( \begin{array}{ccc} \frac{1}{2} & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & - \frac{1}{4\sqrt{3}} \\
0 & - \frac{1}{4\sqrt{3}} & 0
\end{array} \right)
&,&
\left(\begin{array}{ccc} 0 & 0 & - \frac{1}{4\sqrt{3}} \\
0 & \frac{1}{4} & 0 \\
- \frac{1}{ 4 \sqrt{3}} & 0 & 0
\end{array} \right),\\
& &
\left(\begin{array}{ccc} 0 & - \frac{1}{ 4\sqrt{3}} & 0 \\
- \frac{1}{ 4\sqrt{3}} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \frac{1}{4}
\end{array} \right)
\Big\}.\end{aligned}$$ The probability of an inconclusive result is given by the probability that the particle is found in the first path, as it was always there in the absence of the bomb, and therefore we find $$P_? = (M_1, \mathcal{T}(\tilde C)) = \frac{1}{2}.$$ This probability saturates the lower bound derived in Eq. (\[EQ\_CUBET\]) for $N=3$ and hence the setup discussed is optimal.
### More than three paths
We now generalize the above scheme to more than three paths and show that the density cube model allows for perfect interaction-free measurement, which in every run provides complete information about the presence of the bomb. This holds in the limit $N \to \infty$. We shall now construct a set of $N$ pure orthonormal cubes $C^{(n)}$, which will then be used to provide the transformation $\mathcal{T}$ of the optimal interferometer, that gives rise to the minimal probability of an inconclusive result while keeping $P_* = 0$. We set the modulus of all the three-path coherences within each cube $C^{(n)}$ to be the same and choose its non-zero elements as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
C_{jjj}^{(n)} & = & \frac{1}{N-1}, \quad \textrm{ for } j \ne n, \nonumber \\
C_{1jk}^{(n)} & = & \sqrt{\frac{1}{3}} \frac{1}{N-1} \, x_{jk}^{(n)}, \quad \textrm{ for } 1< j < k.\end{aligned}$$ The other non-zero three-path coherences can be found from the Hermiticity rule. In this way cube $C^{(n)}$ is represented by a set of phases $x_{jk}^{(n)}$. We arrange the independent phases, i.e. the ones having $j < k$, into a vector $\vec x_n$. The orthonormality conditions between the cubes are now expressed in the following equations $$\begin{aligned}
(C^{(n)}, C^{(n)}) = 1 \iff &| (\vec x_{n})_j | =1 \nonumber\\
&\textrm{ for all } n,j, \nonumber \\
(C^{(m)}, C^{(n)}) = 0 \iff &(\vec{x}_{m},\vec{x}_{n})+(\vec{x}_{n},\vec{x}_{m})=2-N, \nonumber\\
&\textrm{ for all } m \ne n.
\label{EQ_ONEQ}\end{aligned}$$ where $(\vec x_{n})_j$ is the $j$th component of the vector $\vec x_n$. Equations (\[EQ\_ONEQ\]) are solved in Appendix \[SEC\_APP\_ONEQ\]. Let us write the solution in form of a matrix $$X = (\vec x_1 \dots \vec x_N),$$ having vectors $\vec x_n$ as columns. We now show how to use it to construct the “cube multiport” transformation $\mathcal{T}$.
We assume the two transformations in the setup are the same and that $\mathcal{T}$ is defined solely on the subspace of Hermitian cubes which do not have any two-path coherences. The cubes forming the basis set for this subspace are as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
B_{jkl}^{(n)} = &\delta_{jn} \delta_{kn} \delta_{ln},\quad \textrm{ for } n = 1, \dots, N \label{EQ_SUBB} \\
B^{(vw)}_{jkl} = &\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \left( \delta_{j1}\delta_{kv}\delta_{lw}+\delta_{jw} \delta_{k1}\delta_{lv}+\delta_{jv}\delta_{kw}\delta_{l1} \right), \\&\textrm{ for } 1<v<w\leq N, \nonumber \\
B^{(wv)}_{jkl} =&\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \left(\delta_{j1}\delta_{kw}\delta_{lv}+\delta_{jv} \delta_{k1}\delta_{lw}+\delta_{jw}\delta_{kv}\delta_{l1} \right), \\ &\textrm{ for } 1<v<w\leq N. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ One recognizes that the cubes in the first line are just the $M_n$ cubes describing the particle propagating along the $n$th path. The cubes in the second line describe independent three-path coherences, and the cubes in the third line their complex conjugates. Altogether there are $d = N + (N-1)(N-2)$ cubes in this sub-basis, and hence the transformation $\mathcal{T}$ is represented by a $d \times d$ matrix, which we then divide into blocks: $$\mathcal{T} =
\left(
\begin{array}{c|c}
A & C \\
\hline
B & D
\end{array}
\right),
\label{eq:T}$$ $A$ being a square $N \times N$ matrix, $D$ being a square matrix with dimension $(N-1)(N-2) \times (N-1)(N-2)$, and $B$ and $C$ being rectangular. By imposing $\mathcal{T}(M_n) = C^{(n)}$, matrices $A$ and $B$ are fixed to $$A = \frac{1}{N-1}
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
0&1&\cdots&1\\
1&0&\cdots&1\\
\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
1&1&\cdots&0\\
\end{array} \right),
\qquad
B = \left(
\begin{array}{c}
X \\
X^*
\end{array}
\right).$$ By further requiring involution $\mathcal{T}^2 = \mathds{1}$ and Hermiticity $\mathcal{T} = \mathcal{T}^\dagger$ one finds that $$C = B^\dagger, \qquad D = \sqrt{\mathds{1} - BB^\dagger}.$$ We show in Appendix \[SEC\_APP\_T\] that $\mathds{1} - BB^\dagger$ is a positive matrix, which concludes our construction of $\mathcal{T}$. It turns out that this is not the only way to construct the cube multiport transformation and Appendix D provides other examples. All of them transform the quantum cubes $M_n$ to the nonquantum cubes $C^{(n)}$. Note that in the considered subspace $M_n$ are the only pure quantum cubes, and one verifies that $C^{(n)}$ are the only pure nonquantum cubes allowed. In this way $\mathcal{T}$ is shown to act consistently, i.e., map cubes allowed within the model to other allowed cubes.
Conclusions {#SEC_CONCLUDE}
===========
We proposed a theory-independent definition of perfect interaction-free measurement. It turns out that quantum mechanics does not allow this possibility, which we show by an elementary argument and by a quantitative relation. However, it can be realized within the framework of density cubes [@NJP.16.023028]. This framework allows transformations that prepare triple-path coherence involving a path where the probability of detecting the particle is strictly zero. Nevertheless, this coherence can be destroyed if the bomb (detector) is in the setup, leading to a distinguishable outcome in a suitable one-shot interference experiment. We emphasize that, in this paper, we study single-shot experiments in contrast to the quantum Zeno effect where the interferometer is used multiple times [@PhysRevLett.74.4763; @PhysRevA.90.042109].
We postulate that perfect interaction-free measurements should not be present in a physical theory as they effectively allow deduction of the presence of an object in a particular location without ever detecting a particle in that location. One might also try to identify more elementary principles which imply the impossibility of perfect interaction-free measurements.
In this context, we note that perfect interaction-free measurements are consistent with the no-signaling principle (no superluminar communication). In the density cube model it is the triple-path coherence that is being destroyed by the presence of the detector inside the interferometer. The statistics of any observable measured on the remaining paths is the same, independently of whether the detector is in the setup or not. Hence the information about its presence can only be acquired after recombining the paths together, which can be done at most at the speed of light. The situation resembles that of the stronger-than-quantum correlations satisfying the principle of no-signaling [@PR]. They are considered “too strong,” as they trivialize communication complexity [@vanDam; @PhysRevLett.96.250401] or random access coding [@ic], and they are at variance with many natural postulates [@ic; @ML; @NJP.14.063024]. Similarly, we consider identifying the presence of a detector without ever triggering it, i.e., a perfect interaction-free measurement, as too powerful to be realized in nature. Exactly which physical principles forbid such measurements is, of course, an interesting question.
Finally, we wish to comment briefly on experimental tests of genuine multipath interference. They are often described as simultaneously testing the validity of Born’s rule. Indeed, as we pointed out here, this is the case for a broad class of models which assign probability amplitudes to physical processes and these amplitudes satisfy natural composition laws [@IntJThPhys.27.543; @PRA.81.022109]. Other models, however, are possible, as exemplified by the density cube framework. Within this framework the probability rule is essentially the same as the Born rule in quantum mechanics. \[For its version for mixed states, see Eq. (\[EQ\_BORN\]).\] Therefore, in general, tests of multipath interference should be distinguished from validity tests of Born’s rule.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
We thank Pawe[ł]{} B[ł]{}asiak, Ray Ganardi, Pawe[ł]{} Kurzyński and Marek Kuś for discussions and the NTU-India Connect Programme for supporting the visit of S.M. to Singapore. This research is funded by the Singapore Ministry of Education Academic Research Fund Tier 2, Project No. MOE2015-T2-2-034, and Narodowe Centrum Nauki (Poland) Grant No. 2014/14/M/ST2/00818. W.L. is supported by Narodowe Centrum Nauki (Poland) Grant No. 2015/19/B/ST2/01999. M.M. acknowledges the Narodowe Centrum Nauki (Poland), through Grant No. 2015/16/S/ST2/00447, within the FUGA 4 project for postdoctoral training.
Proof of the quantum trade-off {#SEC_APP_QUANTUM}
==============================
Let us denote the eigenstates of the density matrix $\rho$ describing the particle inside the interferometer right after the first transformation as ${\left | r \right\rangle}$, i.e., $\rho = \sum_r p_r {{\left | r \right\rangle}{\left \langle r \right |}}$. We also write $\mathcal{U}_2 {\left | r \right\rangle} = {\left | \phi_r \right\rangle}$. From the definition of the probability of an inconclusive result, $$\frac{P_?}{1-P_*} = {\mathrm{Tr}}\left( \sum_s {{\left | s \right\rangle}{\left \langle s \right |}} \mathcal{U}_2 \, \tilde \rho \, \mathcal{U}_2^\dagger \right),
\label{APP_EQ_INC}$$ where the sum is over the paths ${\left | s \right\rangle}$ at the output of the interferometer where the particle could be found if there was no bomb, i.e., if $\mathcal{U}_2 \, \rho \, \mathcal{U}_2^\dagger = \sum_r p_r {{\left | \phi_r \right\rangle}{\left \langle \phi_r \right |}}$ is the state at the output. Therefore, states ${\left | s \right\rangle}$ span a subspace that contains the eigenstates ${\left | \phi_r \right\rangle}$ and we conclude that, $$\sum_s {{\left | s \right\rangle}{\left \langle s \right |}} = \sum_r {{\left | \phi_r \right\rangle}{\left \langle \phi_r \right |}} + \sum_\mu {{\left | \mu \right\rangle}{\left \langle \mu \right |}},$$ where the ${\left | \mu \right\rangle}$’s complement the subspace spanned by the paths. Since ${\left \langle \mu \right |} \mathcal{U}_2 \, \tilde \rho \, \mathcal{U}_2^\dagger {\left | \mu \right\rangle} \ge 0$, Eq. (\[APP\_EQ\_INC\]) admits the lower bound: $$\frac{P_?}{1-P_*} \ge {\mathrm{Tr}}\left( \sum_r {{\left | \phi_r \right\rangle}{\left \langle \phi_r \right |}} \mathcal{U}_2 \, \tilde \rho \, \mathcal{U}_2^\dagger \right) = {\mathrm{Tr}}\left( \sum_r {{\left | r \right\rangle}{\left \langle r \right |}} \tilde \rho \right).$$ Using the definition of $\tilde \rho$ in terms of $\rho$ given in Eq. (\[EQ\_TILDER\]) of the main text we obtain $$P_? \ge 1 - 2 P_* + P_* {\left \langle 1 \right |} E(\rho) {\left | 1 \right\rangle},$$ with $E(\rho) = \sum_r {{\left | r \right\rangle}{\left \langle r \right |}}$.
Proof of the cubes trade-off {#SEC_APP_CUBES}
============================
Let us first recall our assumption about cube $C$ describing the particle inside the interferometer \[Eq. (\[EQ\_CUBESASSUMPTION\]) of the main text\]: $$\mathcal{T}_2(C) = \sum_s p_s M_s.
\label{APP_EQ_ASSUMEC}$$ The following steps form the first part of the derivation: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{P_?}{1-P_*} & = \sum_s (M_s, \mathcal{T}_2 (\tilde C)) \nonumber \\
& \ge \sum_s ( p_s M_s, \mathcal{T}_2 (\tilde C))\nonumber\\
& = ( \mathcal{T}_2 (C), \mathcal{T}_2 (\tilde C)) = (C, \tilde C).
\label{APP_EQ_FIRSTPART}\end{aligned}$$ The first line is the definition of the probability of an inconclusive result, the inequality follows from convexity, and then we used (\[APP\_EQ\_ASSUMEC\]) and finally the fact that $\mathcal{T}_2$ preserves the inner product. In the second part we shall find the minimum of the right-hand side. Using the expression for the elements of $\tilde C$ in terms of the elements of $C$ we find: $$(C, \tilde C) = \frac{1}{1-P_*} \sum_{j,k,l = 2}^N |C_{jkl}|^2,$$ where $C_{222} + \dots + C_{NNN} = 1 - P_*$. Since all of the summands are non-negative, we get the lower bound by setting all the off-diagonal terms to zero. It is then easy to verify that the minimum is achieved for an even distribution of the probability: $$C_{nnn} = \frac{1-P_*}{N-1} \quad \textrm{ for } n = 2,\dots, N.$$ Using this lower bound in (\[APP\_EQ\_FIRSTPART\]) we obtain $$P_? \ge \frac{(1-P_*)^2}{N-1}.$$
Solution to the orthonormality equations for optimal cubes {#SEC_APP_ONEQ}
==========================================================
The solution is divided into two parts: $N$ even and $N$ odd.
$N$ even
--------
Let $M$ be a $(N-1) \times N$ matrix formed from the discrete $N \times N$ Fourier transform by deleting the first row: $$M = \left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
1&\omega^{1\cdot1}&\omega^{1\cdot2}&\cdots&\omega^{1\cdot (N-1)}\\
1&\omega^{2\cdot1}&\omega^{2\cdot2}&\cdots&\omega^{2\cdot (N-1)}\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
1&\omega^{(N-1)\cdot1}&\omega^{(N-1)\cdot2}&\cdots&\omega^{(N-1)\cdot (N-1)}
\end{array}
\right),$$ where $\omega = \exp (i 2\pi /N)$. The crucial property we shall use is expressed in the following multiplication: $$M^\dagger M =
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
N-1&-1&\cdots&-1\\
-1&N-1&\cdots&-1\\
\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
-1&-1&\cdots&N-1\\
\end{array}
\right).$$ Hence, the columns of matrix $M$ form vectors with fixed overlap equal to $-1$, for any pair of distinct vectors. Let us now form the matrix $X$ by stacking $(N-2)/2$ matrices $M$ vertically: $$X = \left( \begin{array}{c}
M \\
M \\
\vdots \\
M
\end{array}
\right).$$ Note that matrix $X$ has $N$ columns and $(N-1)(N-2)/2$ rows. We therefore define vectors $\vec x_n$ as columns of $X$: $$X =\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
\vec{x}_1&\vec{x}_2&\cdots&\vec{x}_N
\end{array}
\right).$$ Indeed, every component of each $\vec x_n$ has unit modulus and appropriate overlap: $$\begin{aligned}
& &(\vec{x}_{m},\vec{x}_{n}) + (\vec{x}_{n},\vec{x}_{m}) = 2 (\vec{x}_{m},\vec{x}_{n}) \nonumber \\
& & = 2 (m\textrm{th row of } X^\dagger) (n\textrm{th row of } X) \nonumber \\
& & = (N-2) (m\textrm{th row of } M^\dagger) (n\textrm{th row of } M) \nonumber \\
& & = 2 - N.\end{aligned}$$
$N$ odd
-------
We now construct the matrix $M$, having dimensions $\frac{N-1}{2} \times N$, by deleting the first row of the $N \times N$ Fourier transform matrix and taking only the top $\frac{N-1}{2}$ rows left: $$M = \left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
1&\omega^{1\cdot1}&\omega^{1\cdot2}&\cdots&\omega^{1\cdot N}\\
1&\omega^{1\cdot1}&\omega^{1\cdot2}&\cdots&\omega^{1\cdot N}\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
1&\omega^{\frac{N-1}{2}\cdot1}&\omega^{\frac{N-1}{2}\cdot2}&\cdots&\omega^{\frac{N-1}{2}\cdot N}
\end{array}
\right).$$ This time we have: $$M^\dagger M = \left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
\frac{N-1}{2}&-\frac{1}{2}&\cdots&-\frac{1}{2}\\
-\frac{1}{2}&\frac{N-1}{2}&\cdots&-\frac{1}{2}\\
\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
-\frac{1}{2}&-\frac{1}{2}&\cdots&\frac{N-1}{2}\\
\end{array}
\right)
+ i \, (\textrm{imaginary part}).$$ We form the matrix $X$ by stacking $N-2$ matrices $M$ vertically and define vectors $\vec x_n$ as columns of $X$, as before. Indeed, the overlap between distinct vectors reads: $$\begin{aligned}
& (\vec{x}_{m},\vec{x}_{n}) + (\vec{x}_{n},\vec{x}_{m}) = 2 \mathrm{Re}\left[ (\vec{x}_{m},\vec{x}_{n})\right] \\
& = 2 \mathrm{Re} \left[ (m\textrm{th row of } X^\dagger) (n\textrm{th row of } X) \right] \\
&= 2 (N-2) \mathrm{Re}\left[ (m\textrm{th row of } M^\dagger) (n\textrm{th row of } M) \right] \\
&= 2 - N.
\end{aligned}$$
Example of resulting cubes for $N = 4$
--------------------------------------
The following four cubes are obtained for the four-path interferometer:
$$\begin{aligned}
C^{(1)} & = & \frac{1}{3\sqrt{3}}\left\{
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1 & 1 \\
0 &1& 0 &1 \\
0 & 1 & 1 & 0
\end{array} \right),
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & 1 & 1 \\
0 & \sqrt{3} & 0 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array} \right),
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 1 & 0 & 1 \\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \sqrt{3} & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array} \right),
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 1 & 1 & 0\\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & \sqrt{3}
\end{array}\right)
\right\},
\\
C^{(2)} & = & \frac{1}{3\sqrt{3}}\left\{
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
\sqrt{3} & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & -i & -1 \\
0 & i & 0 & i \\
0 & -1 & -i & 0
\end{array} \right),
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & i & -1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
-i & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
-1 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}\right),
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & -i & 0 & i \\
i & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \sqrt{3} & 0 \\
-i & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}\right),
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & -1 & -i & 0\\
-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
i & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & \sqrt{3}
\end{array}\right)
\right\}, \nonumber \end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
C^{(3)} & = & \frac{1}{3\sqrt{3}}\left\{
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
\sqrt{3} & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & -1 & 1 \\
0 & -1 & 0 & -1 \\
0 & 1 & -1 & 0
\end{array}\right),
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & -1 & 1 \\
0 & \sqrt{3} & 0 & 0 \\
-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}\right),
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & -1 & 0 & -1 \\
-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
-1 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}\right),
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 1 & -1 & 0\\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
-1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & \sqrt{3}
\end{array}\right)
\right\}, \nonumber
\\
C^{(4)} & = & \frac{1}{3\sqrt{3}}\left\{
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
\sqrt{3} & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & i & -1 \\
0 & -i & 0 & -i \\
0 & -1 & i & 0
\end{array}\right),
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & -i & -1 \\
0 & \sqrt{3} & 0 & 0 \\
i & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
-1 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}\right),
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & i & 0 & -i \\
-i & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \sqrt{3} & 0 \\
i & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}\right),
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & -1 & i & 0\\
-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
-i & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array} \right)
\right\}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Consistency of the transformation {#SEC_APP_T}
=================================
Positivity of matrix $D$
------------------------
We shall find the eigenvalues of $\mathds{1} - BB^\dagger$ explicitly. Since $B = (X \, \, X^*)^T$, the construction in Appendix \[SEC\_APP\_ONEQ\] for even $N$ produces matrix $(N-1)^2 BB^\dagger$, given by $$\left(
\begin{array}{c|c}
\begin{array}{ccc}
MM^\dagger & \cdots & MM^\dagger\\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
MM^\dagger & \cdots & MM^\dagger
\end{array}
& \begin{array}{ccc}
M^*M^\dagger & \cdots & M^*M^\dagger\\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
M^*M^\dagger & \cdots & M^*M^\dagger
\end{array}\\
\hline
\begin{array}{ccc}
MM^T & \cdots & MM^T\\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
MM^T & \cdots & MM^T
\end{array} &
\begin{array}{ccc}
M^*M^T & \cdots & M^*M^T\\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
M^*M^T & \cdots & M^*M^T
\end{array}
\end{array}
\right),$$ Note that $MM^\dagger = N \, \mathds{1}$ is inherited from the unitarity of the Fourier matrix. Similarly, $M^*M^T = (M^\dagger)^T M^T = (M M^\dagger)^T = N \, \mathds{1}$. Direct computation shows that $MM^T=M^*M^\dagger = N \, \mathds{1}^A$, where $\mathds{1}^A$ denotes an antidiagonal matrix with all nonzero elements being $1$. Therefore, the matrix $(N-1)^2 B B^\dagger$ has the following form for even $N$: $$\left(
\begin{array}{c|c}
\begin{array}{ccccccc}
1 & & & & 1 & & \\
& \ddots & & \cdots & & \ddots & \\
& & 1 & & & & 1 \\
& \vdots & & & & \vdots & \\
1 & & & & 1 & & \\
& \ddots & & \cdots & & \ddots & \\
& & 1 & & & & 1 \\
\end{array}
&
\begin{array}{ccccccc}
& & 1 & & & & 1 \\
& \reflectbox{$\ddots$} & & \cdots & & \reflectbox{$\ddots$} & \\
1 & & & & 1 & & \\
& \vdots & & & & \vdots & \\
& & 1 & & & & 1 \\
& \reflectbox{$\ddots$} & & \cdots & & \reflectbox{$\ddots$} & \\
1 & & & & 1 & & \\
\end{array}
\\
\hline
\begin{array}{ccccccc}
& & 1 & & & & 1 \\
& \reflectbox{$\ddots$} & & \cdots & & \reflectbox{$\ddots$} & \\
1 & & & & 1 & & \\
& \vdots & & & & \vdots & \\
& & 1 & & & & 1 \\
& \reflectbox{$\ddots$} & & \cdots & & \reflectbox{$\ddots$} & \\
1 & & & & 1 & & \\
\end{array}
&
\begin{array}{ccccccc}
1 & & & & 1 & & \\
& \ddots & & \cdots & & \ddots & \\
& & 1 & & & & 1 \\
& \vdots & & & & \vdots & \\
1 & & & & 1 & & \\
& \ddots & & \cdots & & \ddots & \\
& & 1 & & & & 1 \\
\end{array}
\end{array}
\right).$$ Similarly, one finds the following for odd $N$: $$\left(
\begin{array}{c|c}
\begin{array}{ccccccc}
1 & & & & 1 & & \\
& \ddots & & \cdots & & \ddots & \\
& & 1 & & & & 1 \\
& \vdots & & & & \vdots & \\
1 & & & & 1 & & \\
& \ddots & & \cdots & & \ddots & \\
& & 1 & & & & 1 \\
\end{array}
&
\begin{array}{c}
0
\end{array}
\\
\hline
\begin{array}{c}
0
\end{array}
&
\begin{array}{ccccccc}
1 & & & & 1 & & \\
& \ddots & & \cdots & & \ddots & \\
& & 1 & & & & 1 \\
& \vdots & & & & \vdots & \\
1 & & & & 1 & & \\
& \ddots & & \cdots & & \ddots & \\
& & 1 & & & & 1 \\
\end{array}
\end{array}
\right).$$ In both cases, the eigenvalues of $BB^\dagger$ are either $0$ or $N(N-2)/(N-1)^2$. Hence, the eigenvalues of $D$ are either $1$ or $1/(N-1)^2$.
Exemplary transformation for $N=4$
----------------------------------
We shall only present the $D$ matrices. Following the method above one finds $$D = \frac{1}{3}
\begin{pmatrix}
2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -1\\
0 & 2 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 2 & -1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & -1 & 2 & 0 & 0\\
0 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 2 & 0\\
-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 2
\end{pmatrix}.$$ This is not the only solution given the constraints $\mathcal{T}^2 = \mathds{1}$ and $\mathcal{T} = \mathcal{T}^\dagger$. The following two matrices were obtained by other means: $$D_2 = \frac{1}{3} \left(
\begin{array}{cccccc}
1 & -i & i & -i & i & 0\\
i & 1 & 1 & -1 & 0 & -i\\
-i & 1 & 1 & 0 & -1 & i\\
i & -1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & -i\\
-i & 0 & -1 & 1 & 1 & i\\
0 & i & -i & i & -i & 1
\end{array} \right),$$ $$D_3 = \frac{1}{3} \left(
\begin{array}{cccccc}
1 & -1 & -i & i & 1 & 0\\
-1 & 1 & -i & i & 0 & 1\\
i & i & 1 & 0 & -i & -i\\
-i & -i & 0 & 1 & i & i\\
1 & 0 & i & -i & 1 & -1\\
0 & 1 & i & -i & -1 & 1
\end{array} \right).$$ If we use $D_3$ as an example, then $\mathcal{T}$ has the following elements: $$\mathcal{T} = \frac{1}{3}
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\
1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & i & -1 & -i & -i & -1 & i \\
1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & -1 & 1 & -1 & -1 & 1 & -1 \\
1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & -i & -1 & i & i & -1 & -i \\
1 & -i & -1 & i & 1 & -1 & -i & i & 1 & 0 \\
1 & -1 & 1 & -1 & -1 & 1 & -i & i & 0 & 1 \\
1 & i & -1 & -i & i & i & 1 & 0 & -i & -i \\
1 & i & -1 & -i & -i & -i & 0 & 1 & i & i \\
1 & -1 & 1 & -1 & 1 & 0 & i & -i & 1 & -1\\
1 & -i & -1 & i & 0 & 1 & i & -i & -1 & 1
\end{pmatrix}.$$
[10]{}
A. C. Elitzur and L. Vaidman. Quantum mechanical interaction-free measurements. , 23,987 (1993).
L. Vaidman. On the realisation of interaction-free measurements. , 6,119 (1994).
P. Kwiat, H. Weinfurter, T. Herzog, A. Zeilinger, and M. A. Kasevich. Interaction-free measurement. , 74,4763 (1995).
M. Hafner and J. Summhammer. Experiment on interaction-free measurement in neutron interferometry. , 235,563 (1997).
T. Tsegaye, E. Goobar, A. Karlsson, G. Björk, M. Y. Loh, and K. H. Lim. Efficient interaction-free measurements in a high-finesse interferometer. , 57,3987 (1998).
C. Robens, W. Alt, C. Emary, D. Meschede, and A. Alberti. Atomic “bomb testing”: the Elitzur–Vaidman experiment violates the Leggett–Garg inequality. , 123,12 (2017).
X.-S. Ma, X. Guo, C. Schuck, K. Y. Fong, L. Jiang, and H. X. Tang. On-chip interaction-free measurements via the quantum Zeno effect. , 90,042109 (2014).
G. S. Paraoanu. Interaction-free measurements with superconducting qubits. , 97,180406 (2006).
W. K. Wootters and W. H. Zurek. A single quantum cannot be cloned. , 299,802 (1982).
D. Dieks. Communication by EPR devices. , 92,271 (1982).
H. Barnum, C. M. Caves, C. A. Fuchs, R. Jozsa, and B. Schumacher. Noncommuting mixed states cannot be broadcast. , 76,2818 (1996).
M. Piani, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki. No-local-broadcasting theorem for multipartite quantum correlations. , 100,090502 (2008).
A. K. Pati and S. L. Braunstein. Impossibility of deleting an unknown quantum state. , 404,164 (2000).
B. Dakić, T. Paterek, and [Č]{}. Brukner. Density cubes and higher-order interference theories. , 16,023028 (2014).
R. D. Sorkin. Quantum mechanics as quantum measure theory. , 9,3119 (1994).
C. M. Lee and J. H. Selby. Higher-order interference in extensions of quantum theory. , 47,89 (2017).
U. Sinha, C. Couteau, T. Jennewein, R. Laflamme, and G. Weihs. Ruling out multi-order interference in quantum mechanics. , 329,418 (2010).
I. Sollner, B. Gschosser, P. Mai, B. Pressl, Z. Voros, and G. Weihs. Testing Born’s rule in quantum mechanics for three mutually exclusive events. , 42,742 (2012).
D. Park, O. Moussa, and R. Laflamme. Three path interference using nuclear magnetic resonance: A test of the consistency of Born’s rule. , 14,113025 (2012).
T. Kauten, R. Keil, T. Kaufmann, B. Pressl, [Č]{}. Brukner, and G. Weihs. Obtaining tight bounds on higher-order interferences with a 5-path interferometer. , 19,033017 (2017).
C. M. Lee and J. H. Selby. Generalised phase kick-back: The structure of computational algorithms from physical principles. , 18,033023 (2016).
C. M. Lee and J. H. Selby. Deriving Grover’s lower bound from simple physical principles. , 18,093047 (2016).
H. Barnum, M. P. Müller, and C. Ududec. Higher-order interference and single-system postulates characterizing quantum theory. , 16,123029 (2014).
H. Barnum, C. M. Lee, C. M. Scandolo, and J. H. Selby. Ruling out higher-order interference from purity principles. , 19,253 (2017).
C. M. Lee and J. H. Selby. A no-go theorem for theories that decohere to quantum mechanics. 474,20170732 (2018).
C. Ududec, H. Barnum, and J. Emerson. Three slit experiments and the structure of quantum theory. , 41,396 (2011).
C. Ududec. . PhD thesis, University of Waterloo (2012).
K. Życzkowski. Quartic quantum theory: an extension of the standard quantum mechanics. , 41,355302 (2008).
A. Bolotin. On the ongoing experiments looking for higher-order interference: What are they really testing? arXiv:1611.06461 (2016).
Y. Tikochinsky. Feynman rules for probability amplitudes. , 27,543 (1988).
P. Goyal, K. H. Knuth, and J. Skilling. Origin of complex quantum amplitudes and Feynman’s rules. , 81,022109 (2010).
A. J. Short and J. Barrett. Strong nonlocality: A tradeoff between states and measurements. , 12,033034 (2010).
A. Wilce. Symmetry, self-duality and the Jordan structure of quantum mechanics. page arXiv:1110.6607 (2011).
S. Popescu and D. Rohrlich. Quantum nonlocality as an axiom. , 24,379 (1994).
W. van Dam. . PhD thesis, University of Oxford (2000).
G. Brassard, H. Buhrman, N. Linden, A. A. Methot, A. Tapp, and F. Unger. Limit on nonlocality in any world in which communication complexity is not trivial. , 96,250401 (2006).
M. Paw[ł]{}owski, T. Paterek, D. Kaszlikowski, V. Scarani, A. Winter, and M. Żukowski. Information causality as a physical principle. , 461,1101 (2009).
M. Navascues and H. Wunderlich. A glance beyond the quantum model. , 466,881 (2010).
O. C. O. Dahlsten, D. Lercher, and R. Renner. Tsirelson’s bound from a generalised data processing inequality. , 14,063024 (2012).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The game of Tetris is an important benchmark for research in artificial intelligence and machine learning. This paper provides a historical account of the algorithmic developments in Tetris and discusses open challenges. Handcrafted controllers, genetic algorithms, and reinforcement learning have all contributed to good solutions. However, existing solutions fall far short of what can be achieved by expert players playing without time pressure. Further study of the game has the potential to contribute to important areas of research, including feature discovery, autonomous learning of action hierarchies, and sample-efficient reinforcement learning.'
bibliography:
- 'tetris\_refs.bib'
---
Introduction
============
The game of Tetris has been used for more than 20 years as a domain to study sequential decision making under uncertainty. It is generally considered a rather difficult domain. So far, various algorithms have yielded good strategies of play but they have not approached the level of performance reached by expert players playing without time pressure. Further work on the game has the potential to contribute to important topics in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning, including feature discovery, autonomous learning of action hierarchies, and sample-efficient reinforcement learning.
In this article, we first describe the game and provide a brief history. We then review the various algorithmic approaches taken in the literature. The most recent and successful player was developed using approximate dynamic programming. We conclude with a discussion of current challenges and how existing work on Tetris can inform approaches to other games and to real-world problems. In the Appendix we provide a table of the algorithms reviewed and a description of the features used.
The Game of Tetris
==================
Tetris is one of the most well liked video games of all time. It was created by Alexey Pajitnov in the USSR in 1984. It quickly turned into a popular culture icon that ignited copyright battles amid the tensions of the final years of the Cold War [@docu2004].
The game is played on a two-dimensional grid, initially empty. The grid gradually fills up as pieces of different shapes, called *Tetriminos*, fall from the top, one at a time. The player can control how each Tetrimino lands by rotating it and moving it horizontally, to the left or to the right, any number of times, as it falls one row at a time until one of its cells sits directly on top of a full cell or on the grid floor. When an entire row becomes full, the whole row is deleted, creating additional space on the grid. The game ends when there is no space at the top of the grid for the next Tetrimino. Each game of Tetris ends with probability 1 because there are sequences of Tetriminos that terminate the game, no matter how well they are placed [@Burgiel1997]. Figure \[fig:screenshot\] shows a screenshot of the game along with the seven Tetriminos.
Despite its simple mechanics, Tetris is a complex game. Even if the full sequence of Tetriminos is known, maximizing the number of rows cleared is NP-complete [@Demaine2003].
![Screenshot of Tetris on Gameboy and the seven Tetriminos.[]{data-label="fig:screenshot"}](tetris_sc.png "fig:"){width="23.00000%"} ![Screenshot of Tetris on Gameboy and the seven Tetriminos.[]{data-label="fig:screenshot"}](tetriminos.pdf "fig:"){width="23.00000%"}
Tetris can be modeled as a Markov decision process. In the most typical formulation, a state includes the current configuration of the grid as well as the identity of the falling Tetrimino. The available actions are the possible legal placements that can be achieved by rotating and translating the Tetrimino before dropping it.
This formulation ignores some pieces of information provided in some implementations of the game, for example, the identity of the *next* Tetrimino to fall after the current one is placed. It also excludes actions that are available in some implementations of the game. One example is sliding a Tetrimino under a cliff, which is known as an *overhang*. Another example is rotating the T-shaped Tetrimino to fill an otherwise unreachable slot at the very last moment. This maneuver is known as a *T-spin* and it gives extra points in some implementations of the game.
The original version of the game used a scoring function that awards one point for each cleared line. Subsequent versions allocate more points for clearing more than one line simultaneously. Clearing four lines at once, by placing an I-shaped Tetrimino in a deep well, is allocated the largest number of points. Most implementations of Tetris by researchers use the original scoring function, where a single point is allocated to each cleared line.
Algorithms and Features {#sec:algorithms}
=======================
Tetris is estimated to have $7 \times 2^{200}$ states. Given this large number, the general approach has been to approximate a value function or learn a policy using a set of features that describe either the current state or the current state–action pair. Tetris poses a number of difficulties for research. First, small changes in the implementation of the game cause very large differences in scores. This makes comparison of scores from different research articles difficult. Second, the score obtained in the game has a very large variance. Therefore, a large number of games need to be completed to accurately assess average performance. Furthermore, games can take a very long time to complete. Researchers who have developed algorithms that can play Tetris reasonably well have found themselves waiting for days for a single game to be over. For that reason, it is common to work with grids smaller than the standard grid size of $20\times10$. A reasonable way to make the game shorter, without compromising its nature, is to use a grid size of $10\times10$. The scores reported in this article are those achieved on the standard grid of size $20\times10$, unless otherwise noted.
The most common approach to Tetris has been to develop a linear evaluation function, where each possible placement of the Tetrimino is evaluated to select the placement with the highest value. In the next sections, we discuss the features used in these evaluation functions, as well as how the weights are tuned.
Early Attempts
--------------
@tsitsiklis1996feature used Tetris as a test bed for large-scale feature-based dynamic programming. They used two simple state features: the number of holes, and the height of the highest column. They achieved a score of around 30 cleared lines on a $16\times10$ grid.
@Bertsekas1996 added two sets of features: height of each column, and the difference in height between consecutive columns. Using lambda-policy iteration, they achieved a score of around 2,800 lines. Note, however, that their implementation for ending the game effectively reduces the grid to a size of $19\times10$.
@lagoudakis2002least added further features, including mean column height and the sum of the differences in consecutive column heights. Using least-squares policy iteration, they achieved an average score of between 1,000 and 3,000 lines.
@kakade2002natural used a policy-gradient algorithm to clear 6,800 lines on average using the same features as @Bertsekas1996.
@farias2006tetris studied an algorithm that samples constraints in the form of Bellman equations for a linear programming solver. The solver finds a policy that clears around 4,500 lines using the features used by @Bertsekas1996.
@ramon2004numeric used relational reinforcement learning with a Gaussian kernel and achieved a score of around 50 cleared lines. @romdhane2008reinforcement combined reinforcement learning and case-based reasoning using patterns of small parts of the grid. Their scores were also around 50 cleared lines.
Hand-Crafted Agent
------------------
Until 2008, the best artificial Tetris player was handcrafted, as reported by @Fahey2003. Pierre Dellacherie, a self-declared average Tetris player, identified six simple features and tuned the weights by trial and error. These features were number of *holes*, *landing height* of the piece, number of *row transitions* (transitions from a full square to an empty one, or vice versa, examining each row from end to end), number of *column transitions*, *cumulative number of wells*, and *eroded cells* (number of cleared lines multiplied by the number of holes in those lines filled by the present Tetrimino). The evaluation function was as follows: $- 4 \times holes - cumulative\:wells \\
- row\:transitions
- column\:transitions \\
- landing\:height +
eroded\:cells$ This linear evaluation function cleared an average of 660,000 lines on the full grid. The scores were reported on an implementation where the game was over if the falling Tetrimino had no space to appear on the grid (in the center of the top row). In the simplified implementation used by the approaches discussed earlier, the games would have continued further, until every placement would overflow the grid. Therefore, this report underrates this simple linear rule compared to other algorithms.
Genetic Algorithms
------------------
@bohm2005 used evolutionary algorithms to develop a Tetris controller. In their implementation, the agent knows not only the falling Tetrimino but also the next one. This makes their results incomparable to those achieved on versions with knowledge of only the current Tetrimino. They evolved both a linear and an exponential policy. They reported 480,000,000 lines cleared using the linear function and 34,000,000 using the exponential function, both on the standard grid. They introduced new features such as the number of connected holes, number of occupied cells, and the number of occupied cells weighted by its height. These additional features were not picked up in subsequent research.
@Szita2006 used the cross-entropy algorithm and achieved 350,000 lines cleared. The algorithm probes random parameter vectors in search of the linear policy that maximizes the score. For each parameter vector, a number of games are played. The mean and standard deviation of the best parameter vectors are used to generate a new generation of policies. A constantly decreasing noise allows for an efficient exploration of the parameter space. Later, @szita2007learning also successfully applied a version of the cross-entropy algorithm to Ms. Pac-Man, another difficult domain.
Following this work, @Thiery2009 [@Thiery2009b] added a couple of features (hole depth and rows with holes) and developed the BCTS controller using the cross-entropy algorithm, where BCTS stands for building controllers for Tetris. They achieved an average score of 35,000,000 cleared lines. With the addition of a new feature, pattern diversity, BCTS won the 2008 Reinforcement Learning Competition.
In [-@Boumaza2009], @Boumaza2009 introduced another evolutionary algorithm to Tetris, the covariance matrix adaptation evolution strategy (CMA-ES). He saw that the resulting weights were very close to Dellacherie’s and also cleared 35,000,000 lines on average.
The success of genetic algorithms deserves our attention given the recent resurgence of evolutionary strategies as strong competitors for reinforcement learning algorithms [@salimans2017evolution]. Notably, they are easier to parallelize than reinforcement learning algorithms. As discussed below, the latest reported reinforcement learning algorithm uses an evolutionary strategy inside the policy evaluation step [@Gabillon2013; @Scherrer2015].
Approximate Modified Policy Iteration
-------------------------------------
@Gabillon2013 found a vector of weights that achieved 51,000,000 cleared lines using a classification-based policy iteration algorithm inspired by @lagoudakis2003reinforcement. This is the first reinforcement learning algorithm that has a performance comparable with that of the genetic algorithms. @lagoudakis2003reinforcement’s idea is to make use of sophisticated classifiers inside the loop of reinforcement learning algorithms to identify good actions. @Gabillon2013 estimated values of state–action pairs using rollouts and then minimized a complex function of these rollouts using the CMA-ES algorithm [@Hansen2001]. This is the most widely known evolutionary strategy [@salimans2017evolution]. Within this algorithm, CMA-ES performs a cost-sensitive classification task, hence the name of the algorithm: classification-based modified policy iteration (CBMPI).
The sample of states used by CBMPI was extracted from trajectories played by BCTS and then subsampled to make the grid height distribution more uniform. CBMPI takes at least as long as BCTS to achieve a good level of performance. Furthermore, how best to subsample to achieve good performance is not well understood [@Scherrer2015 p. 27].
We next review an approach of a different nature: how the structure of the decision environment allows for domain knowledge to be integrated into the learning algorithm.
Structure of the Decision Environment {#sec:structures}
=====================================
Real-world problems present regularities of various types. It is therefore reasonable to expect regularities in the decision problems encountered when playing video games such as Tetris. Recent work has identified some of these regularties and has shown that learning algorithms can exploit them to achieve better performance [@Simsek2016].
Specifically, @Simsek2016 showed that three types of regularities are prevalent in Tetris: simple dominance, cumulative dominance, and noncompensation. When these conditions hold, a large number of placements can be (correctly) eliminated from consideration even when the exact weights of the evaluation function are unknown. For example, when one placement simply dominates another placement (which means that one placement is superior to the other in at least one feature and inferior in none), the dominated placement can be eliminated.
In Tetris, the median number of possible placements of the falling Tetrimino is 17. @Simsek2016 reduced this number to 3 by using simple dominance to eliminate inferior placements, and to 1 by using cumulative dominance. The filtering of actions based on a few indicative features is an ability that can potentially be useful in many unsolved problems. Simpler and more sensitive functions for making decisions can be found after filtering inferior alternatives from the action space, perhaps in a way similar to how people’s attention is guided to a small set of alternatives that they consider worthy.
Open Challenges {#sec:challenges}
===============
So far, the transformation of raw squares of the Tetris grid to a handful of useful features has been carried out by hand. Tetris is not yet part of the OpenAI universe or the Atari domain. No deep learning algorithm has learned to play well from raw inputs. @stevensplaying and @lewis2015generalisation have reported attempts that achieved at most a couple hundred lines cleared. The scoring function where clearing multiple lines at once gives extra points makes a big difference in what policies score well. For this scoring function, it is likely that a linear evaluation function is not the best choice. Tetris would thus constitute a great test bed for learning hierarchies of actions (or options; @sutton1999between), where a subgoal could be to set the stage for the I-shaped Tetrimino to clear four lines at once. T-spins are also performed this way: the player needs to set the stage and then wait for the T shape to be able to perform the maneuver. These subgoals are not defined by a unique state but by features of the grid that allow the desired action. People enjoy playing Tetris and can learn to play reasonably well after a little practice. Some effort is being made to understand how people do this [@sibert15csc]. Progress in this research may help AI tackle the type of problems that gamers face every day.
@kirsh1994distinguishing gave a detailed account of how people perceive a Tetrimino and execute the actions necessary to place it. But an important question is not yet answered: How do people decide where to place the Tetrimino?
Finally, we have not yet developed an efficient learning algorithm for Tetris. Current best approaches require hundreds of thousands of samples, have a noisy learning process, and rely on a prepared sample of states extracted from games played by a policy that already plays well. The challenge is still to develop an algorithm that reliably learns to play using little experience.
Beyond Tetris {#sec:beyond}
=============
Can something be learned from Tetris that can be applied to bigger problems such as real-time strategy (RTS) or open-world games? Tetris may seem like a small game when compared to StarCraft or Minecraft. All of these games, however, share the difficulty that virtually no situation is encountered twice. Furthermore, fast learning should be possible by exploiting the regularities in the game.
Typically, AI bots facing RTS problems, such as StarCraft, deal with subtasks separately: high-level strategic reasoning is dealt with separately from tactics [@ontanon2013survey p. 4]. Tetris can be thought of as one of these subtasks, where a simple rule using an appropriate set of features can perform well. Different tasks may need different features. A high-level strategy, for instance, needs spatial features such as *trafficability*[^1] [@forbus2002qualitative p. 35] whereas tactics, where a unit decides to continue attacking or retreat, may use features such as the number of units. The unit-counting heuristic is reportedly used by a StarCraft bot to decide whether to retreat or keep attacking [@ontanon2013survey p. 10].
Environmental structures such as those found in Tetris are likely to be present in other problems as well. In fact, simple dominance was also observed in backgammon, a complex game requiring multiple high-level strategies to play at expert level [@Simsek2016 p. 7]. Similar approaches can inform the development of heuristics in problems such as StarCraft. Another example is based on the fact that units on higher ground always have an advantage over units on lower ground [@ontanon2013survey p 3]. Strategies where units move to higher ground will likely dominate other strategies. There may be no need to look further.
As AI research continues to deal with increasingly difficult real-world problems, inspiration may come from how people cope with the uncertainties in their lives. Video games, such as Tetris, provide controlled environments where people’s decision making can be studied in depth. Game players have limited time and limited computational resources to consider every possible action open to them. Uncertainty about consequences, limited information about alternatives, and the sheer complexity of the problems they face make any exhaustive computation infeasible [@simon1972theories p. 169]. Yet they make hundreds of decisions in a minute and outperform every existing algorithm in a number of domains.
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
Algorithms {#algorithms .unnumbered}
----------
Table \[algorithms-table\] shows the algorithms that have been used to learn strategies for the game of Tetris, along with their reported scores and used feature sets.
0.15in
[L[5cm]{}L[3.3cm]{}cL[2.3cm]{}L[3.2cm]{}]{} & Algorithm & Grid Size & Lines Cleared & Feature Set Used\
@tsitsiklis1996feature & Approximate value iteration & $16\times10$ & 30 & [Holes and pile height]{}\
@Bertsekas1996 & $\lambda$ - PI & $19\times10$ & 2,800 & [Bertsekas]{}\
@lagoudakis2002least & Least-squares PI & $20\times10$ & $\approx$ 2,000 & [Lagoudakis]{}\
@kakade2002natural & Natural policy gradient & $20\times10$ & $\approx$ 5,000 & [Bertsekas]{}\
Dellacherie\
[\[Reported by @Fahey2003\]]{} & Hand tuned & $20\times10$ & 660,000 & [Dellacherie]{}\
@ramon2004numeric & Relational RL & $20\times10$ & $\approx$ 50 &\
@bohm2005 & Genetic algorithm & $20\times10$& 480,000,000 (Two Piece)&[B[ö]{}hm]{}\
@farias2006tetris & Linear programming & $20\times10$ & 4,274 & [Bertsekas]{}\
@Szita2006 & Cross entropy & $20\times10$ &348,895 & [Dellacherie]{}\
@romdhane2008reinforcement & Case-based reasoning and RL & $20\times10$ & $\approx$ 50 &\
@Boumaza2009 & CMA-ES & $20\times10$ & 35,000,000& BCTS\
@Thiery2009 [@Thiery2009b]& Cross entropy& $20\times10$ & 35,000,000& [DT]{}\
@Gabillon2013& Classification-based policy iteration&$20\times10$& 51,000,000& [DT]{} for policy for value\
-0.1in
Feature Sets {#feature-sets .unnumbered}
------------
[**<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bertsekas:</span>**]{} Number of *holes*, height of the highest column (also known as *pile height*), *column height*, and *difference in height of consecutive columns*. Twenty-one features in total.
[**<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Lagoudakis:</span>**]{} Number of *holes*, pile height, *sum of differences in height of consecutive columns*, *mean height*, and the change in value of the mentioned features between current and next state. Finally, *cleared lines*. Nine features in total.
[**<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Dellacherie:</span>**]{} number of *holes*, *landing height* of the Tetrimino, number of *row transitions* (transitions from a full square to an empty one, or vice versa, examining each row from end to end), number of *column transitions*, *cumulative wells*, and *eroded cells* (number of cleared lines multiplied by the number of holes in those lines filled by the present Tetrimino). A square that is part of a well is an empty square that can be reached from above with full squares on the sides. A well’s depth is the number of vertically connected such squares. *Cumulative wells* is defined as $\sum_w{\sum_{i=1}^{d(w)}{i}}$, where $w$ is a well and $d(w)$ is its depth.
[**<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">B[ö]{}hm:</span>**]{} *Pile height*, *connected holes* (same as holes but vertically connected holes count as one), *cleared lines*, *difference in height between the highest and lowest column*, *maximum well depth*, *sum of wells’ depth*, *landing height* of the Tetrimino, *number of occupied squares*, *number of occupied squares weighted by their height*, *row transitions* and *column transitions*.
[**<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">BCTS (Building controllers for Tetris):</span>**]{} Dellacherie’s feature set with the addition of *hole depth* (sum of full squares in the column above each hole) and *rows with holes*.
[**<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">DT (Dellacherie plus Thiery):</span>**]{} BCTS’s feature set with the addition of *pattern diversity*, which is the number of patterns formed by the difference in height of two subsequent columns. For example, if a column has height 10 and the next one height 9, the pattern is 1. *Pattern diversity* is the number of distinct such patterns with a magnitude lower than 3.
[**<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">RBF:</span>**]{} Radial basis functions of the mean height of the columns. They are defined as $exp(\frac{{-|c-ih/4|}^2}{2(h/5)^2})$, *i* = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, where *c* is the mean height of the columns and *h* is the total height of the grid.
[^1]: Trafficability refers to “the ability of a vehicle or unit to move across a specified piece of terrain.”
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper presents a puncturing technique to design length-compatible polar codes. The punctured bits are identified with the help of differential evolution (DE). A DE-based optimization framework is developed where the sum of the bit-error-rate (BER) values of the information bits is minimized. We identify a set of bits which can be avoided for puncturing in the case of additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) channels. This reduces the size of the candidate puncturing patterns. Simulation results confirm the superiority of the proposed technique over other state-of-the-art puncturing methods.'
author:
-
-
- |
Kuntal Deka$^{1}$ and Sanjeev Sharma$^{2}$\
$^1$ Indian Institute of Technology Goa, India $^2$Indian Institute of Technology (BHU) Varanasi, India
bibliography:
- 'references\_polar.bib'
title:
---
\[1\][>[\
]{}m[\#1]{}]{} \[1\][>[\
]{}m[\#1]{}]{} \[1\][>[\
]{}m[\#1]{}]{}
Polar codes, puncturing, length-compatibility, successive cancellation decoder.
Introduction
============
Polar code, proposed by Arikan [@arikan_2009], is an important milestone in coding theory and has undoubtedly completed the long quest for capacity-achieving codes. In the original version [@arikan_2009], the polarizing or the generator matrix was constructed by the Kronecker power of the binary $2\times2$ kernel ${\bf{F}}_2=\left[\begin{smallmatrix} 1&0\\ 1&1 \end{smallmatrix} \right]$. Due to this choice, the lengths are limited to powers of 2. Various polarizing kernels of larger size and defined over non-binary alphabets have been proposed [@nb_polar_rs; @urbanke_polar_2010]. However, these kernels do not ensure low-complexity decoding methods as in the case of ${\bf{F}}_2$. Therefore, designing polar codes of arbitrary lengths with reasonable decoding complexity is a vital problem.
Puncturing is a simple and effective technique to modify the rate and the length of a code. The rate of a polar code can be conveniently adapted by varying the number of frozen or information bits. Puncturing is not required for the rate-adaptability of a polar code. However, to attain length-compatibility for the polar codes, puncturing is very helpful. In [@QUP], an efficient method is proposed to design length-compatible polar codes. This method is referred to as the quasi-uniform puncturing (QUP). Suppose, one needs to puncture $n_p$ bits of a polar code of length $N$. In QUP, the bit-reversed versions of the first $n_p$ consecutive integers $\left\{1,2, \cdots, n_p\right\}$ are considered for puncturing. The method in [@novel_puncturing] selects the bit-reversed versions of the last $n_p$ consecutive integers $\left\{N-n_p+1, \cdots, N\right\}$ as the puncturing bits. The authors in [@shin_length_compatible] have proposed a puncturing technique by analyzing the reduced polarization matrix after the removal of the columns and the rows corresponding to the punctured and the frozen bits respectively. In [@declercq_icc_2017], the authors have partitioned the puncturing patterns into various equivalent classes and proposed a method to find the optimum pattern by examining only one representative of each class.
{#section .unnumbered}
In this paper, the determination of the best puncturing pattern is formulated as an optimization problem. Differential evolution (DE) is used for the optimization process. DE is a popular and simple evolutionary algorithm which is used to solve complex optimization problems with real-valued parameters [@Storn1997]. The suitability of various figures of merit or parameters for the objective function is studied. After analyzing the behaviors of these parameters during the decoding process under puncturing, we decide to consider the sum of the bit-error-rate (BER) values of the information bits as the objective function. The selection of the information bits depends heavily on the puncturing pattern. We propose a DE-based search algorithm to find the optimum pair of the sets of the punctured and the information bits simultaneously by minimizing the sum of the BER values for the information bits. A technique to reduce the search-space for punctured bits is presented where the even-indexed bits are overlooked.
Preliminaries
=============
Consider a polar code with the block length $N=2^m,~m\in \mathbb{Z}^+$. The generator matrix is given by ${\bf{G}}_N={\bf{B}}_N{\bf{F}}_2^{\bigotimes m}$ where, ${\bf{B}}_N$ is the bit-reversal permutation matrix and $^{\bigotimes m}$ is the Kronecker power [@arikan_2009]. For a binary data vector $u_1^{{N}}=(u_{1}, u_{2},\ldots, u_{N})$, the codeword ${x}^{N}_1$ is obtained by ${x}^{N}_1=u_1^{\textit{N}}{\bf{G}}_N$. This encoding process produces a set of $N$ polarized synthetic bit-channels. For a rate $R=\frac{K}{N}$ code, the $K$ *information* bits are carried over the best $K$ bit-channels by putting them into the respective slots $\cal{I}$ in $u_1^N$. The bits in the other locations ${\cal{I}}^c$ are *frozen* to 0 and these values are known perfectly to the decoder. The decoding is done by the successive cancellation (SC) algorithm [@arikan_2009].
In order to derive a length-$N'$ polar code from a mother code of length $N$, a total of $n_p=N-N'$ bits of the codeword $x_1^N$ need to be punctured. The rate of the modified code is given by $R'=\frac{K}{N-n_p}$. Let ${\cal{P}}$ denote the set of puncturing bits with $\left|{\cal{P}}\right|=n_p$. The coded bits corresponding to ${\cal{P}}$ are not transmitted. The decoder knows only the location of the punctured bits and sets their initial log-likelihood ratio (LLR) values to zero. Because of the puncturing of the bits in $\cal{P}$, the quality of the synthesized bit-channels get modified and the information set $\cal{I}$ should be re-selected.
Design of Puncturing Pattern based on Differential Evolution
============================================================
Suppose the objective is to derive a length-$N'$ polar code from a length-$N$ one. For that, one needs to puncture $n_p=N-N'$ bits. The number of candidate bits is $D=N$ and we have to select the best $n_p$ bits amongst these $D$ bits. The optimization problem can be formulated as: $$\label{opt_problem}
\left[{\cal{P}}_m, {\cal{I}}_m\right] =\arg \min_{{\cal{P}}, {\cal{I}}} f\left({\cal{P}}, {\cal{I}}, \frac{E_b}{N_0}\right)$$ where, the objective function is $ f\left({\cal{P}}, {\cal{I}}, \frac{E_b}{N_0}\right)$ and $\frac{E_b}{N_0}$ is the signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR). There are many figures of merit which can be considered as the objective function. Some of these are Bhattacharrya parameters of the bit-channels, the BER values of the individual bits computed by Monte Carlo simulation, the mean of the LLRs etc. These parameters are also taken into consideration in the construction step [@harish_construction]. In order to find the best figure of merit for puncturing, we analyze the evolution of various parameters during decoding under the influence of puncturing.
Consider the generation of $N'=3$ polar code from $N=4$ mother polar code by puncturing one bit in the case of binary erasure channel (BEC). In Fig. \[pu1\](a), the coded-bit $x_1$ is punctured. Since, this bit is completely erased, the first channel effectively becomes a BEC with erasure probability 1. The other channels are identical and equal to BEC with erasure probability $\epsilon$. By applying Proposition 6 of [@arikan_2009], the evolution of these parameters at different layers is shown in Fig. \[pu1\](a) when $x_1$ is punctured. These are found to be $\left\{1, 2\epsilon-\epsilon^2,\epsilon+\epsilon^2-\epsilon^3, \epsilon^3 \right\}$ for the bit-channels. Consider the case when $x_4$ is punctured instead of $x_1$ as shown in Fig. \[pu1\](b). The Bhattacharyya parameters are the same as that in the previous case.
This means that the puncturing patterns $\left\{1\right\}$ and $\left\{4\right\}$ are equivalent when the underlying channel is BEC. However, for other channels, these two puncturing patterns may not be equivalent. Fig. \[pu3\] shows such a situation when the underlying channel is AWGN (represented by $W$). The BER values of the input bits as computed from Monte Carlo simulation are $\{0.49975, 0.17588, 0.17591, 0.09771\}$ and $\left\{0.50008, 0.49997, 0.49998, 0.49994\right\}$ for the puncturing patterns $\{1\}$ and $\{4\}$ respectively at $\frac{E_b}{N_0}=1$ dB[^1]. This shows that $\{1\}$ is better than $\{4\}$ and in fact $\{4\}$ should be avoided for puncturing. Observe that here, we have considered all the input bits to be the information bits. The BER values after the selection of the information bits are also analyzed here. These BER values are more appropriate measures and are shown within brackets in Fig. \[pu3\] when the rate $R=0.5$. It can be safely concluded that $\{x_1\}$ is a better puncturing pattern than $\{x_4\}$.
Initialize the population matrix ${\bf{P}}$ to a matrix of size $S_P \times D$ having random numbers uniformly distributed over $[0,1]$ where $D=N$
Set ${\cal{P}}_m$ to ${\bf{z}}_{\min}^{p}$ Assign the set ${\cal{I}}_{{\bf{z}}_{\min}^{p}}$ of information bits to ${\cal{I}}_m$
The above examples show that the Bhattacharyya parameters are not suitable for designing puncturing patterns for general channels. The BER values computed from Monte Carlo simulation are more reliable features. Therefore, in (\[opt\_problem\]), we consider the objective function $ f\left({\cal{P}}, {\cal{I}}, \frac{E_b}{N_0}\right)$ as the sum of the BER values of the bits in the information set $\cal{I}$ at SNR $\frac{E_b}{N_0}$ when the coded bits in $\cal{P}$ are punctured. For brevity, $ f\left({\cal{P}}, {\cal{I}}, \frac{E_b}{N_0}\right)$ will be substituted by $ f\left({\cal{P}}\right)$ with the understanding that $\cal{I}$ is the optimum information set for ${\cal{P}}$ at a fixed SNR$=\frac{E_b}{N_0}$.
In order to solve (\[opt\_problem\]), we adopt DE. The detailed steps are shown in Algorithm \[algo:puncturing\_DE\]. In DE, a population $\bf{P}$ of vectors is updated iteratively. The number of vectors in the population is denoted by $S_P$. The length of a vector is $D=N$ in this case. At first, $\bf{P}$ is initialized as a matrix of dimension $S_P \times D$ whose elements are chosen uniformly at random from $[0, 1]$. For each vector ${\bf{z}}_i$ , $i =1,\ldots, S_P$ in $\bf{P}$, a trial vector $\bf{w}$ is generated with the given values of crossover rate ($C_r$) and scaling factor ($F$). The details of the generation of the trial vector are presented in Algorithm \[algo:puncturing\_DE\]. Here, we consider the convention that, for any candidate vector ${\bf{z}}_{i}=\left({\bf{z}}_{1,i}, \ldots, {\bf{z}}_{D,i}\right)$, if ${\bf{z}}_{j,i}>{\bf{z}}_{k,i}$, then it is preferable to puncture the $j$th bit compared to the $k$th bit as per that candidate. Based on this convention, the vectors $\bf{w}$ and ${\bf{z}}_i$ are sorted in descending order and the arguments are stored in ${\bf{w}}^{\text{sorted,arg}}$ and ${\bf{z}}_i^{\text{sorted,arg}}$ respectively. Then the first $n_p$ indices are stored in ${\bf{w}}^{p}$ and ${\bf{z}}_i^{p}$. By using Gaussian approximation (GA) method [@trifonov], the information bits ${\cal{I}}_{{\bf{w}}^{p}}$ and ${\cal{I}}_{{\bf{z}}_i^{p}}$ are found out against the puncturing patterns ${\bf{w}}^{p}$ and ${\bf{z}}_i^{p}$ respectively. Note that the information bits need to be re-selected for every distinct puncturing pattern. GA is considered for the construction step as it provides good performance with low complexity [@harish_construction]. Now, by carrying out Monte Carlo simulation, the values of the objective functions $f({\bf{w}}^{p})$ and $f({\bf{z}}^{p}_i)$ are computed. If $f({\bf{w}}^{p})<f({\bf{z}}^{p}_i)$, then the $i$th row of $\bf{P}$ is replaced by the trial vector $\bf{w}$. In this way, every vector in $\bf{P}$ is examined and updated if needed. From the updated ${\bf{P}}$, the best vector ${\bf{z}}_{\min}^{p}$ with the minimum objective value is found out. If there is negligible change in this objective value from the previous iteration or the maximum number of iterations are completed, the algorithm is stopped. The puncturing pattern ${\bf{z}}_{\min}^{p}$ and the corresponding set of the information bits ${\cal{I}}_{{\bf{z}}_{\min}^{p}}$ are returned as the outputs ${\cal{P}}_m$ and ${\cal{I}}_m$.
[******]{}: *For length-compatible polar codes, the search space for the punctured bits can be reduced by ignoring the set $F_P$ of forbidden bits as given by $$F_P={\cal{E}}\cup \left\{N-1\right\}$$ where, ${\cal{E}}=\left\{2,4, \cdots, N-2, N\right\}$ is the set of even-indexed bits. Polar codes of any arbitrary length can be obtained without resorting to puncturing of these forbidden bits. We set $D=\frac{N}{2}-1$ in Algorithm \[algo:puncturing\_DE\].*\
[******]{}: The polar encoding structure for length-$N$ code contains $\log_2 N$ layers with each layer containing $N/2$ basic butterfly structures. The structure contains $N$ branches corresponding to the coded bits.
![[]{data-label="p8"}](punct_8_structure){height="5.7cm" width="6.7cm"}
The situation is explained in Fig. \[p8\] for the case $N=8$. The input bits comprising of the frozen and the information bits are fed to the first layer. The last layer is connected directly to the channels. Consider the SC decoding in LLR domain over a particular basic structure in the last layer as shown in Fig. \[LLR\].
![[]{data-label="LLR"}](fig0){height="2cm" width="8cm"}
The input LLRs to the upper (odd) and the lower (even) branch of the basic structure are $L_o$ and $L_e$ respectively. The outputs are given by: $$\begin{aligned}
L_o'=& 2\tanh^{-1}\left[\tanh\left(\frac{L_o}{2}\right)\tanh\left(\frac{L_e}{2}\right)\right] \\
L_e'=& (1-2\hat{v}_o)L_o +L_e
\end{aligned}
\label{SC_LLR}$$ where, $\hat{v}_o$ is the most recent estimate found regarding the bit $v_o$ while computing $L_e'$.
We take insight from the GA method where the mean of the LLR messages is updated across the layers [@trifonov]. Consider the transmission of all-zero codeword. Suppose, $\mu$ is the mean of the channel LLR values. As shown in Fig. \[LLR\], if the upper or the odd bit $x_o$ is punctured, then $L_o=0$. Subsequently, by (\[SC\_LLR\]), the output LLRs become $L_o'=0, L_e'=L_e$. Thus we have the following pair of mean values $\left(E\left[L_o'\right]=0, E\left[L_e'\right]=\mu \right)$. On the other hand, if the lower or the even bit $x_e$ is punctured, then $L_e=0$. In that case, $L_o'=0$. Note that the computation of $\hat{v}_o$ may benefit from the known values of a few frozen bits by the time $L_e'$ is computed. Suppose, $p$ is the probability that $\hat{v}_o$ is correct i.e., $\Pr\left(\hat{v}_o=v_o=0\right)=p$. In that case, the pair of mean values are given by $\left(E\left[L_o'\right]=0, E\left[L_e'\right]=(2p-1)\mu \right)$. As $p\leq 1$, we have $(2p-1)\mu \leq \mu$. Therefore, when $x_e$ is punctured, the evolution of the mean is slower compared to case where $x_o$ is punctured.
\[involvement\]
In GA, the probability of bit error is inversely proportional to the mean value. This implies that the probability of error for the information bits will be higher when $x_e$ is punctured. Moreover, both the upper and the lower bits of a basic structure should not be punctured simultaneously because it will fully disturb the structure. Therefore, the search space may be reduced by rejecting all even bits $\left({\cal{E}}=\left\{2,4,\ldots, N\right\}\right)$. The total number of even bits is $N/2$. The maximum number of bits to be punctured is $N/2-1$. Amongst the odd bits, the bit or branch‘$N-1$’ appears as the lower branch in the maximum number of basic structures in various layers. The number of involvements of a bit as lower and upper branch are shown in TABLE \[involvement\]. The set ${F}_P$ of the forbidden bits is given by $F_P={\cal{E}}\cup \left\{N-1\right\}$. There is no need to puncture any of the bits in $F_P$ as any lower-length code can be derived from a code of length $N/2$ or less. $\blacksquare$
Consider the case of deriving $N'=6$ polar code from $N=8$ polar code by puncturing $n_p=2$ coded bits. The DE-based algorithm is invoked to find the best $n_p=2$ bits for puncturing. We consider a population matrix $\bf{P}$ of size $4\times3$ with $S_P=4$ and $D=\frac{8}{2}-1=3$. ${\bf{P}}$ is initialized to a random matrix where an element is selected uniformly at random from \[0,1\]. Suppose ${\bf{P}}$ is initialized to the following matrix: $$\label{populationmatrix2}
{\bf{P}}=\left[ {\begin{array}{ccc}
0.68471631 & 0.144816 & 0.26360207\\
0.0790236 & 0.40264467 & 0.13473581\\
0.59553136 & 0.57930957 & 0.77943687 \\
0.96593194 & 0.03113405 & 0.83083448
\end{array} }\right].$$ For every row of $\bf{P}$, a trial vector is generated by carrying out the mutation and the crossover operations. For the selection step, we consider the sum of the BER values of the information bits as the objective function. The punctured bits are identified from the indices of the sorted rows of $\bf{P}$. The first column refers to puncturing of bit 1, the second column refers to puncturing of bit 3 and the third column refers to puncturing of bit 5. For example, consider the first row $\left( 0.68471631, 0.144816, 0.26360207\right)$ of $\bf{P}$ in (\[populationmatrix2\]). As we need to select two bits for puncturing, we consider the indices of the first two highest row elements. The first two highest elements are $\left(0.68471631,0.26360207\right)$ and they refer to puncturing of $\left(1,5\right)$. For these punctured bits, the information bits are selected using GA. Monte Carlo simulation for SC decoding is carried out. The sum of the BER values of the information bits is considered as the objective function during the selection process. If the value of objective function for the first row is higher than that for the trial vector, then the first row is replaced by the trial vector. In this way, every row of $\bf{P}$ is examined and updated iteratively if required. When the stopping criteria are met, the best row or vector (having the lowest sum of the BER values) from $\bf{P}$ is selected and the corresponding set of punctured bits is considered as the optimum pattern.
Simulation Results
==================
In recent communication standards, polar codes of short blocklengths have been considered [@5G_NR]. We present the simulation results for two cases. The short codes are considered so that the punctured bits and the information bits can be explicitly mentioned. Due to space constraint, we provide only the block-error-rate (BLER) performances although the BER results are found to be equally impressive. [******]{}: In this case, we puncture $n_p=28$ bits of polar code of length $N=128$ and rate $R=0.5$. This puncturing will produce a code of length $N'=100$ and rate $R'=0.64$. The DE-based algorithm is run to find the optimum punctured bits and information bits with the parameters $S_P=100, C_r=0.8$ and $F=0.6$ at $\frac{E_b}{N_0}=6$ dB. These bits are shown in Table \[tab:table4\]. The DE-based search algorithm is run to find the optimum puncturing pattern at an SNR such that the BER is around $10^{-5}$. The pattern determined in this way is found to work well at different SNR values.
![[]{data-label="case4"}](fig1){height="6.5cm" width="8cm"}
The BLER performances of the puncturing methods under SC decoding are shown in Figure \[case4\]. Observe that the proposed puncturing pattern yields the best result and offers a coding gain of about 0.8 dB at BLER=$10^{-4}$. The high value of the coding gain confirms the superiority of the DE-based puncturing strategy over the existing methods.
![[]{data-label="list_decoding_case4"}](fig2){height="6.5cm" width="8cm"}
We also evaluate the performances of these puncturing schemes under cyclic-redundancy-check (CRC) aided SC list decoding [@list_decoding]. The size of a list is set to $L = 8$. We consider an outer CRC code of length 16 with generator polynomial $g(x) = x^{16} + x^{12} +
x^5 + 1$. This code is known as CRC-16-CCITT. The CRC coded bits are put in the locations of the last 16 information bits as per the recommendation given in [@list_decoding]. The performances of the puncturing schemes under CRC-aided SC list decoding are shown in Figure \[list\_decoding\_case4\]. Observe that, the proposed puncturing method performs better than the QUP [@QUP] and method in [@novel_puncturing]. However, unlike in the case of SC decoding, the coding gain is relatively small and it is around 0.25 dB at BLER=$10^{-4}$. This reduction of the coding gain is due to the presence of a powerful CRC code as the outer code in the concatenated encoding scheme. Nevertheless, the proposed puncturing method performs significantly better than the existing methods in a purely polar coding environment.
[******]{}: In this case, we puncture $n_p=24$ bits of a polar code of length $N=64$ and rate $R=0.5$. This puncturing will produce a code of length $N'=40$ and rate $R'=0.8$. The DE-based algorithm is run to find the optimum punctured bits and information bits with $S_P=50, C_r=0.8$ and $F=0.6$ at $\frac{E_b}{N_0}=8$ dB. These bits are shown in Table \[tab:table3\].
![[]{data-label="case3"}](fig3){height="6.5cm" width="8cm"}
The BLER performances of the puncturing methods under SC decoding are shown in Figure \[case3\]. Observe that the proposed puncturing pattern yields the best result and offers a coding gain of about 0.3 dB at BLER=$10^{-4}$. This coding gain is smaller than that in the previous case. This is due to the fact that a higher number of bits are punctured which, in turn, produces a code with a high rate of $R'=0.8$.
![[]{data-label="list_decoding_case3"}](fig4){height="6.5cm" width="8cm"}
The performances of the puncturing schemes under CRC-aided SC list decoding are shown in Figure \[list\_decoding\_case3\]. The CRC coded bits are put in the locations of the last 16 information bits. Observe that, in this case also, the proposed puncturing method performs better than the QUP [@QUP] and the method in [@novel_puncturing]. Similar to the previous case, we have experienced a reduction in the coding gain. The coding gain is around 0.2 dB at BLER=$10^{-4}$.
Conclusions
===========
This paper presented a DE-based technique to search for the optimum pair of the puncturing and the information bits for length-compatible polar codes. By analyzing the decoding progression under puncturing, the even-indexed bits and the last odd-indexed bit are excluded from the search space. DE-based optimization is carried over this reduced space. Simulation results are provided to compare the proposed method with other methods in literature.
[^1]: The Monte Carlo method in [@arikan_2009] was used to find the estimates for the Bhattacharyya parameters of the bit channels. As these parameters are related to the probability of error for the input bits, we consider the Monte Carlo simulation to estimate the probability of bit error.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Somil BansalRoberto CalandraKurtland ChuaSergey LevineClaire Tomlin\
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences\
University of California Berkeley, United States\
`{somil, roberto.calandra, kchua, svlevine, tomlin}@berkeley.edu`\
bibliography:
- 'paper.bib'
title: |
MBMF: Model-Based Priors for\
Model-Free Reinforcement Learning
---
Introduction
============
Problem Formulation {#sec:formulation}
===================
Background {#sec:background}
==========
Using Model-based Prior for Model-free RL {#sec:approach}
=========================================
Experimental Results {#sec:result}
====================
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
Appendix {#sec:appendix}
========
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'K. Bouchachia,'
- 'S. Kouadik,'
- 'M. Hachemane'
- 'and M. Schweda'
title: 'One loop radiative corrections to the translation-invariant noncommutative Yukawa Theory'
---
Introduction
=============
In the last two decades, a lot of work has been devoted to the study of noncommutative quantum field theories. The main idea behind these theories is that at the Planck scale the space-time is no longer commutative, this fact makes the noncommutative geometry an essential ingredient when probing spacetime structure at very small distances [@doglas], [@zsabo1]. The original motivation for investigating such theories was the hope of solving the problem of infinities of quantum field theory and the possible formulation of consistent quantum gravity [@dopl1], [@dopl2]. Despite the collective efforts deployed by physicists none of these goals is yet reached.
In fact, instead of the elimination of ultraviolet infinities, the use of noncommutative geometry in quantum field theories gives rise to a new set of problems and makes the short distance behavior of those theories more ambiguous [@filk]-[@ramsd]. The conventional theories became non renormalizable due to the infamous ultraviolet/infrared mixing. Many attempts were made to overcome this UV/IR mixing, but in general, the problem persists.
However, there are few models in which renormalizability was restored. It was achieved by adding a suitable term to the initial action of the theory. The procedure was first used by Grosse and Wulkenhaar [@gross1]-[@gross4] to solve the UV/IR mixing of the noncommutative Euclidean $\varphi^{4}$ theory. In their model they added a harmonic oscillator term which depends explicitly on the Moyal space coordinates $\widetilde{x}^{2}\varphi^{2}$, where $\widetilde{x}_{\mu}=(\theta^{-1})_{\mu\nu}x^{\nu}$. It turns out that the model is covariant under Langmann-Szabo duality [@zsabo2] but also breaks the translation invariance of the action.
Another approach, using the same method, was proposed by R. Gurau et al. [@rivasseau2008]. This model preserves the translation invariance of the noncommutative $\varphi^{4}$ theory. The term added to the action is in fact a non local counter-term of the form $\varphi\frac{1}{\theta^{2}\square}\varphi
$, which is written in momentum space as $\frac{1}{\theta^{2}p^{2}}$. This model is known as the translation-invariant $1/p^{2}$-model. The UV/IR mixing problem was solved by the elimination of the quadratic IR divergence of non-planar diagrams. Both of these scalar models were constructed on the Moyal space and were proven to be renormalizable to all orders in perturbation theory.
The noncommutative fermion theory was also formulated in the case of the Gross-Neveu model [@fabien]. Following the same procedure in Grosse and Wulkenhaar model, the term added to the action is $\overline{\psi}\gamma^{\mu
}\widetilde{x}_{\mu}\psi$. This model was proven to be renormalizable to all orders in perturbation theory, but unlike the noncommutative $\varphi^{4}$ models, it still presents a UV/IR mixing even after renormalization. In fact, the Gross-Neveu model is renormalizable even without adding an extra-term.
Motivated by the renormalizable noncommutative translation-invariant $1/p^{2}%
$-model, and since it has not been extended to fermions, we propose to construct its fermionic version. It is well known in ordinary quantum field theory that the scalar propagator is perceived as the square of the Dirac propagator, indeed we have $$\tilde{G}(p^{2})=\frac{1}{p^{2}+m^{2}}=\frac{1}{i%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{p}{\slashed{p}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\slashed{p}%
%EndExpansion
+m}\times\frac{1}{-i%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{p}{\slashed{p}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\slashed{p}%
%EndExpansion
+m} \label{cond}%$$ this means also that the scalar propagator appears naturally in the expression of the Dirac propagator $$\tilde{D}(p)=\tilde{G}(p^{2})(i%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{p}{\slashed{p}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\slashed{p}%
%EndExpansion
+m)$$ where $\tilde{D}(p)$ is the Dirac propagator and $\tilde{G}(p^{2})$ the scalar propagator, here expressed in their Euclidean forms.
It seems reasonable to impose the condition (\[cond\]) in the noncommutative case if we want to have a consistent theory that involves both scalar and fermion fields. Thus, our starting point is the construction of a model in which the modified scalar and fermion propagators are correlated in the same way as in the ordinary quantum field theory. The extra-term in the fermionic action is chosen accordingly.
The consistency of our model relies on the fulfillment of the condition (\[cond\]), but this does not guarantee its renormalizability. This is why we apply it, in addition to the scalar model, to study the noncommutative pseudo-scalar Yukawa theory. We recall that the Yukawa interaction between a pseudo-scalar field $\varphi$ and a Dirac field $\psi$ is represented in the Euclidean space by the action $$S[\psi,\bar{\psi},\varphi]=\int dx^{4}g\bar{\psi}\gamma^{5}\psi\varphi$$ this interaction is used in the standard model to describe the coupling of Higgs particle with fermions. The calculation of the quantum corrections at one loop level enables us to test the consistency of the whole model and its renormalizability. Further, it reveals more about the behavior of these modified models and allows us to improve them if necessary.
We note here, that the method used in the renormalizable models gave an alternative approach to construct noncommutative field theories free of UV/IR mixing. So, it was natural to extend these models to noncommutative gauge field theory, hoping to have the same success. But unfortunately this method failed to solve UV/IR mixing problem, although several promising approaches were made [@tanasa]-[@gross; @gt]. Currently, there is no explicit procedure to deal with this problem.
The paper is organized as follows: in the next Section we define our model and derive its Feynman rules. In Section 3 we perform an explicit Feynman graph calculations at one loop level in order to evaluate the radiative contributions to the scalar and the fermion propagators and Yukawa and $\varphi^{4}$ vertices. The Section 4 is devoted to remarks and conclusions.
The Model
==========
The realization of noncommutative modified $\varphi^{4}$ models cited above was achieved by the substitution of the ordinary product between fields by the Weyl-Moyal star $\star$ product [@akfor] $$f(x)\star g(x)\equiv e^{\frac{i}{2}\theta^{\mu\nu}\frac{\partial}{\partial
x^{\mu}}\frac{\partial}{\partial y^{\nu}}}f(x)g(y)\mid_{x=y}%$$
This approach is considered to be the simplest way to construct a noncommutative field theory, the coordinates fulfill, the commutation relation$$\lbrack x^{\mu},x^{\nu}]_{\star}=x^{\mu}\star x^{\nu}-x^{\nu}\star x^{\mu
}=i\theta^{\mu\nu}%$$ where $(\theta^{\mu\nu})$ is the deformation matrix, it is assumed to have a simple block-diagonal form$$(\theta^{\mu\nu})=\theta\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{cccc}%
0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
-1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
0 & 0 & -1 & 0
\end{array}
\right)$$ here $\theta$ is the deformation parameter, it is taken to be real and gives the measure of the strength of noncommutativity. Throughout this paper we use the Euclidean metric, the Feynman convention $%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{a}{\slashed{a}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\slashed{a}%
%EndExpansion
=\mathbf{\gamma }^{\mu }a^{\mu }$ and the notation $\tilde{a}^{\mu }=(\theta
^{\mu \nu })a^{\nu }$.
The free scalar action of the translation-invariant $1/p^{2}$-model is [@rivasseau2008]$$S_{\star}[\varphi]=\int\limits_{%
%TCIMACRO{\U{211d} }%
%BeginExpansion
\mathbb{R}
%EndExpansion
^{4}}dx^{4}\frac{1}{2}\left[ \partial^{\mu}\varphi\star\partial^{\mu}%
\varphi+M^{2}\varphi\star\varphi-a^{\prime2}\varphi\star\frac{1}{\theta
^{2}\square}\varphi\right] \label{scalaraction}%$$ in the Euclidean space. In the expression (\[scalaraction\]), the parameter $a^{\prime}$ is a real dimensionless constant. The modified scalar propagator in momentum space is then$$\tilde{G}^{\prime}(p^{2},M,a^{^{\prime}})=\frac{1}{p^{2}+M^{2}+\frac
{a^{\prime2}}{\theta^{2}p^{2}}} \label{scalarpropag}%$$
In order to recover the modified scalar propagator from the square of the fermion propagator, as in the commutative theory (\[cond\]), we propose to modify the free fermion action in the following way $$S_{\star}[\psi,\bar{\psi}]=\int dx^{4}\left[ \bar{\psi}\star%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{D}{\slashed{\partial}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\slashed{\partial}%
%EndExpansion
\psi+m\bar{\psi}\star\psi-b^{\prime}\bar{\psi}\star\frac{%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{Dt}{\tilde{\slashed{\partial}}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\tilde{\slashed{\partial}}%
%EndExpansion
}{\theta^{2}\square}\psi\right] \label{fermionaction}%$$ where $b^{\prime}$ is a real dimensionless constant. We have added an extra-term $b^{\prime}\bar{\psi}\star\frac{%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{Dt}{\tilde{\slashed{\partial}}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\tilde{\slashed{\partial}}%
%EndExpansion
}{\theta^{2}\square}\psi$ to the original fermion action which reads in momentum space as $\sim \frac{%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{pt}{\tilde{\slashed{p}}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\tilde{\slashed{p}}%
%EndExpansion
}{\theta ^{2}p^{2}}$.
The Yukawa theory in four dimensions Euclidean space includes the $\varphi
^{4}$ self interaction in order to be renormalized, the noncommutative interaction action is thus $$S_{\star}^{int}=\int dx^{4}\left[ \left( c_{1}\bar{\psi}\gamma^{5}\star
\psi\star\varphi+c_{2}\varphi\star\bar{\psi}\gamma^{5}\star\psi+c_{3}\bar
{\psi}\gamma^{5}\star\varphi\star\psi\right) +\frac{\lambda}{4!}\left(
\varphi\star\varphi\star\varphi\star\varphi\right) \right]$$ with the use of the trace property of the star product $$\int\left( f\star g\star h\right) \left( x\right) d^{4}x=\int\left(
h\star f\star g\right) \left( x\right) d^{4}x=\int\left( g\star h\star
f\right) \left( x\right) d^{4}x$$ the pseudo scalar Yukawa action reduces to$$S_{\star Y}^{int}[\psi,\bar{\psi},\varphi]=\int dx^{4}\left[ g_{1}\bar{\psi
}\gamma^{5}\star\psi\star\varphi+g_{2}\bar{\psi}\gamma^{5}\star\varphi
\star\psi\right] \label{actyukawa}%$$ where $g_{1}=c_{1}+c_{2}$ and $g_{2}=c_{3}.$
The total action of our model reads$$S_{\star}^{tot}[\psi,\bar{\psi},\varphi]=S_{\star}[\varphi]+S_{\star}%
[\psi,\bar{\psi}]+S_{\star}^{int}[\psi,\bar{\psi},\varphi]+S_{\star}^{ct}%
[\psi,\bar{\psi},\varphi]$$ where $\varphi$ and $\psi$ are the dressed fields and $\psi_{0}$ and $\psi
_{0}$ are the bare fields, we used as usual the substitution$$\psi_{0}=\sqrt{Z_{\psi}}\psi\text{ \ \ and \ }\varphi_{0}=\sqrt{Z_{\varphi}%
}\varphi$$
The counter-terms action is then $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\star}^{ct}[\psi,\bar{\psi},\varphi]= & \int dx^{4}\frac{1}{2}\left[
\delta_{\varphi}\partial^{\mu}\varphi\star\partial^{\mu}\varphi+\delta
_{M}\varphi\star\varphi-\delta_{a^{\prime2}}\varphi\star\frac{1}{\theta
^{2}\square}\varphi\right] +\nonumber\\
& +\int dx^{4}\left[ \delta_{\psi}\bar{\psi}\star%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{D}{\slashed{\partial}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\slashed{\partial}%
%EndExpansion
\psi+\delta_{m}\bar{\psi}\star\psi-\delta_{b^{\prime}}\bar{\psi}\star\frac{%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{Dt}{\tilde{\slashed{\partial}}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\tilde{\slashed{\partial}}%
%EndExpansion
}{\theta^{2}\square}\psi\right] +\nonumber\\
& +\int dx^{4}\left[ \delta_{g_{1}}\bar{\psi}\gamma^{5}\star\psi\star
\varphi+\delta_{g_{2}}\bar{\psi}\gamma^{5}\star\varphi\star\psi+\frac
{\delta_{\lambda}}{4!}\varphi\star\varphi\star\varphi\star\varphi\right]
\label{actct}%\end{aligned}$$ where the renormalization factors are $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_{\varphi} & =Z_{\varphi}-1,\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }%
\delta_{\psi}=Z_{\psi}-1\nonumber\\
\delta_{M} & =M_{0}^{2}Z_{\varphi}-M^{2},\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }\delta
_{m}=m_{0}Z_{\psi}-m\nonumber\\
\delta_{\lambda} & =\lambda_{0}Z_{\varphi}^{2}-\lambda,\text{
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }\delta_{g_{i}}=g_{0i}Z_{\psi}Z_{\varphi}^{1/2}%
-g_{i}\nonumber\\
\delta_{a^{\prime2}} & =a_{0}^{\prime2}Z_{\varphi}-a^{\prime2},\text{
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }\delta_{b^{\prime}}=b_{0}^{\prime}Z_{\psi}-b^{\prime}%\end{aligned}$$
The different actions written above are used next to derive the Feynman rules for the propagators and vertices.
Propagators
-----------
The noncommutative free theory is the same as the commutative one , the action remains unchanged, and this is due to the relation$$\int\left( f\star g\right) \left( x\right) d^{4}x=\int\left( f\cdot
g\right) \left( x\right) d^{4}x \label{starquad}%$$
Even when the actions are modified by adding some extra-terms the propagators are calculated using the same techniques as the ordinary quantum field theory. The modified scalar propagator in momentum space (\[scalarpropag\]) is written as $$\tilde{G}^{\prime}(p^{2},M,a)=\frac{1}{p^{2}+M^{2}+\frac{a^{2}}{p^{2}}}%$$ where $a=\frac{a^{\prime}}{\theta}$. It is possible to rewrite this propagator, under a more suitable form [@schweda1], in order to evaluate the Feynman integrals by the use of the usual mathematical techniques$$\frac{1}{p^{2}+M^{2}+\frac{a^{2}}{p^{2}}}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\zeta=\pm1}%
\frac{1+\zeta\frac{M^{2}}{2A^{2}}}{p^{2}+\frac{M^{2}}{2}+\zeta A^{2}}\text{ }%$$ where $A^{2}=\sqrt{\frac{M^{4}}{4}-a^{2}}$, and if we use Schwinger’s exponential parametrization, with $M>0$ and $a\not =0$, the propagator is then $$\tilde{G}^{\prime}(p^{2},M,a)=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\zeta=\pm1}\left( 1+\zeta
\frac{M^{2}}{2A^{2}}\right) \int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-\left( p^{2}+\frac{M^{2}%
}{2}+\zeta A^{2}\right) \alpha}d\alpha$$
The modified fermion propagator is calculated from the action (\[fermionaction\]), we obtain $$\tilde{D}^{\prime}(p,m,b)=\frac{1}{-i%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{p}{\slashed{p}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\slashed{p}%
%EndExpansion
+m-ib\frac{%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{pt}{\tilde{\slashed{p}}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\tilde{\slashed{p}}%
%EndExpansion
}{\theta p^{2}}} \label{fermprop}%$$ where $b=\frac{b^{\prime}}{\theta}$. This propagator fulfills the condition (\[cond\]), or in this case$$\frac{1}{p^{2}+m^{2}+\frac{b^{2}}{p^{2}}}=\frac{1}{-i%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{p}{\slashed{p}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\slashed{p}%
%EndExpansion
+m-ib\frac{%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{pt}{\tilde{\slashed{p}}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\tilde{\slashed{p}}%
%EndExpansion
}{\theta p^{2}}}\times\frac{1}{i%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{p}{\slashed{p}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\slashed{p}%
%EndExpansion
+m+ib\frac{%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{pt}{\tilde{\slashed{p}}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\tilde{\slashed{p}}%
%EndExpansion
}{\theta p^{2}}}%$$ thereafter, the modified scalar propagator is naturally recovered in the expression of $\tilde{D}^{\prime}$$$\tilde{D}^{\prime}(p,m,b)=\tilde{G}^{\prime}(p^{2},m,b)\left( i%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{p}{\slashed{p}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\slashed{p}%
%EndExpansion
+m+ib\frac{%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{pt}{\tilde{\slashed{p}}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\tilde{\slashed{p}}%
%EndExpansion
}{\theta p^{2}}\right) \text{\ }%$$ as a consequence, the fermion propagator reproduces the same “damping” behavior for vanishing momentum as the modified scalar propagator [@schweda1]$$\lim_{p\rightarrow0}\tilde{D}^{\prime}(p,m,b)=0$$
Vertices
--------
The Feynman rule in momentum space for the $\varphi^{4}$ self interaction vertex is given by $$%
%TCIMACRO{\FRAME{itbphF}{0.6443in}{0.6391in}{0.2508in}{}{}{phifour1.eps}%
%{\special{ language "Scientific Word"; type "GRAPHIC";
%maintain-aspect-ratio TRUE; display "USEDEF"; valid_file "F";
%width 0.6443in; height 0.6391in; depth 0.2508in; original-width 0.6132in;
%original-height 0.608in; cropleft "0"; croptop "1"; cropright "1";
%cropbottom "0"; filename 'phifour1.eps';file-properties "XNPEU";}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\raisebox{-0.2508in}{\includegraphics[
height=0.6391in,
width=0.6443in
]%
{phifour1.eps}%
}%
%EndExpansion
=V_{\lambda}(p_{1},p_{2},p_{3},p_{4}) \label{vertexPhi}%$$ where $V_{\lambda}(p_{1},p_{2},p_{3},p_{4})=-\frac{\lambda}{3}\left(
\cos\frac{p_{1}\tilde{p}_{2}}{2}\cos\frac{p_{3}\tilde{p}_{4}}{2}+\cos
\frac{p_{1}\tilde{p}_{3}}{2}\cos\frac{p_{2}\tilde{p}_{4}}{2}+\cos\frac
{p_{1}\tilde{p}_{4}}{2}\cos\frac{p_{3}\tilde{p}_{2}}{2}\right) $, we notice the factor that appears in the noncommutative case, however in the commutative limit $\theta\rightarrow0$, it vanishes and we recover the ordinary $\varphi^{4}$ vertex : $V_{\lambda}\rightarrow-\lambda$.
The Feynman rule for the Yukawa interaction vertex in momentum space is calculated from the Yukawa action (\[actyukawa\]) using the Fourier transformation of the fields $$\psi(x)=\int\frac{d^{4}p}{\left( 2\pi\right) ^{4}}\tilde{\psi}%
(p)e^{-ipx},\text{ \ }\bar{\psi}(x)=\int\frac{d^{4}q}{\left( 2\pi\right)
^{4}}\overset{\sim}{\bar{\psi}}(p^{\prime})e^{ip^{\prime}x},\text{ \ }%
\varphi(x)=\int\frac{d^{4}k}{\left( 2\pi\right) ^{4}}\tilde{\varphi
}(k)e^{-ikx}%$$ thus $$%
%TCIMACRO{\FRAME{itbphF}{0.6849in}{0.4877in}{0.2006in}{}{}{yukawa1.eps}%
%{\special{ language "Scientific Word"; type "GRAPHIC";
%maintain-aspect-ratio TRUE; display "USEDEF"; valid_file "F";
%width 0.6849in; height 0.4877in; depth 0.2006in; original-width 0.6538in;
%original-height 0.4575in; cropleft "0"; croptop "1"; cropright "1";
%cropbottom "0"; filename 'yukawa1.eps';file-properties "XNPEU";}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\raisebox{-0.2006in}{\includegraphics[
height=0.4877in,
width=0.6849in
]%
{yukawa1.eps}%
}%
%EndExpansion
=-\gamma^{5}V_{g}(p,p^{\prime})$$ where $V_{g}(p,p^{\prime })$ is a phase factor $$V_{g}(p,p^{\prime })=\left[ g_{1}e^{+\frac{i}{2}p^{\prime }\tilde{p}%
}+g_{2}e^{-\frac{i}{2}p^{\prime }\tilde{p}}\right] =\sum\limits_{\sigma =\pm
1}g_{\sigma }e^{\sigma \frac{i}{2}p^{\prime }\tilde{p}}\ \label{vertexY}$$in the last expression we used the notation$\ g_{2}\equiv g_{-1}$. The Yukawa interaction in our model is represented by two coupling constants $%
g_{1}$ and $g_{2}$, the commutative coupling constant is recovered when $%
\theta \rightarrow 0$: $V_{g}\rightarrow g$ where $g=g_{1}+g_{2}$.
We note, finally, that the modification of the ordinary commutative vertices is a natural consequence of the introduction of Moyal star product, unlike the propagators which are modified artificially by adding the extra-terms to the actions.
Counter-terms
-------------
The renormalized Feynman rules can be deduced easily from the counter-terms action (\[actct\]), they are written in momentum space as $$\begin{aligned}
%
%TCIMACRO{\FRAME{itbphF}{0.7533in}{0.2197in}{0.0502in}{}{}{scalar4.eps}%
%{\special{ language "Scientific Word"; type "GRAPHIC";
%maintain-aspect-ratio TRUE; display "USEDEF"; valid_file "F";
%width 0.7533in; height 0.2197in; depth 0.0502in; original-width 0.7221in;
%original-height 0.1903in; cropleft "0"; croptop "1"; cropright "1";
%cropbottom "0"; filename 'scalar4.eps';file-properties "XNPEU";}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\raisebox{-0.0502in}{\includegraphics[
height=0.2197in,
width=0.7533in
]%
{scalar4.eps}%
}%
%EndExpansion
& =-\delta_{\varphi}p^{2}+\delta_{a^{2}}\frac{1}{\theta^{2}p^{2}}-\delta
_{M}\text{, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }%
%TCIMACRO{\FRAME{itbphF}{0.7533in}{0.2197in}{0.0502in}{}{}{fermion3.eps}%
%{\special{ language "Scientific Word"; type "GRAPHIC";
%maintain-aspect-ratio TRUE; display "USEDEF"; valid_file "F";
%width 0.7533in; height 0.2197in; depth 0.0502in; original-width 0.7221in;
%original-height 0.1903in; cropleft "0"; croptop "1"; cropright "1";
%cropbottom "0"; filename 'fermion3.eps';file-properties "XNPEU";}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\raisebox{-0.0502in}{\includegraphics[
height=0.2197in,
width=0.7533in
]%
{fermion3.eps}%
}%
%EndExpansion
=i\delta_{\psi}%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{p}{\slashed{p}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\slashed{p}%
%EndExpansion
+i\delta_{b}\frac{%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{pt}{\tilde{\slashed{p}}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\tilde{\slashed{p}}%
%EndExpansion
}{\theta^{2}p^{2}}-\delta_{m}\nonumber\\%
%TCIMACRO{\FRAME{itbphF}{0.697in}{0.4877in}{0.2006in}{}{}{yukawa3.eps}%
%{\special{ language "Scientific Word"; type "GRAPHIC";
%maintain-aspect-ratio TRUE; display "USEDEF"; valid_file "F";
%width 0.697in; height 0.4877in; depth 0.2006in; original-width 0.6659in;
%original-height 0.4575in; cropleft "0"; croptop "1"; cropright "1";
%cropbottom "0"; filename 'yukawa3.eps';file-properties "XNPEU";}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\raisebox{-0.2006in}{\includegraphics[
height=0.4877in,
width=0.697in
]%
{yukawa3.eps}%
}%
%EndExpansion
& =-\gamma^{5}\left[ \delta_{g_{1}}e^{+\frac{i}{2}p^{\prime}\tilde{p}%
}+\delta_{g_{2}}e^{-\frac{i}{2}p^{\prime}\tilde{p}}\right] \text{, \ }%
%TCIMACRO{\FRAME{itbphF}{0.6573in}{0.6391in}{0.2508in}{}{}{phifour4.eps}%
%{\special{ language "Scientific Word"; type "GRAPHIC";
%maintain-aspect-ratio TRUE; display "USEDEF"; valid_file "F";
%width 0.6573in; height 0.6391in; depth 0.2508in; original-width 0.6261in;
%original-height 0.608in; cropleft "0"; croptop "1"; cropright "1";
%cropbottom "0"; filename 'phifour4.eps';file-properties "XNPEU";}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\raisebox{-0.2508in}{\includegraphics[
height=0.6391in,
width=0.6573in
]%
{phifour4.eps}%
}%
%EndExpansion
=\frac{\delta_{\lambda}}{\lambda}V_{\lambda}(p_{1},p_{2},p_{3},p_{4})\end{aligned}$$
We note from the counter-terms that the constants $a$ and $b$ could receive corrections in order to eliminate IR divergences of the form $\frac{1}%
{\tilde{p}^{2}}$ and $\frac{%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{pt}{\tilde{\slashed{p}}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\tilde{\slashed{p}}%
%EndExpansion
}{\tilde{p}^{2}}$, respectively. The Feynman rules for propagators and vertices are now established, they are used in the next section to evaluate the one loop quantum corrections. The Feynman rules for counter-terms were also given, they will be used in the renormalization process which will be discussed in a forthcoming paper.
One loop corrections
====================
We are going to determine, in this section the relevant corrections for the 1PI two-point functions, for the scalar and fermion field, and the three and four-point functions at one loop level using dimensional regularization method. We use the results of the multiscale analysis [@rivasseau2008] to eliminate the subleading logarithmic singularities $\ln\tilde{p}^{2}$ of non-planar graphs for vanishing momentum, because they represent a mild divergence [@schweda1]. Therefore, we keep in our results only the UV divergences of the planar integrals and the leading quadratic IR divergences of the non-planar integrals.
Two-point function $\Gamma^{(2)}$
---------------------------------
### Scalar propagator
The diagrammatic expansion of $\ \Gamma_{\varphi}^{(2)}$ represents the quantum corrections for the scalar field propagator, at one loop level we have the tadpole and the fermion loop graphs to evaluate, the first one is represented by the integral$$%
%TCIMACRO{\FRAME{itbphF}{0.8086in}{0.416in}{0in}{}{}{scalar2.eps}%
%{\special{ language "Scientific Word"; type "GRAPHIC";
%maintain-aspect-ratio TRUE; display "USEDEF"; valid_file "F";
%width 0.8086in; height 0.416in; depth 0in; original-width 0.7766in;
%original-height 0.3866in; cropleft "0"; croptop "1"; cropright "1";
%cropbottom "0"; filename 'scalar2.eps';file-properties "XNPEU";}}}%
%BeginExpansion
{\includegraphics[
height=0.416in,
width=0.8086in
]%
{scalar2.eps}%
}%
%EndExpansion
=-\frac{\lambda}{6}\int\frac{d^{D}k}{\left( 2\pi\right) ^{D}}\frac
{1+2\cos^{2}(\frac{p\tilde{k}}{2})}{k^{2}+M^{2}+\frac{a^{2}}{k^{2}}}%$$ where the integration is in a $D$-dimension Euclidian space. We evaluate the divergent part of the planar and non-planar integral using the dimensional regularization method, the result is $$\begin{aligned}
I_{tadpole} & =-\frac{\lambda}{6}\frac{1}{\left( 4\pi\right) ^{2}}%
\sum_{\zeta=\pm1}\left( 1+\zeta\frac{M^{2}}{2A^{2}}\right) \left(
\frac{M^{2}}{2}+\zeta A^{2}\right) ^{\frac{D}{2}-1}\Gamma(\frac{2-D}%
{2})-\nonumber\\
& -\frac{\lambda}{6\left( 4\pi\right) ^{\frac{D}{2}}}\sum_{\zeta=\pm
1}\left( 1+\zeta\frac{M^{2}}{2A^{2}}\right) \left( \frac{\tilde{p}^{2}%
}{4\left( \frac{M^{2}}{2}+\zeta A^{2}\right) }\right) ^{\frac{2-D}{4}%
}K_{1-\frac{D}{2}}\left( \sqrt{\left( \frac{M^{2}}{2}+\zeta A^{2}\right)
\tilde{p}^{2}}\right)\end{aligned}$$ where $K_{1-\frac{D}{2}}$ is the modified Bessel function. Thereafter we put $D=4-\varepsilon$, where $\varepsilon\rightarrow0$, this reveals the UV divergence of the planar part $$I_{tadpole}^{P}=\frac{2\lambda M^{2}}{3\left( 4\pi\right) ^{2}\varepsilon
}+c.c$$ the non-planar integral depends on external momentum and it is finite for $\tilde{p}^{2}\not =0$, however it reveals a leading quadratic IR for $\tilde{p}^{2}\rightarrow0$ $$I_{tadpole}^{NP}=-\frac{2\lambda}{3\left( 4\pi\right) ^{2}}\frac{1}%
{\theta^{2}p^{2}}+c.c$$
The total divergence of the tadpole integral is then $$I_{tadpole}=\frac{2}{3}\frac{\lambda M^{2}}{\left( 4\pi\right)
^{2}\varepsilon}-\frac{2}{3}\frac{\lambda}{\left( 4\pi\right) ^{2}}\frac
{1}{\theta^{2}p^{2}}+O\left( \lambda^{2}\right) \label{Stadpol}%$$ We note that the UV divergence is different by a numeric factor $\frac{2}{3}$ from the commutative case. This difference is due to the scalar vertex $V_{\lambda}$ which adds a factor $\frac{1}{3}$ (see reference ) and the extra-term $\frac{a}{k^{2}}$ in the propagator numerator which adds a factor $2$.
The second contribution to the scalar two-point function comes from the fermionic loop. After performing a trace over the fermion loop, the integral representing the second graph reads $$\begin{aligned}
%
%TCIMACRO{\FRAME{itbphF}{0.8674in}{0.5388in}{0.2309in}{}{}{scalar3.eps}%
%{\special{ language "Scientific Word"; type "GRAPHIC";
%maintain-aspect-ratio TRUE; display "USEDEF"; valid_file "F";
%width 0.8674in; height 0.5388in; depth 0.2309in; original-width 0.8345in;
%original-height 0.5085in; cropleft "0"; croptop "1"; cropright "1";
%cropbottom "0"; filename 'scalar3.eps';file-properties "XNPEU";}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\raisebox{-0.2309in}{\includegraphics[
height=0.5388in,
width=0.8674in
]%
{scalar3.eps}%
}%
%EndExpansion
& =-4\int\frac{d^{D}k}{\left( 2\pi\right) ^{D}}\frac{g_{1}^{2}+g_{2}%
^{2}+2g_{1}g_{2}\cos(p\tilde{k})}{\left( k^{2}+m^{2}+\frac{b^{2}}{k^{2}%
}\right) \left( \left( p+k\right) ^{2}+m^{2}+\frac{b^{2}}{\left(
p+k\right) ^{2}}\right) }\times\nonumber\\
& \times\left[ m^{2}+k^{\mu}p^{\mu}+k^{2}-b\frac{k^{\mu}\tilde{p}^{\mu}%
}{\theta k^{2}}+b^{2}\frac{1}{\left( k+p\right) ^{2}}+b\frac{k^{\mu}%
\tilde{p}^{\mu}}{\theta\left( k+p\right) ^{2}}+b^{2}\frac{k^{\mu}p^{\mu}%
}{k^{2}\left( k+p\right) ^{2}}\right]\end{aligned}$$ this can be divided, as usual, into planar and non-planar integrals, following the same terms order in the last expression, we have$$I_{fermion-loop}^{P}=-4\left( g_{1}^{2}+g_{2}^{2}\right) \left[ m^{2}%
I_{1}+p^{\mu}I_{2}^{\mu}+I_{3}+b\frac{\tilde{p}^{\mu}}{\theta}I_{4}^{\mu
}+b^{2}I_{5}+b\frac{\tilde{p}^{\mu}}{\theta}I_{6}^{\mu}+b^{2}p^{\mu}I_{7}%
^{\mu}\right]$$
and$$I_{fermion-loop}^{NP}=-8g_{1}g_{2}\left[ m^{2}J_{1}+p^{\mu}J_{2}^{\mu}%
+J_{3}+b\frac{\tilde{p}^{\mu}}{\theta}J_{4}^{\mu}+b^{2}J_{5}+b\frac{\tilde
{p}^{\mu}}{\theta}J_{6}^{\mu}+b^{2}p^{\mu}J_{7}^{\mu}\right]$$ where each integral $I_{i}$ and $J_{i}$ is evaluated separately. For the planar integrals, we have the following results:
> -the integrals $I_{1}$, $I_{2}$ and $I_{3}$ presents an UV divergences, their divergent parts give the contribution $\frac{4\left( g_{1}^{2}+g_{2}%
> ^{2}\right) }{\left( 4\pi\right) ^{2}\varepsilon}\left( p^{2}%
> +2m^{2}\right) .$
>
> - the integrals $I_{4}$ and $I_{6}$ are finite, but after integration the products $\tilde{p}^{\mu }I_{4}^{\mu }$ and $\tilde{p}^{\mu }I_{6}^{\mu }\ $are proportional to $\tilde{p}^{\mu }p^{\mu }\ $and then vanish.
>
> - the integrals $I_{5}$ and $I_{7}$ are finite for $\theta\not =0$.
The non-planar integrals are finite for $\tilde{p}^{2}\not =0$, but they could reveal an IR divergence when $\tilde{p}^{2}\rightarrow0$, we have the following results:
> - the integrals $J_{1}$, $J_{2}$ and $J_{3}$ presents an IR divergences, their divergent parts give the contribution $-\frac{32g_{1}g_{2}}{\left(
> 4\pi\right) ^{2}}\frac{1}{\theta^{2}p^{2}}.$
>
> - the integrals $J_{4}$, and $J_{6}$ are finite, but after integration the products $\tilde{p}^{\mu}J_{4}^{\mu}$ and $\tilde{p}^{\mu}J_{6}^{\mu}\ $are proportional to $\tilde{p}^{\mu}p^{\mu}\ $and then vanish.
>
> - the integrals $J_{5}$, and $J_{7}$ are finite for $\theta\not =0$.
The fermion contribution to the scalar two-point function reads $$I_{fermion-loop}=\frac{4\left( g_{1}^{2}+g_{2}^{2}\right) }{\left(
4\pi\right) ^{2}\varepsilon}\left( p^{2}+2m^{2}\right) -\frac{32g_{1}g_{2}%
}{\left( 4\pi\right) ^{2}}\frac{1}{\theta^{2}p^{2}}+\left( f_{1}+f_{2}%
p^{2}\right) +O\left( g^{3}\right) \label{SFloop}%$$ where $f_{i}$ denote functions that result from the finite integrals, they are analytic for $\theta\not =0$, this notation is used thereafter. We note here that the UV divergence in (\[SFloop\]) is the same as the commutative case where $g^{2}=g_{1}^{2}+g_{2}^{2}$.
Thus, the total one loop contribution to the scalar field propagator is $$\Gamma_{\varphi-1loop}^{(2)}=I_{tadpole}+I_{fermion-loop}%$$ $I_{tadpole}\ $and $I_{fermion-loop}$ are given in the expressions (\[Stadpol\]) and (\[SFloop\]), respectively. There is, as expected, a leading quadratic IR divergence $\sim\frac{1}{\theta^{2}p^{2}}$ resulting from the non-planar integrals beside the ordinary UV divergence. The additional term $\left( f_{1}+f_{2}p^{2}\right) $ is finite for $\theta\not =0$, it is a result of the fermionic extra-term, thus it vanishes for $b=0$.
### Fermion propagator
The quantum corrections for the fermion field propagator at one loop level are given by the integral $$\begin{aligned}
%
%TCIMACRO{\FRAME{itbphF}{0.7662in}{0.4436in}{0.1003in}{}{}{fermion2.eps}%
%{\special{ language "Scientific Word"; type "GRAPHIC";
%maintain-aspect-ratio TRUE; display "USEDEF"; valid_file "F";
%width 0.7662in; height 0.4436in; depth 0.1003in; original-width 0.7342in;
%original-height 0.4134in; cropleft "0"; croptop "1"; cropright "1";
%cropbottom "0"; filename 'fermion2.eps';file-properties "XNPEU";}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\raisebox{-0.1003in}{\includegraphics[
height=0.4436in,
width=0.7662in
]%
{fermion2.eps}%
}%
%EndExpansion
& =-\int\frac{d^{D}k}{\left( 2\pi\right) ^{D}}\left( g_{1}^{2}+g_{2}%
^{2}+2g_{1}g_{2}\cos(p\tilde{k})\right) \times\nonumber\\
& \times\frac{\left( i%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{p}{\slashed{p}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\slashed{p}%
%EndExpansion
-m\right) +i%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{k}{\slashed{k}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\slashed{k}%
%EndExpansion
+ib\frac{%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{pt}{\tilde{\slashed{p}}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\tilde{\slashed{p}}%
%EndExpansion
+%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{kt}{\tilde{\slashed{k}}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\tilde{\slashed{k}}%
%EndExpansion
}{\theta\left( p+k\right) ^{2}}}{\left( \left( p+k\right) ^{2}%
+m^{2}+\frac{b^{2}}{\left( p+k\right) ^{2}}\right) \left( k^{2}%
+M^{2}+\frac{a^{2}}{k^{2}}\right) }%\end{aligned}$$ this can be divided into planar and non-planar integrals, following the same terms order in the last expression, we have $$I^{P}=-\left( g_{1}^{2}+g_{2}^{2}\right) \left[ \left( i%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{p}{\slashed{p}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\slashed{p}%
%EndExpansion
-m\right) I_{1}+i\mathbf{\gamma}^{\mu}I_{2}^{\mu}+ib\frac{%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{pt}{\tilde{\slashed{p}}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\tilde{\slashed{p}}%
%EndExpansion
}{\theta}I_{3}+ib\mathbf{\gamma}^{\mu}I_{4}^{\mu}\right]$$ and$$I^{NP}=-2g_{1}g_{2}\left[ \left( i%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{p}{\slashed{p}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\slashed{p}%
%EndExpansion
-m\right) J_{1}+i\mathbf{\gamma}^{\mu}J_{2}^{\mu}+ib\frac{%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{pt}{\tilde{\slashed{p}}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\tilde{\slashed{p}}%
%EndExpansion
}{\theta}J_{3}+ib\mathbf{\gamma}^{\mu}J_{4}^{\mu}\right]$$ We calculate each integral apart and using the same procedure as in the tadpole integral, we obtain $$\Gamma_{\psi-1loop}^{(2)}=-\frac{i\left( g_{1}^{2}+g_{2}^{2}\right)
}{\left( 4\pi\right) ^{2}\varepsilon}\left(
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{p}{\slashed{p}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\slashed{p}%
%EndExpansion
+2im\right) +f_{3}\frac{%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{pt}{\tilde{\slashed{p}}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\tilde{\slashed{p}}%
%EndExpansion
}{\theta}+O\left( g^{3}\right) \label{tpff}%$$ we note that the UV divergence, in the last relation, is the same as the commutative theory with $g^{2}=g_{1}^{2}+g_{2}^{2}$. We have also here an additional term $f_{3}\frac{%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{pt}{\tilde{\slashed{p}}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\tilde{\slashed{p}}%
%EndExpansion
}{\theta}$ which is finite for $\theta\not =0$.
Three-point function $\Gamma^{(3)}$
-----------------------------------
The one loop quantum corrections to Yukawa vertex are given by only one graph, namely $$\begin{aligned}
%
%TCIMACRO{\FRAME{itbphF}{0.7256in}{0.6676in}{0.2914in}{}{}{yukawa2.eps}%
%{\special{ language "Scientific Word"; type "GRAPHIC";
%maintain-aspect-ratio TRUE; display "USEDEF"; valid_file "F";
%width 0.7256in; height 0.6676in; depth 0.2914in; original-width 0.6944in;
%original-height 0.6365in; cropleft "0"; croptop "1"; cropright "1";
%cropbottom "0"; filename 'yukawa2.eps';file-properties "XNPEU";}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\raisebox{-0.2914in}{\includegraphics[
height=0.6676in,
width=0.7256in
]%
{yukawa2.eps}%
}%
%EndExpansion
& =-\gamma^{5}\int\frac{d^{D}k}{\left( 2\pi\right) ^{D}}\frac
{F(k,q,p)N\left( k,q\right) }{\left( k^{2}+m^{2}+\frac{b^{2}}{k^{2}%
}\right) }\times\nonumber\\
& \times\frac{1}{\left( \left( k-q\right) ^{2}+m^{2}+\frac{b^{2}}{\left(
k-q\right) ^{2}}\right) \left( \left( k-p\right) ^{2}+M^{2}+\frac{a^{2}%
}{\left( k-p\right) ^{2}}\right) } \label{3pnt}%\end{aligned}$$ where $F(k,q,p)$ represents the product of the phase factors of the Yukawa vertices $$\begin{aligned}
F(k,q,p) & =\sum\limits_{\sigma=\pm1}g_{\sigma}e^{\frac{i\sigma}{2}\left[
k\left( \tilde{q}-\tilde{p}\right) +q\tilde{p}\right] }\sum\limits_{\sigma
^{\prime}=\pm1}g_{\sigma^{\prime}}e^{\frac{i\sigma^{\prime}}{2}k\tilde{p}}%
\sum\limits_{\sigma^{\prime\prime}=\pm1}g_{\sigma^{\prime\prime}}%
e^{\frac{i\sigma^{\prime\prime}}{2}k\tilde{p}}\nonumber\\
& =\sum\limits_{\sigma=\pm1}\left\{ g_{1}g_{2}g_{\sigma}e^{\frac{i\sigma}%
{2}q\tilde{p}}+g_{1}g_{2}g_{\sigma}\left( e^{i\sigma\left[ k\left(
\tilde{q}-\tilde{p}\right) +\frac{q\tilde{p}}{2}\right] }+e^{i\sigma\left(
k\tilde{p}-\frac{q\tilde{p}}{2}\right) }\right) +g_{\sigma}^{3}%
e^{i\sigma\left( k\tilde{q}+\frac{q\tilde{p}}{2}\right) }\right\}\end{aligned}$$ the first term is independent of $k$, therefore it appears as a factor of the planar integrals while the other terms enter in the non-planar integrals. The function $N\left( k,q\right) $ represents the product of the fermions propagators numerators with the $\gamma^{5}$ matrix$$N\left( k,q\right) =\left[ i%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{k}{\slashed{k}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\slashed{k}%
%EndExpansion
+m+ib\frac{%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{kt}{\tilde{\slashed{k}}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\tilde{\slashed{k}}%
%EndExpansion
}{\theta k^{2}}\right] \gamma^{5}\left[ i\left(
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{k}{\slashed{k}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\slashed{k}%
%EndExpansion
-%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{q}{\slashed{q}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\slashed{q}%
%EndExpansion
\right) +m+ib\frac{%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{kt}{\tilde{\slashed{k}}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\tilde{\slashed{k}}%
%EndExpansion
-%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{qt}{\tilde{\slashed{q}}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\tilde{\slashed{q}}%
%EndExpansion
}{\theta\left( k-q\right) ^{2}}\right] \gamma^{5}%$$ the use of dimensional power counting, reveals that all the terms of this function contribute in a convergent integrals except the one with $k^{2}$, the resulting divergence, from the planar and non-planar integrals, is then logarithmic. Thus, the evaluation of the divergent parts of the integral (\[3pnt\]) gives $$\Gamma_{1loop}^{(3)}=-\gamma^{5}\left( \frac{2g_{1}g_{2}}{\left(
4\pi\right) ^{2}\varepsilon}+f_{4}\right) \left( g_{1}e^{\frac{i}{2}%
q\tilde{p}}+g_{2}e^{-\frac{i}{2}q\tilde{p}}\right) +f_{5}+O(g^{4})$$ where $f_{i}$ are analytic functions for $\theta\not =0$ resulting from the finite integrals. In order to recover results of the UV divergence of the commutative case we have to make the substitution $g_{1}g_{2}(g_{1}%
+g_{2})=g^{3}.\,$
Four-point function $\Gamma^{(4)}$
----------------------------------
In order to evaluate the four-point function at one loop level, we have to include all the contributions that give $O(\lambda^{2})$ and $O(g^{4})$ corrections to the $\varphi^{4}$ vertex.
### $\Gamma^{(4)}$ with $\varphi^{4}$ coupling
The scalar one loop contributions to the $\varphi^{4}$ vertex comes from the following graphs $$\Gamma_{\varphi^{4}-1loop}^{(4)}=\frac{1}{2}\left(
%TCIMACRO{\FRAME{itbphF}{0.627in}{0.6849in}{0.3009in}{}{}{phifour2a.eps}%
%{\special{ language "Scientific Word"; type "GRAPHIC";
%maintain-aspect-ratio TRUE; display "USEDEF"; valid_file "F";
%width 0.627in; height 0.6849in; depth 0.3009in; original-width 0.5959in;
%original-height 0.6538in; cropleft "0"; croptop "1"; cropright "1";
%cropbottom "0"; filename 'phifour2a.eps';file-properties "XNPEU";}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\raisebox{-0.3009in}{\includegraphics[
height=0.6849in,
width=0.627in
]%
{phifour2a.eps}%
}%
%EndExpansion
+%
%TCIMACRO{\FRAME{itbphF}{0.7109in}{0.6374in}{0.3009in}{}{}{phifour2b.eps}%
%{\special{ language "Scientific Word"; type "GRAPHIC";
%maintain-aspect-ratio TRUE; display "USEDEF"; valid_file "F";
%width 0.7109in; height 0.6374in; depth 0.3009in; original-width 0.6789in;
%original-height 0.6071in; cropleft "0"; croptop "1"; cropright "1";
%cropbottom "0"; filename 'phifour2b.eps';file-properties "XNPEU";}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\raisebox{-0.3009in}{\includegraphics[
height=0.6374in,
width=0.7109in
]%
{phifour2b.eps}%
}%
%EndExpansion
+%
%TCIMACRO{\FRAME{itbphF}{0.7109in}{0.6374in}{0.3009in}{}{}{phifour2c.eps}%
%{\special{ language "Scientific Word"; type "GRAPHIC";
%maintain-aspect-ratio TRUE; display "USEDEF"; valid_file "F";
%width 0.7109in; height 0.6374in; depth 0.3009in; original-width 0.6789in;
%original-height 0.6071in; cropleft "0"; croptop "1"; cropright "1";
%cropbottom "0"; filename 'phifour2c.eps';file-properties "XNPEU";}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\raisebox{-0.3009in}{\includegraphics[
height=0.6374in,
width=0.7109in
]%
{phifour2c.eps}%
}%
%EndExpansion
\right)$$ which are evaluated from these integrals $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{\varphi^{4}-1loop}^{(4)} & =\frac{1}{2}\int\frac{d^{D}k}{\left(
2\pi\right) ^{D}}F_{1}(k,p_{i})\frac{1}{\left( \left( p_{1}+p_{2}-k\right)
^{2}+M^{2}+\frac{a^{2}}{\left( p_{1}+p_{2}-k\right) ^{2}}\right) \left(
k^{2}+M^{2}+\frac{a^{2}}{k^{2}}\right) }+\nonumber\\
& +\frac{1}{2}\int\frac{d^{D}k}{\left( 2\pi\right) ^{D}}F_{2}(k,p_{i}%
)\frac{1}{\left( \left( k+p_{4}-p_{1}\right) ^{2}+M^{2}+\frac{a^{2}%
}{\left( k+p_{4}-p_{1}\right) ^{2}}\right) \left( k^{2}+M^{2}+\frac{a^{2}%
}{k^{2}}\right) }+\nonumber\\
& +\frac{1}{2}\int\frac{d^{D}k}{\left( 2\pi\right) ^{D}}F_{3}(k,p_{i}%
)\frac{1}{\left( \left( k+p_{3}-p_{1}\right) ^{2}+M^{2}+\frac{a^{2}%
}{\left( k+p_{3}-p_{1}\right) ^{2}}\right) \left( k^{2}+M^{2}+\frac{a^{2}%
}{k^{2}}\right) }%\end{aligned}$$ where $F_{i}(k,p_{j})$ is the product of the two $\varphi^{4}$ vertices.
These integrals were evaluated in [@schweda1] by introducing a cut-off, we find equivalent results using the dimensional regularization method. These diagrams present a logarithmic UV divergence $$\Gamma_{\varphi^{4}-1loop}^{(4)}=-\frac{2\lambda}{\left( 4\pi\right)
^{2}\varepsilon}V_{\lambda}(p_{1},p_{2},p_{3},p_{4})+O(\lambda^{3})$$ which is different by a numeric factor $\frac{2}{3}$ from the commutative case where $V_{\lambda}\rightarrow-\lambda$.
### $\Gamma^{(4)}$ with Yukawa coupling
The contributions to the $\varphi^{4}$ vertex come in this case from the Yukawa interaction, it represent the fermion corrections to the scalar $\varphi^{4}$ coupling constant. In order to have an effective contribution to the $\varphi^{4}$ vertex, from the fermion loop, we need to recover in our final result the $\varphi^{4}$ extra-factor of $V_{\lambda}$ from the product of the Yukawa phase factors $V_{g}$. If we consider only the permutations of external momenta, as in the commutative theory, then we will have only six diagrams to evaluate, namely $$\Gamma_{Y-1loop}^{(4)}=%
%TCIMACRO{\FRAME{itbphF}{0.71in}{0.7403in}{0.3009in}{}{}{phifour3a.eps}%
%{\special{ language "Scientific Word"; type "GRAPHIC";
%maintain-aspect-ratio TRUE; display "USEDEF"; valid_file "F";
%width 0.71in; height 0.7403in; depth 0.3009in; original-width 0.6789in;
%original-height 0.7083in; cropleft "0"; croptop "1"; cropright "1";
%cropbottom "0"; filename 'phifour3a.eps';file-properties "XNPEU";}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\raisebox{-0.3009in}{\includegraphics[
height=0.7403in,
width=0.71in
]%
{phifour3a.eps}%
}%
%EndExpansion
+%
%TCIMACRO{\FRAME{itbphF}{0.71in}{0.7403in}{0.3009in}{}{}{phifour3b.eps}%
%{\special{ language "Scientific Word"; type "GRAPHIC";
%maintain-aspect-ratio TRUE; display "USEDEF"; valid_file "F";
%width 0.71in; height 0.7403in; depth 0.3009in; original-width 0.6789in;
%original-height 0.7083in; cropleft "0"; croptop "1"; cropright "1";
%cropbottom "0"; filename 'phifour3b.eps';file-properties "XNPEU";}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\raisebox{-0.3009in}{\includegraphics[
height=0.7403in,
width=0.71in
]%
{phifour3b.eps}%
}%
%EndExpansion
+%
%TCIMACRO{\FRAME{itbphF}{0.71in}{0.7403in}{0.3009in}{}{}{phifour3c.eps}%
%{\special{ language "Scientific Word"; type "GRAPHIC";
%maintain-aspect-ratio TRUE; display "USEDEF"; valid_file "F";
%width 0.71in; height 0.7403in; depth 0.3009in; original-width 0.6789in;
%original-height 0.7083in; cropleft "0"; croptop "1"; cropright "1";
%cropbottom "0"; filename 'phifour3c.eps';file-properties "XNPEU";}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\raisebox{-0.3009in}{\includegraphics[
height=0.7403in,
width=0.71in
]%
{phifour3c.eps}%
}%
%EndExpansion
+%
%TCIMACRO{\FRAME{itbphF}{0.6944in}{0.7403in}{0.3009in}{}{}{phifour3d.eps}%
%{\special{ language "Scientific Word"; type "GRAPHIC";
%maintain-aspect-ratio TRUE; display "USEDEF"; valid_file "F";
%width 0.6944in; height 0.7403in; depth 0.3009in; original-width 0.6633in;
%original-height 0.7083in; cropleft "0"; croptop "1"; cropright "1";
%cropbottom "0"; filename 'phifour3d.eps';file-properties "XNPEU";}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\raisebox{-0.3009in}{\includegraphics[
height=0.7403in,
width=0.6944in
]%
{phifour3d.eps}%
}%
%EndExpansion
+%
%TCIMACRO{\FRAME{itbphF}{0.6944in}{0.7403in}{0.3009in}{}{}{phifour3e.eps}%
%{\special{ language "Scientific Word"; type "GRAPHIC";
%maintain-aspect-ratio TRUE; display "USEDEF"; valid_file "F";
%width 0.6944in; height 0.7403in; depth 0.3009in; original-width 0.6633in;
%original-height 0.7083in; cropleft "0"; croptop "1"; cropright "1";
%cropbottom "0"; filename 'phifour3e.eps';file-properties "XNPEU";}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\raisebox{-0.3009in}{\includegraphics[
height=0.7403in,
width=0.6944in
]%
{phifour3e.eps}%
}%
%EndExpansion
+%
%TCIMACRO{\FRAME{itbphF}{0.6944in}{0.7403in}{0.3009in}{}{}{phifour3f.eps}%
%{\special{ language "Scientific Word"; type "GRAPHIC";
%maintain-aspect-ratio TRUE; display "USEDEF"; valid_file "F";
%width 0.6944in; height 0.7403in; depth 0.3009in; original-width 0.6633in;
%original-height 0.7083in; cropleft "0"; croptop "1"; cropright "1";
%cropbottom "0"; filename 'phifour3f.eps';file-properties "XNPEU";}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\raisebox{-0.3009in}{\includegraphics[
height=0.7403in,
width=0.6944in
]%
{phifour3f.eps}%
}%
%EndExpansion$$
However, in the noncommutative case, there are also the phase factors coming from the Yukawa vertices which depend explicitly on internal momenta. This means that when we expand the four-point function at one loop level we will have more diagrams to evaluate. In fact there only two different permutations of internal momentum for each one of the last six diagrams, it can be represented as follow $$%
%TCIMACRO{\FRAME{itbphF}{0.71in}{0.7403in}{0.3009in}{}{}{phifour3a.eps}%
%{\special{ language "Scientific Word"; type "GRAPHIC";
%maintain-aspect-ratio TRUE; display "USEDEF"; valid_file "F";
%width 0.71in; height 0.7403in; depth 0.3009in; original-width 0.6789in;
%original-height 0.7083in; cropleft "0"; croptop "1"; cropright "1";
%cropbottom "0"; filename 'phifour3a.eps';file-properties "XNPEU";}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\raisebox{-0.3009in}{\includegraphics[
height=0.7403in,
width=0.71in
]%
{phifour3a.eps}%
}%
%EndExpansion
\rightarrow%
%TCIMACRO{\FRAME{itbphF}{0.7126in}{0.7429in}{0.3009in}{}{}{phifour3a1-1.eps}%
%{\special{ language "Scientific Word"; type "GRAPHIC";
%maintain-aspect-ratio TRUE; display "USEDEF"; valid_file "F";
%width 0.7126in; height 0.7429in; depth 0.3009in; original-width 0.8726in;
%original-height 0.9876in; cropleft "0"; croptop "1"; cropright "1.0837";
%cropbottom "0"; filename 'phifour3a1-1.eps';file-properties "XNPEU";}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\raisebox{-0.3009in}{\includegraphics[
trim=0.000000in 0.000000in -0.073037in 0.000000in,
height=0.7429in,
width=0.7126in
]%
{phifour3a1-1.eps}%
}%
%EndExpansion
+%
%TCIMACRO{\FRAME{itbphF}{0.7126in}{0.7429in}{0.3009in}{}{}{phifour3a2-1.eps}%
%{\special{ language "Scientific Word"; type "GRAPHIC";
%maintain-aspect-ratio TRUE; display "USEDEF"; valid_file "F";
%width 0.7126in; height 0.7429in; depth 0.3009in; original-width 0.8726in;
%original-height 0.9876in; cropleft "0"; croptop "1"; cropright "1.0826";
%cropbottom "0"; filename 'phifour3a2-1.eps';file-properties "XNPEU";}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\raisebox{-0.3009in}{\includegraphics[
trim=0.000000in 0.000000in -0.072077in 0.000000in,
height=0.7429in,
width=0.7126in
]%
{phifour3a2-1.eps}%
}%
%EndExpansion$$
As a result, the diagrammatic expansion of the four-point function is represented by twelve diagrams, the integral corresponding to each diagram have the generic form $$\begin{aligned}
I_{j}^{(4)} & =\left( -1\right) \int\frac{d^{D}k}{\left( 2\pi\right)
^{D}}\frac{F^{\prime}(k,p_{i})}{\left( k^{2}+m^{2}+\frac{b^{2}}{k^{2}%
}\right) \left( \left( k+p_{1}\right) ^{2}+m^{2}+\frac{b^{2}}{\left(
k+p_{1}\right) ^{2}}\right) }\times\nonumber\\
& \times\frac{Tr[N^{\prime}(k,p_{i})]}{\left( \left( k+p_{1}+p_{2}\right)
^{2}+m^{2}+\frac{b^{2}}{\left( k+p_{1}+p_{2}\right) ^{2}}\right) \left(
\left( k+p_{4}\right) ^{2}+m^{2}+\frac{b^{2}}{\left( k+p_{4}\right) ^{2}%
}\right) } \label{integral4pf}%\end{aligned}$$ where $F^{\prime}(k,p_{i})=\prod\limits_{i=1}^{4}V_{g}^{i}$ is the product of the phase factors of the four Yukawa vertices it can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
F^{\prime}(k,p_{i}) & =\sum\limits_{\sigma=\pm1}g_{\sigma}^{4}%
e^{i\frac{\sigma}{2}\left( p_{m}\tilde{p}_{n}+p_{r}\tilde{p}_{s}\right)
}+g_{1}g_{2}\sum\limits_{\sigma=\pm1}\sum\limits_{\alpha=1}^{4}g_{\sigma}%
^{2}e^{-i\sigma\varepsilon_{\alpha}k\tilde{p}_{\alpha}}e^{\sigma
\varepsilon_{\alpha}\frac{i}{2}\left( \varepsilon_{\alpha+1}p_{m}\tilde
{p}_{n}+\varepsilon_{\alpha-1}p_{r}\tilde{p}_{s}\right) }+\nonumber\\
& +g_{1}g_{2}\sum\limits_{\sigma=\pm1}\sum\limits_{\alpha=2}^{4}g_{1}%
g_{2}e^{\sigma ik\left( \varepsilon_{\alpha}\tilde{p}_{1}+\tilde{p}_{\alpha
}\right) }e^{\sigma\frac{i}{2}\left( p_{m}\tilde{p}_{n}-\varepsilon
_{\alpha-1}p_{r}\tilde{p}_{s}\right) } \label{phas}%\end{aligned}$$ here $\varepsilon _{0,1,2}=1$ and $\varepsilon _{3,4,5}=-1$. The function $%
F^{\prime }(k,p_{i})$ divides the integral (\[integral4pf\]) into planar and non-planar parts, the first term in (\[phas\]) is just a factor of planar integrals while the others enter in the non-planar integrals. The indices $m,$ $n,$ $r$ and $s$ take different values from $1$ to $4$, this gives us twelve different phase factors for $e^{i\frac{\sigma }{2}\left(
p_{m}\tilde{p}_{n}+p_{r}\tilde{p}_{s}\right) }$. These phase factors result from the permutations of the $p_{i}$, where each one of them correspond to a different graph.
The trace of the fermionic loop is $Tr[N^{\prime}(k,p_{i})]$, where $$\begin{aligned}
N^{\prime}(k,p_{i}) & =\gamma^{5}\left( i%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{k}{\slashed{k}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\slashed{k}%
%EndExpansion
+m+ib\frac{%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{kt}{\tilde{\slashed{k}}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\tilde{\slashed{k}}%
%EndExpansion
}{\theta k^{2}}\right) \gamma^{5}\left( i\left(
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{k}{\slashed{k}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\slashed{k}%
%EndExpansion
+%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{p}{\slashed{p}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\slashed{p}%
%EndExpansion
_{1}\right) +m+ib\frac{\left(
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{kt}{\tilde{\slashed{k}}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\tilde{\slashed{k}}%
%EndExpansion
+%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{pt}{\tilde{\slashed{p}}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\tilde{\slashed{p}}%
%EndExpansion
_{1}\right) }{\theta\left( k+p_{1}\right) ^{2}}\right) \times\nonumber\\
& \times\gamma^{5}\left( i\left(
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{k}{\slashed{k}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\slashed{k}%
%EndExpansion
+%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{p}{\slashed{p}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\slashed{p}%
%EndExpansion
_{1}+%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{p}{\slashed{p}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\slashed{p}%
%EndExpansion
_{2}\right) +m+ib\frac{\left(
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{kt}{\tilde{\slashed{k}}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\tilde{\slashed{k}}%
%EndExpansion
+%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{pt}{\tilde{\slashed{p}}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\tilde{\slashed{p}}%
%EndExpansion
_{1}+%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{pt}{\tilde{\slashed{p}}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\tilde{\slashed{p}}%
%EndExpansion
_{2}\right) }{\theta\left( k+p_{1}+p_{2}\right) ^{2}}\right)
\times\nonumber\\
& \times\gamma^{5}\left( i\left(
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{k}{\slashed{k}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\slashed{k}%
%EndExpansion
+%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{p}{\slashed{p}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\slashed{p}%
%EndExpansion
_{4}\right) +m+ib\frac{\left(
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{kt}{\tilde{\slashed{k}}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\tilde{\slashed{k}}%
%EndExpansion
+%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{pt}{\tilde{\slashed{p}}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\tilde{\slashed{p}}%
%EndExpansion
_{4}\right) }{\theta\left( k+p_{4}\right) ^{2}}\right)\end{aligned}$$
When expanding the product $F^{\prime}(k,p_{i})\times Tr[N^{\prime}(k,p_{i}%
)]$, the integral (\[integral4pf\]) is divided into thousand of integrals, fortunately, most of them are finite. The divergent integrals are only those having $k^{4}$ $\allowbreak$in the numerator, the resulting divergence is then logarithmic. The summation over all the planar graphs allows us to recover the $\varphi^{4}$ extra-factor of $V_{\lambda}$ $$\sum\limits_{perms.\text{ }of\text{ }p_{i}}e^{\frac{i}{2}\left( p_{m}%
\tilde{p}_{n}+p_{r}\tilde{p}_{s}\right) }=4\left( \cos\frac{p_{1}\tilde
{p}_{2}}{2}\cos\frac{p_{3}\tilde{p}_{4}}{2}+\cos\frac{p_{1}\tilde{p}_{3}}%
{2}\cos\frac{p_{2}\tilde{p}_{4}}{2}+\cos\frac{p_{1}\tilde{p}_{4}}{2}\cos
\frac{p_{3}\tilde{p}_{2}}{2}\right)$$ thus, the fermionic contributions to the scalar coupling constant is $$\Gamma_{Y-1loop}^{(4)}=\sum_{j=1}^{12}I_{j}^{(4)}=\left( \frac{96\left(
g_{1}^{4}+g_{2}^{4}\right) }{\left( 4\pi\right) ^{2}\varepsilon}%
+f_{6}\right) \frac{V_{\lambda}(p_{1},p_{2},p_{3},p_{4})}{\lambda}%
+f_{7}+O(g^{5})$$ where $f_{i}$ are analytic functions for $\theta \not=0$ resulting from the finite integrals. Since twelve graphs are evaluated in the noncommutative case instead of six, the UV divergence in this case is twice that of the commutative theory, where $g^{4}=g_{1}^{4}+g_{2}^{4}$.
We note here the importance of recovering the $\varphi ^{4}$ vertex from the product of Yukawa vertices because it can be seen as a consistency test for our model.
Conclusions and remarks
=======================
In this work we have constructed a translation-invariant noncommutative pseudo-scalar Yukawa model and calculated the quantum corrections at one loop level up to 1PI four-point function. The results obtained will be used thereafter to discuss the issue of renormalizability for this model and to adjust it if necessary. However the renormalization process at one loop level will be discussed in a forthcoming paper.
The analytic functions $f_{i}$ that appear in the some results of quantum corrections do not affect the renormalizability of our model in the noncommutative case. Moreover, they can contribute as noncommutative corrections to the fields, masses and coupling constants. However the commutative limit could be problematic since $f_{i}\longrightarrow\infty$. In this case, one has to use the mechanism described in [@magnen], which relies on the analysis of the UV/IR mixing in Feynman graphs to recover the commutative theory. The commutative limit for the modified noncommutative models is not recovered simply by taking $\theta\longrightarrow0$, even with this mechanism the limit is not smooth.
The presence of the term $\sim\frac{%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{pt}{\tilde{\slashed{p}}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\tilde{\slashed{p}}%
%EndExpansion
}{\theta}$ instead of $\sim\frac{%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{pt}{\tilde{\slashed{p}}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\tilde{\slashed{p}}%
%EndExpansion
}{\tilde{p}^{2}}$ in the fermion two-point function corrections adds a divergence that cannot be absorbed by any renormalization factor. This suggests adding, beside the term $\sim\frac{%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{pt}{\tilde{\slashed{p}}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\tilde{\slashed{p}}%
%EndExpansion
}{\tilde{p}^{2}}$, another term of the form $\sim\frac{%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{pt}{\tilde{\slashed{p}}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\tilde{\slashed{p}}%
%EndExpansion
}{\theta}$ to the fermion action. This fact can be explained by the existence of inner derivative on Moyal space which is different than the one defined on ordinary space [@wallet]. We note that the analytic functions $f_{i}$ and the term $\sim\frac{%
%TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{pt}{\tilde{\slashed{p}}}}%
%BeginExpansion
\tilde{\slashed{p}}%
%EndExpansion
}{\theta}$ discussed above result from the fermionic extra-term, thus they vanish for $b=0$. In this case the theory is renormalizable at one loop level but it doesn’t fulfills the consistency condition (\[cond\]).
Finally, this model can be extended to the gauge field theory as it has been done with the scalar models, in this case one has to respect BRS symmetry. However the loop corrections are harder to evaluate due to the existence of the extra-terms both in the scalar and fermion actions. The model can bealso extended to supersymmetry, where this work can be included in the bosonic part of the theory.
K. Bouchachia acknowledges the financial support of the University of Médéa for his visits to the Paris-XI University and Vienna University of Technology. He would like to thank Professors V. Rivasseau and M. Schweda for their kind invitations and for their help, and also Professor H. Grosse for his enlightening discussions.
[99]{}
M.R. Douglas and N.A. Nekrasov, *Noncommutative field theory*, Rev. Mod. Phys. 73 (2001) 977. [\[arXiv:hep-th/0106048\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0106048).
R.J. Szabo, *Quantum field theory on noncommutative spaces*, Phys. Rept. 378 (2003) 207. [\[arXiv:hep-th/0109162\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0109162).
S. Doplicher, K. Fredenhagen, and J. E. Roberts, *Space-time quantization induced by classical gravity*, [Phys. Lett. B 331 (1994) 39-44](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0370269394909407).
S. Doplicher, K. Fredenhagen, and J. E. Roberts, *The Quantum Structure of Spacetime at the Planck Scale and Quantum Fields*, [Comm. Math. Phys. 172 (1995)187-220](http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02104515).
T. Filk, *Divergencies in a field theory on quantum space*, [Phys. Lett. B 376 (1996) 53-58](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/037026939600024X).
S. Minwalla, M. Van Raamsdonk and N. Seiberg, *Noncommutative perturbative dynamics*, JHEP 02 (2000) 020. [\[arXiv:hep-th/9912072\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9912072).
M. Van Raamsdonk and N. Seiberg, *Comments on noncommutative perturbative dynamics*, JHEP 03 (2000) 035. [\[arXiv:hep-th/0002186\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0002186).
H. Grosse and R. Wulkenhaar, *Renormalisation of* $\varphi^{4}$ *theory on noncommutative* $\mathit{R}^{\mathit{2}}%
$ *in the matrix base*, JHEP 12 (2003) 019. [\[arXiv:hep-th/0307017\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307017).
H. Grosse and R. Wulkenhaar, *Renormalisation of* $\varphi^{4}$ *theory on noncommutative* $\mathit{R}^{\mathit{4}}%
$ *in the matrix base*, Commun. Math. Phys. 256 (2005) 305. [\[arXiv:hep-th/0401128\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0401128).
H. Grosse and R. Wulkenhaar, *Renormalisation of* $\varphi^{4}$ *theory on noncommutative* $\mathit{R}^{\mathit{4}}%
$ *to all order*s, Lett. Math. Phys. 71 (2005) 13. [\[arXiv:hep-th/0403232\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0403232).
H. Grosse and R. Wulkenhaar, *Renormalizable noncommutative quantum field theory*, [Journal of Physics, Conference Series 343 (2012) 012043.](http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/343/1/012043/)
E. Langmann and R. J. Szabo, *Duality in scalar field theory on noncommutative phase spaces*, Phys. Lett. B 533 (2002) 168. [\[arXiv:hep-th/0202039\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0202039).
R. Gurau, J. Magnen, V. Rivasseau and A. Tanasa, *A translation-invariant renormalizable non-commutative scalar model* , Commun. Math. Phys. 287 (2009) 275-290. [\[arXiv:math-ph/0802.0791\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.0791).
F. Vignes-Tourneret, *Renormalization of the Orientable Non-commutative Gross-Neveu Model*, Ann. H. Poincaré 8 (2007) 427-474. [\[arXiv: math-ph/0606069\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0606069).
A. Tanasa, *Scalar and gauge translation-invariant noncommutative models*, Rom.J .Phys. 53 (2008) 1207-1212. [\[arXiv:hep-th/0808.3703\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3703v1)
D. N. Blaschke, A. Rofner, M. Schweda and R. I. P. Sedmik, *One-Loop Calculations for a Translation Invariant Non-Commutative Gauge Model*, Eur. Phys. J. C62 (2009) 433. [\[arXiv:hep-th/0901.1681\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.1681).
D. N. Blaschke, E. Kronberger, A. Rofner, M. Schweda, R. I. P. Sedmik and M. Wohlgenannt, *On the Problem of Renormalizability in Non-Commutative Gauge Field Models - A Critical Review*, Fortschr. Phys. 58 (2010) 364. [\[arXiv:hep-th/0908.0467\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0467).
L. C. Q. Vilar, O. S. Ventura, D. G. Tedesco and V. E. R. Lemes, O*n the Renormalizability of Noncommutative U(1) Gauge Theory - an Algebraic Approach*, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 43 (2010) 135401. [\[arXiv:hep-th/0902.2956\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.2956).
D. N. Blaschke, E. Kronberger, R. I. P. Sedmik and M. Wohlgenannt, *Gauge Theories on Deformed Spaces*, SIGMA 6 (2010) 062. [\[arXiv:hep-th/1004.2127\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.2127).
A. de Goursac, J.-C. Wallet and R. Wulkenhaar, *Noncommutative induced gauge theory*, Eur. Phys. J. C51 (2007) 977-987. [\[arXiv:hep-th/0703075\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0703075).
H. Grosse and M. Wohlgenannt, *Induced gauge theory on a noncommutative space*, Eur. Phys. J. C52 (2007) 435-450. [\[arXiv:hep-th/0703169\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0703169).
E. Akofor, A. P. Balachandran and A. Joseph, *Quantum fields on the Groenewold-Moyal plane*, International Journal of Modern Physics A, Vol. 23, No. 11 (2008) 1637–1677. [\[arXiv:hep-th/0803.4351\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.4351).
D. N. Blaschke,F. Gieres, E. Kronberger, T. Reis, M. Schweda and R. I. P. Sedmik, *Quantum Corrections for Translation-Invariant Renormalizable Non-Commutative* $\varphi^{4}$ *Theory*, JHEP 11 (2008) 074. [\[arXiv:hep-th/0807.3270\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.3270).
A. Micu and M. M. Sheikh Jabbari, *Noncommutative* $\varphi^{4}$ *theory at two- loops*, JHEP 01 (2001) 025. [\[arXiv:hep-th/0008057\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0008057).
J. Magnen, V. Rivasseau and A. Tanasa, *Commutative limit of a renormalizable noncommutative model*, Europhys. Lett. 86 (2009) 11001. [\[ArXiv:hep-th/0807.4093\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.4093v2).
J. C. Wallet, *Noncommutative Induced Gauge Theories on Moyal Spaces,* J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 103 (2008) 012007. [\[arXiv:hep-th/0708.2471\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.2471).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
i
Introduction {#intro}
============
Processes involving neutrinos and photons are of great importance in astrophysics and cosmology [@raff]. In particular, reactions which are forbidden (or are highly suppressed) in vacuum, notably plasmon decay ($\gamma \rightarrow \nu \nu$) or the Cherenkov process ($\nu \rightarrow \nu \gamma$) and the cross-processes (e.g, $\gamma \gamma \to \nu \bar{\nu}$, $\nu \bar{\nu} \to e^+ e^-$ etc.) play a significant role in regions pervaded by dense plasma and/or large-scale external magnetic fields. White Dwarfs, Neutron Stars or the final phases of stellar evolution (Supernovae) are particular examples where such processes become important by virtue of the large material density and the presence of strong magnetic fields. Prompted by these objectives we calculate the effective neutrino charge in an external magnetic field in presence of a thermal medium.
It has already been shown that the $\nu-\gamma$ interaction in presence of a thermal medium induces a small effective charge to the neutrino and that the neutrino electromagnetic vertex is related to the photon self-energy in the medium [@pal2; @alth]. We re-investigate this problem considering not only a thermal medium but also an external magnetic field for a neutrino coupled to a dynamical photon having $q_0=0$ and $|\vec{q}| \to 0 $. This calculation is pertinent, for example, in the case of a type-II supernovae collapse [@colp]. It is conjectured that the neutrinos, produced deep inside the stellar core, deposit some fraction of their energy to the surrounding medium through different kinds of electromagnetic interactions, e.g, $\nu \to \nu \gamma$, $\nu \bar{\nu} \to e^{+} e^{-}$ [@expl]. But it is important to note that the amplitudes of such processes are proportional to $G^2_F$ and the amount of energy transferred to the mantle of the proto-neutron star is barely sufficient to blow the stellar envelope out. Recently in a series of papers, it has been argued that the freely streaming neutrinos from the supernova core interact with the non-relativistic electrons present in the outer part of the core through collective interactions (known as the ‘two-stream instability’ in the context of plasma physics) and is responsible for blowing up the mantle of the supernova progenitor [@shkl].
In this work, we show that the effective charge acquired by a neutrino in a magnetised medium is, in fact, [*direction dependent*]{} which should affect these processes significantly. Though it should be noted here that except for in the very early universe or in the recently discovered ‘magnetars’ (newly born neutron stars with magnetic fields in excess of $10^{15}$ Gauss) [@kouv] or perhaps in the central region of core-collapse supernovae, the magnetic fields are smaller than the QED limit ($eB < m_e^2$ i.e, $B \le 10^{13}$ Gauss). This allows for a weak-field treatment of the plasma processes relevant to almost all physical situations. Moreover, this treatment is also valid for compact astrophysical objects (viz. white dwarfs or neutron stars) for which the Landau level spacings are quite small compared to the electron Fermi energy [@chan]. This ensures that the magnetic field does not introduce any spatial anisotropy in the collective plasma behaviour.
In the standard model, the above mentioned $\nu-\gamma$ processes appear at the one-loop level. They do not occur in vacuum because they are kinematically forbidden and also because the neutrinos do not couple to the photons at the tree-level. In the presence of a medium or a magnetic field, it is the charged particle running in the loop which, when integrated out, confers its electromagnetic properties to the neutrino. Therefore, processes involving two neutrinos and one photon which are forbidden in vacuum can become important in the presence of a medium and/or external fields [@hari; @pal1; @iorf]. These charged particles could be the electrons of the background thermal medium or the virtual electrons and positrons in presence of an external magnetic field or both. The processes also become kinematically allowed since the photons acquire an effective mass in a thermal medium. This, for example, opens up the phase space for the Cherenkov process $\nu \rightarrow \nu \gamma$ [@pal1; @hame; @orae]. The presence of a magnetic field would also modify the photon dispersion relation and then the Cherenkov condition would be satisfied for significant ranges of photon frequencies [@shai; @gsh1; @gsh2]. A thermal medium and an external magnetic field, thus, fulfill the dual purpose of inducing an effective neutrino-photon vertex and of modifying the photon dispersion relation such that the phase-space for various neutrino-photon processes is opened up(see [@iorf] and references therein for a detailed review).
The organization of the paper is as follows. In section-\[form\] we discuss the basic formalism for calculating the effective charge of a neutrino. Section-\[calc\] contains the details of the calculation of the 1-loop diagram in presence of a magnetised medium. In section-\[tensor\] we discuss the generic form of the neutrino effective charge in different background conditions. Finally, in section-\[nech\] we present the expression for the effective charge of a neutrino. And we conclude with a discussion on the possible implications of our result in section-\[concl\].
Formalism {#form}
=========
The off-shell electromagnetic vertex function $\Gamma_{\lambda}$ is defined in such a way that, for on-shell neutrinos, the $\nu \nu \gamma$ amplitude is given by: = - i |[u]{}(k’) \_ u(k) A\^(q), where, $q,k,k'$ are the momentum carried by the photon and the neutrinos respectively and $q=k-k'$. Here, $u(k)$ is the neutrino wave-function and $A^{\mu}$ stands for the electromagnetic vector potential. In general, $\Gamma_{\lambda}$ would depend on $k$, $q$, the characteristic of the medium and the external electromagnetic field. We shall, in this work, consider neutrino momenta that are small compared to the masses of the W and Z bosons. We can, therefore, neglect the momentum dependence in the W and Z propagators, which is justified if we are performing a calculation to the leading order in the Fermi constant, $G_F$. In this limit four-fermion interaction is given by the following effective Lagrangian: \_[eff]{} = G\_F \^ (1 + \_5) \_ (g\_[V]{} + g\_[A]{} \_5) l\_, where, $\nu$ and $l_\nu$ are the neutrino and the corresponding lepton field respectively. For electron neutrinos, g\_[V]{} &=& 1 - (1 - 4 \^2 \_[W]{})/2,\
g\_[A]{} &=& 1 - 1/2; where the first terms in $g_{\rm V}$ and $g_{\rm A}$ are the contributions from the W exchange diagram and the second one from the Z exchange diagram. Then the amplitude effectively reduces to that of a purely photonic case with one of the photons replaced by the neutrino current, as seen in the diagram in fig. \[f:cher\]. Therefore, $\Gamma_{\lambda}$ is given by: \_ = - G\_F \^ (1 + \_5) (g\_[V]{} \_ + g\_[A]{} \_\^5) , where, $\Pi_{\mu \nu}^5$ represents the vector-axial vector coupling and $\Pi_{\mu \nu}$ is the polarisation tensor arising from the diagram in fig. \[f:polr\]. In an earlier paper [@frd1] (paper-I henceforth) we have analysed the structure of $\Pi^{\mu \nu}$ and calculated the photon dispersion relation, in a background medium in presence of a uniform external magnetic field, in the weak-field limit by retaining terms up-to ${\cal O(B)}$, calculated at the 1-loop level. We shall use the results of paper-I here to obtain the total effective charge of the neutrinos under equivalent conditions. Because of the electromagnetic current conservation, for the polarisation tensor, we have the following gauge invariance condition: q\^ \_ = 0 = \_ q\^. Same is true for the photon vertex of fig. \[f:cher\] and we have \_\^5 q\^ = 0. \[gi\_pi5\] Therefore, the effective charge of the neutrinos is defined in terms of the vertex function by the following relation [@pal2]: e\_[eff]{} = [1]{} |[u]{}(k) \_0(q\_0=0, [**q**]{} 0) u(k) . For massless Weyl spinors this definition can be rendered into the form: e\_[eff]{} = [1]{} \[nec1\] where $\lambda = \pm 1$ is the helicity of the spinors.
It can be seen from Eq.(\[nec1\]) that, in general, the effective neutrino charge depends on $\Pi_{\mu\nu}(q)$ as well as on $\Pi^{5}_{\mu\nu}(q)$. Now, in a magnetised medium, the dispersive part of $\Pi_{\mu \nu}$ to liner order in ${\cal B}$ has the following form \[paper-I\]: \_ \_[\_ ]{} q\^ , where $\alpha_\parallel$ stands for either 0 or 3 (to be explained in detail in the next section). This evidently vanishes in the limit $q_0 =0, {\bf q} \rightarrow 0$. Therefore, in a magnetised medium, the non-zero contribution to the effective charge of the neutrinos come solely from $\Pi^{5}_{\mu\nu}(q)$. In section-\[tensor\] we shall discuss, from a more general point of view, why the effective charge of a neutrino, in a magnetised medium, comes only from $\Pi^{5}_{\mu\nu}(q)$ to linear order in ${\cal B}$. Therefore, the effective charge of the neutrinos is given by: e\_[eff]{} &=& - [1]{} g\_[A]{} \_[0]{}\^5(q\_0=0, [**q**]{}0)\
&& {\^ (1 + \_5) (1+\^5) /k } . \[nec2\]
calculation of the 1-loop diagram {#calc}
=================================
The Propagator
--------------
(150,40)(0,-35) (0,0)(40,0)[2]{}[4]{} (20,5)\[b\][$q\rightarrow$]{} (75,30)\[b\][$p+q\equiv p'$]{} (125,-17)\[b\][$k$]{} (125,15)\[b\][$k'$]{} (47,0)\[\][$\nu$]{} (102,0)\[\][$\mu$]{} (75,-30)\[t\][$p$]{} (110,0)(160,30) (160,-30)(110,0) (75,0)(25,35)(0) (74,25)(76,25) (76,-25)(74,-25)
(150,50)(0,-25) (0,0)(40,0)[2]{}[4]{} (20,5)\[b\][$q\rightarrow$]{} (110,0)(150,0)[2]{}[4]{} (130,5)\[b\][$q\rightarrow$]{} (75,30)\[b\][$p+q\equiv p'$]{} (75,-30)\[t\][$p$]{} (75,0)(25,35)(0) (74,25)(76,25) (76,-25)(74,-25)
Since we investigate the case of a purely magnetic field, it can be taken in the $z$-direction without any further loss of generality. We denote the magnitude of this field by $\cal B$. Ignoring at first the presence of the medium, the electron propagator in such a field can be written down following Schwinger’s approach [@schw; @tsai; @ditt]: i S\_B\^V(p) = \_0\^ds e\^[(p,s)]{} C(p,s) , \[SV\] where $\Phi$ and $C$ are defined below. To write these in a compact notation, we decompose the metric tensor into two parts: g\_ = g\^\_ + g\^\_ , where g\^\_ &=& diag(1,0,0-1)\
g\^\_ &=& diag(0,-1,-1,0). This allows us to use the following definitions, p\_\^2 &=& p\_0\^2 - p\_3\^2\
p\_\^2 &=& p\_1\^2 + p\_2\^2 . Using these notations we can write: (p,s) && is ( p\_\^2 - [(e[B]{}s) e[B]{}s]{} p\_\^2 - m\^2 ) - |s| , \[Phi\]\
C(p,s) && [e\^[ie[B]{}s\_z]{} (e[B]{}s)]{} ( /p\_+ / p\_+ m )\
&=& , \[C\] where \_z = i\_1 \_2 = - \_0 \_3 \_5 , \[sigz\] and we have used, e\^[ie[B]{}s\_z]{} = e[B]{}s + i\_z e[B]{}s . Of course in the range of integration indicated in Eq. (\[SV\]) $s$ is never negative and hence $|s|$ equals $s$. It should be mentioned here that we follow the notation adopted in paper-I to ensure continuity. In the presence of a background medium, the above propagator is modified to [@elmf]: iS(p) = iS\_B\^V(p) + S\_B\^(p) , \[fullprop\] where S\_B\^(p) - \_F(p) , and S\_B\^V(p) \_0 S\^[V ]{}\_B(p) \_0 , \[Sbar\] for a fermion propagator, such that S\_B\^(p) = - \_F(p) \_[-]{}\^ds e\^[(p,s)]{} C(p,s) . \[Seta\] And $\eta_F(p)$ contains the distribution function for the fermions and the anti-fermions: \_F(p) &=& (pu) f\_F(p,,)\
&+& (-pu) f\_F(-p,-,) . \[eta\] Here, $f_F$ denotes the Fermi-Dirac distribution function: f\_F(p,,) = [1e\^[(pu - )]{} + 1]{} , and $\Theta$ is the step function given by: (x) &=& 1, ,\
&=& 0, .
Identifying the Relevant Terms
------------------------------
The amplitude of the 1-loop diagram of fig. \[f:cher\] can be written as: i \^5\_(q, ) = - (ie)\^2 , where, for the sake of notational simplicity, we have used p’ = p+q . \[p’\] The minus sign on the right side is for a closed fermion loop and $S(p)$ is the propagator given by Eq. (\[fullprop\]). This implies: \^5\_(q, ) = -ie\^2 . \[1loopampl\] Now using Eq.(\[Seta\]) we have the terms containing the effects of medium and the external field (non-absorptive) \^5\_(q, ) &=& -ie\^2 . \[SS’terms\] Substituting $p$ by $-p'$ in the second term and using the cyclic property of traces, we can write Eq. (\[SS’terms\]) as \^5\_(q, ) &=& -ie\^2 . \[SS’terms2\] Using now the form of the propagators from Eqs.(\[SV\]) and (\[Seta\]), we obtain \^5\_(q, ) &=& ie\^2 \_[-]{}\^ds e\^[(p,s)]{} \_0\^ds’ e\^[(p’,s’)]{}\
&& [G]{}\_(p,p’,s,s’,B) , \[Pi5\] with, \_ &=& \_F(-p)\
&+& \_F(p) . It should be mentioned here that the effective charge of the neutrinos come from the dispersive part of the axial polarisation tensor. Therefore, we work with the real part of the 11-component of the axial polarisation tensor throughout and for notational simplicity suppress the 11-index everywhere.
Extracting the Gauge Invariant Piece
------------------------------------
[**$\Pi^5_{\mu\nu}(k, \beta)$ in odd powers of ${\cal B}$**]{} - Notice that the phase factors appearing in Eq. (\[Pi5\]) are even in $\cal B$. Thus, we need consider only the odd terms from the traces. Performing the traces the gauge invariant expression, odd in powers of ${\cal B}$, comes out to be: \^5\_(q, ) &=& - 4e\^2 \_+(p) \_[-]{}\^ds e\^[(p,s)]{}\
&& \_[-]{}\^ds’ e\^[(p’,s’)]{} R\_ ; \[pi5\_odd\] where \_+(p) = \_F(p) + \_F(-p) and \_ &=& - \_[1 2]{} q\_\^2\
&-& \_[1 2]{} (qp) (e[B]{}s + e[B]{}s’)\
&+& 2\_[1 2 \_]{} (p’\_[\_]{} p\^[\_]{} e[B]{}s + p\_[\_]{} p’\^[\_]{} e[B]{}s’)\
&+& g\_[\_]{} q\_[\_]{} p\^[\_]{} (e[B]{}s - e[B]{}s’)\
&-& g\_[\_]{} q\_[\_]{} q\^[\_]{}\
&+& {g\_ (pq)\_ + g\_[\_]{} p\^[\_]{} q\_[\_]{} } (e[B]{}s - e[B]{}s’)\
&+& g\_[\_]{} q\^[\_]{} p\_[\_]{} \^2 e[B]{}s e[B]{}s’ . \[rmunu\] In writing this expression, we have used the notation $p^{\widetilde\alpha_\parallel}$, for example. This signifies that $\widetilde\alpha_{\parallel}$ can take only the ‘parallel’ indices, i.e., 0 and 3, and is moreover different from the index $\alpha$ appearing elsewhere in the expression. We perform the calculations in the rest frame of the medium where $p\cdot u=p_0$. Thus the distribution function does not depend on the spatial components of $p$ and is given simply by $\eta_+(p_0)$.
Tensorial Structures of $\Pi_{\mu \nu}$ and $\Pi^5_{\mu \nu}$ {#tensor}
=============================================================
It can be seen from Eq.(\[nec1\]) that, in general, the effective neutrino charge depends on $\Pi_{\mu\nu}(q)$ as well as on $\Pi^{5}_{\mu\nu}(q)$. Now, in vacuum we have, \_(q) = (g\_ q\^2 - q\_q\_) (q\^2) , where $\Pi(k^2)$ vanishes for $q_0=0, \bar{q}\rightarrow 0$. The other contribution to the effective charge, coming from $\Pi^{5}_{\mu\nu}(k)$, also vanishes in vacuum. This can be understood from the general form factor analysis. We should be able to express $\Pi^{5}_{\mu\nu}(k)$, in vacuum, in terms of $g_{\mu\nu}$, $\epsilon_{\mu\nu\lambda\sigma}$ and $q_{\lambda}$. The parity structure of the theory forbids the appearance of $g_{\mu\nu}$. Therefore, the only possible combination, to obtain a second rank tensor is, $\epsilon_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma} q_\lambda q_\sigma$. Since, this is identically zero, there can be no effective charge of a neutrino in vacuum.
On the other hand, in the presence of a medium the polarisation tensor can be expanded in terms of the form factors as follows [@pal1]: \_(k) = \_TT\_ + \_LL\_ + \_PP\_ , where T\_ &=& [g]{}\_ - L\_\
L\_ &=&\
P\_ &=& \_q\^ u\^ and, \_ &=& g\_ -\
[u]{}\_ &=& [g]{}\_ u\^\
[Q]{} &=& in the rest frame of the medium where $u^{\mu}=(1,0,0,0)$. It is easy to see that neither the longitudinal projection $L_{\mu \nu}$ or $\Pi_L$ is non-zero in the limit $q_0=0, \bar{q}\rightarrow 0$. This then provides a non-zero contribution to the effective charge of the neutrino. And in [@pal2] it has been shown that the non-zero contribution to the effective charge, in presence of a thermal medium, comes only from the $\Pi_{\mu\nu}(q)$ part. The tensor structure of $\Pi^{5}_{\mu\nu}$ in a medium is of the form $\varepsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta} \, q^{\alpha} u^{\beta}$ and does not contribute to the zeroth component of $\Gamma_{\nu}$. For a more physical understanding of the appearance of the effective charge of the neutrinos, in a medium, see [@pal2].
Now, at the 1-loop level $\Pi_{\mu \nu}$ is invariant under charge conjugation, i.e., if we calculate the vacuum polarisation in a medium with a certain background field, it should be the same as that obtained in a charge-conjugated medium with an opposite background field. This means that, in the polarization tensor, the terms are either even in the background field or even in $\mu$ or odd in both. Therefore, in absence of a medium (which can be thought of as containing $\mu^0$), the terms containing odd powers of the background field should vanish (see paper-I for a discussion). Therefore, the contribution to the effective charge of a neutrino, in presence of a background magnetic field in vacuum comes only from $\Pi^{5}_{\mu\nu}(q)$, to linear order in ${\cal B}$. Now, $\Pi^5_{\mu\nu}(q)$ in a magnetised vacuum is given by [@hari]: \^5\_(q) &=& \^\_[0]{} ds \^[1]{}\_[-1]{}dv/2 e\^[-is ]{}\
&& {(1- v\^2)q\^\_ e\_\
&& + R (-q\^[2]{}\_ e \^ + q\^\_ e\_+q\^\_ e\_ ) } , \[hd\] with, &=& m\^2 + q\^2\_ +\
R &=& , \[h\] where, $z=eBs$ and $\tilde{F}^{\mu\nu}=\frac{1}{2} \epsilon^{\mu\nu\lambda\sigma}F_{\lambda\sigma}$ (note that the metric used in Eq. (\[hd\]) is $g^{\mu\nu}= diag(-,+,+,+)$). It is evident that in the zero frequency and long wavelength limit $\Pi^{5}_{\mu\nu}$ vanishes resulting in zero effective charge of a neutrino in magnetised vacuum.
The tensorial form of $\Pi_{\mu \nu}$ has been discussed in detail in paper-I. It can be seen from that discussion that in a magnetised medium, the electromagnetic field always appears in the combination $u^{\mu} F_{\mu \nu}$ or $q^{\mu} F_{\mu \nu}$ in $\Pi_{\mu \nu}$, to linear order in the field strength. Since, we consider the case of a pure magnetic field and a stationary medium the only terms that would survive would contain the combination $q^{\mu} F_{\mu \nu}$ (also borne out by the explicit calculations of paper-I). Hence, in the zero frequency, long wavelength limit it vanishes leaving only $\Pi^5_{\mu \nu}$ to contribute to the effective charge of the neutrino. Now, in a magnetized medium $\Pi^5_{\mu \nu}$ can be written, in terms of general basis vectors available, as follows: \^[5]{}\_ &=& \_[12]{} (q\^2\_ f\_1 + q\^2\_f\_2 + (q.u) f\_3)\
&+& \_[12 \_]{} (q\_[\_]{} u\^[\_]{} f\_3 + u\_[\_]{} u\^[\_]{} f\_4 + q\^[\_]{} u\_[\_]{} f\_5\
&& + q\_[\_]{}q\^[\_]{} f\_6 + u\_[\_]{} q\^[\_]{} f\_7 + q\^[\^]{} q\_[\_]{} f\_8)\
&+& g\_[\_]{} q\_[\_]{} (u\^f\_9 + q\^ f\_[10]{})\
&+& g\_ q\_[\_]{} q\^[\_]{} f\_[11]{} + g\_ u\_[\_]{} q\^[\_]{} f\_[12]{} + g\_[\_]{} u\^ q\_[\_]{} f\_[13]{}\
&& + g\_[\_]{} q\^ q\_[\_]{} f\_[14]{} + g\_[\_]{} q\^ q\_[\_]{} f\_[15]{} , \[ff-api5\] where $f_i$s are the respective form factors. It can be easily seen that the terms proportional to the product of $u$’s are non-zero in the static long wavelength limit giving a finite contribution to the effective charge of a neutrino.
In this connection, it should be mentioned that the effective charge of the neutrinos bear a simple relation with the Debye screening length in the case of an unmagnetized plasma. As has been shown by [@pal2] the contribution to the effective charge comes only from $\Pi_L$ which corresponds to the Debye screening in the limit $q_0 = 0, {\bf q} \rightarrow 0$. In the case of a magnetised plasma $\Pi^5_{\mu \nu}$, in general, would have many more tensorial forms in it due to the presence of the electromagnetic tensor (paper-I0. Hence, there may not exist a simple correspondence between the Debye screening and the effective charge of a neutrino in a magnetised medium.
Effective Charge of a Neutrino {#nech}
===============================
It is evident from Eq.(\[nec2\]) that to find the effective charge of the neutrino we need only to calculate $\Pi^5_{\mu 0}$ in the limit $(q_0=0,{\bf q} \rightarrow 0)$. From Eq.(\[rmunu\]) it can be seen that in this limit the only surviving terms in $\Pi^5_{00}$ are the ones containing odd powers of $p_0$. Now, $\eta_+(p_0)$ is even in $p_0$ and so is the exponent in the zero frequency limit. Hence, $p_0$ integration makes $\Pi^5_{00}$ vanish. We also have, R\_[10]{} &=& p\_3 q\_1 (e[B]{}s - e[B]{}s’)\
&& + q\_3 p\_1 \^2 e[B]{}s e[B]{}s’ ,\
R\_[2 0]{} &=& p\_3 q\_2 (e[B]{}s - e[B]{}s’)\
&& + q\_3 p\_2 \^2 e[B]{}s e[B]{}s’ . It can be seen that after $p$ integration we shall have terms proportional to $q_3 q_1$ and $q_3 q_2$ in $\Pi^5_{1 0}$ and $\Pi^5_{2 0}$ respectively, as the integrals in $p_1$ and $p_2$ are Gaussian. In the limit ${\bf q}\rightarrow 0$ these terms would vanish. Therefore, in the relevant limit of vanishing external photon momenta only $\Pi^5_{3 0}$, given by, && \^5\_[3 0]{}(q\_0 = 0, q 0)\
&=& \_[q\_0=0,0]{} 4 e\^2 \^\_[-]{} ds e\^[(p,s)]{} \^\_0 ds’ e\^[(p’,s’)]{}\
&& \_+(p\_0) ((qp)\_- 2 p\^2\_0 ) (e[B]{}s + e[B]{}s’) \[pi5k0\] has a non-zero contribution to the effective charge. It can be seen that in the above expression, except for the exponents, the integrand if free of the perpendicular components of the momentum. Therefore, the perpendicular components of the loop momentum can be integrated out. Now, the exponential factors can be written as, (p,s) + (p’,s’) = \_+ \_, where, \_&=& is (p\^2\_- m\^2) + is’ (p’\^2\_- m\^2) - |s| - |s’| ,\
\_&=& - p\^2\_- p’\^2\_. \[phex\] Therefore, integration of the perpendicular part of the momentum gives us, && e\^[\_]{}\
&& = ( - k\_\^2)\
&& (-i (p\_+ q\_)\^2)\
&& = - ; \[pri\] where we have neglected terms up-to ${\cal O}(q_\perp^2)$ since, to calculate the effective charge of the neutrinos we ultimately have to take the limit ${\bf k} \rightarrow 0$. Hence, eq.(\[pi5k0\]) can be written as &&\^5\_[3 0]{}(q\_0 = 0, q 0)\
&=& -\_[q\_0=0,0]{} \_+(p\_0) \^\_[-]{} ds e\^[is(p\^2\_- m\^2) - |s|]{}\
&& \^\_0 ds’ e\^[is’(p’\^2\_- m\^2) - |s’|]{} ((qp)\_- 2 p\^2\_0 )\
&=& \_[k\_0=0,0]{} 2 e\^3 [B]{} \_+(p\_0)\
&& ((qp)\_- 2 p\^2\_0) , \[pi530\] where we have used the following relation, \^\_[-]{} ds e\^[is (p\^2\_- m\^2) - |s|]{} \^\_0 ds’ e\^[is’ (p’\^2\_- m\^2) - |s’|]{}\
= 2 i . The expression for $\Pi^5_{3 0}$ given by Eq.(\[pi530\]) contains two parts which can be integrated separately to obtain, \_[q\_0=0, 0]{} (2 ) \_+(p\_0)(qp)\_\
= , \[int1\] and, \_[q\_0=0,0]{} (2 ) [p\_0]{}\^2 \_+(p\_0)\
= \[ - \_+(E\_p)\] , \[int2\] where $E_p^2 = p^2 + m^2$. Therefore, we have, \^5\_[3 0]{}(q\_0 = 0, q 0) = \_+(E\_p). \[complexp\] Now it is evident that in the limit ($q_0 = 0, {\bf q} \rightarrow 0$) the dominant component of $\Pi^5_{\mu \nu}$ is $\Pi^5_{30}$. Therefore, the index $\mu$ in Eq.(\[nec2\]) can only take the value 3. Incorporating this fact and after taking the trace, Eq.(\[nec2\]) takes the following form: e\_[eff]{} = - g\_[A]{} (1 - ) \_[30]{}\^5(q\_0=0, [**q**]{}0) , \[nec3\] where, $\theta$ is the angle between the magnetic field and the direction of the neutrino propagation. Therefore, in the limit of $m \geq \mu$ we obtain : e\^\_[eff]{} &=& e\^2 G\_F g\_[A]{} (1 - ) [B]{}\
&& \^\_[n=0]{} (-1)\^n (1+n) m K\_1\[(n+1) m\]\
&& {(n+1) } , where $K_n$ is the n-th order modified Bessel function of the second kind. It should be noted here that even though this result is linear in the field strength ${\cal B}$, this result is exact to all odd powers of ${\cal B}$. In the zero frequency, long wavelength limit it is only the term linear in ${\cal B}$ that survives. To get a feeling of the magnitude of the effective charge of a neutrino in presence of a background magnetic field, we compare this with that in absence of a magnetic field. In the limit of vanishing chemical potential, the ratio between the effective charge in a magnetised medium and in a simple thermal medium turns out to be : = ( ) (m )\^[3]{} K\_1(m) It can be seen from the equation above that the ratio is proportional to $\frac{\cal B}{{\cal B}_c}$. Since, in almost all astrophysical situations encountered so far, this ratio is less than one, in the weak field limit the charge due to the unmagnetized plasma is larger than in the case of a magnetised plasma.
Conclusion {#concl}
==========
To conclude, we note that only left-handed neutrinos acquire an effective charge. Since we have performed our calculation for massless, standard-model neutrinos that should automatically come out of the theory. But recent observations indicate that the neutrinos have mass (which allows for both left-handed and right-handed neutrinos). Our treatment can be modified for massive neutrinos following the method adopted in [@pal2] and we expect that the qualitative aspects of our result should remain the same.
More importantly, we notice that the presence of a magnetic field breaks the isotropy of space and introduces a preferential direction. As a consequence neutrinos propagating along the direction of the magnetic field acquire a positive charge whereas those propagating in the opposite direction acquire a negative charge. The net effect of this would then be the creation of a charge current along the direction of the field. Interestingly, neutrinos propagating in a direction perpendicular to the field would acquire zero effective charge. Whereas in an unmagnetized thermal medium neutrinos acquire an effective charge irrespective of their direction of propagation. Therefore for isotropic neutrino propagation no net current is generated in that case unlike in the presence of a magnetic field.
It is worth mentioning here that the generation of this charge current may play a significant role in the magnetic field generation of neutron stars being produced in supernova explosion. Another possible application could be to the neutrino wind driven instability responsible for blowing up the outer mantle of supernova as proposed by [@shkl]. The basic mechanism of this instability can be understood as follows. Consider the collision of two plasma fluids. If we consider the motion of one plasma with respect to the centre of mass of the other then the dispersion relation of the particles of the first would depend on the relative velocity between the two plasma. Now this velocity dependent dispersion relation can give rise to damping or instability of the plasma modes depending on the relative velocity between the two media. The growth rate of the plasmons, in such systems, has been estimated using formalism of finite temperature field theory [@bent; @expl] as well as using plasma physics techniques [@shkl]. It is important to note that the finite temperature field theory techniques show the damping/growth to be proportional to $G^2_F$ whereas that calculated using the plasma physics techniques show a scaling as $G_F$ [@shkl].
In conclusion, we have calculated the effective charge of neutrinos in a weakly magnetized plasma, in the limit $m > \mu$. It is observed that the neutrino charge acquires a direction dependence as a result of the presence of an external magnetic field and it is also proportional to the magnitude of the field strength present in the system.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
We would like to thank N. D. Hari Dass and Palash B. Pal for helpful discussions. We also thank Patrick Aurenche for going through the preliminary draft and drawing out attention to some important aspects. AKG would like to thank Laboratoire de Physique Theoretique, Annecy, France for supporting a visit where a part of this work was carried out. G. G. Raffelt, [*Stars as Laboratories for Fundamental Physics*]{}, (University of Chicago Press, 1996) J. F. Nieves and P. B. Pal, Phys. Rev. D [**49**]{}, 1398 (1994) T. Altherr and P. Salati, Nuc. Phys. B [**421**]{}, 662 (1994) J. Cooperstein, Phys. Rep. [**[163]{}**]{}, 95 (1988); H. A. Bethe, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**[62]{}**]{},801 (1990); S. Bludman, Da Hsuan Feng, Th. Gaisser and S. Pittel, Phys. Rep. [**[256]{}**]{}, 1 (1995) R. C. Duncan, S. L. Shapiro and I. Wasserman, Astrophys. J. [**309**]{}, 141 (1986); S. A. Colgate and R. H. White, Astrophys. J. [**143**]{}, 626 (1986); H. A. Bethe and J. R. Wilson ibid [**295**]{}, 14 (1985); M Ramp and H. T. Janka, astro-ph/0005438 L. O. Silva et. al, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 2703 (1999) and references therein C. Kouveliotou, T. Strohmayer, K. Hurley, J. van Paradijs, M. H. Finger, S. Dieters, P. Woods, C. Thompson, R. T. Duncan, Astrophys. J. [**581**]{}, L103 (1999) G. Chanmugam, Ann. Rev. Astron. & Astrophys. [**30**]{}, 143 (1992) L. L. DeRaad Jr., K. A. Milton and N. D. Hari Dass, Phys. Rev. D [**14**]{}, 3326 (1976) J. C. D’Olivio, J. F. Nieves and P. B. Pal, Phys. Rev. D [**40**]{}, 3679 (1989) A. N. Ioannisian and G. G. Raffelt, Phys. Rev. D [**55**]{}, 7038 (1997), hep-ph/9612285 S. J. Hardy and D. B. Melrose, Publ. Astron. Soc. Aus. [**13**]{}, 144 (1996) V. N. Oraevsky, V. B. Semikoz and Ya. A. Smorodinsky, JETP Lett. [**43**]{}, 709 (1986) R. Shaisultanov, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 113005 (2000), hep-th/0002079 H. Gies and R. Shaisultanov, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 73003 (2000), hep-ph/0003144 H. Gies and R. Shaisultanov, Phys. Lett. B [**480**]{}, 129 (2000), hep-ph/0009342 A. K. Ganguly, S. Konar and P. B. Pal, Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{}, 105014 (1999), hep-ph/9905206 J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. [**82**]{}, 664 (1951) W. Y. Tsai, Phys. Rev. D [**10**]{}, 1342 and 2699 (1974) W. Dittrich, Phys. Rev. D [**19**]{}, 2385 (1979) P. Elmfors, D. Grasso and G. Raffelt, Nucl. Phys. B [**479**]{}, 3 (1996) L. Bento, Phys. Rev. D [**61**]{}, 13004 (2000) J. F. Nieves, Phys. Rev. D61, 113008, 2000; for a similar conclusion using Relativistic Quantum Kinetic theory see: H. T. Elze, T. Kodama and R. Opher, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 13008 (2000)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Recently a new particle physics model called Bound Dark Matter (BDM) has been proposed [@delaMacorra:2009yb] in which dark matter (DM) particles are massless above a threshold energy ($E_c$) and acquire mass below it due to nonperturbative methods. Therefore, the BDM model describes DM particles which are relativistic, hot dark matter (HDM) in the inner regions of galaxies and describes nonrelativistic, cold dark matter (CDM) where halo density is below $\rho_c\equiv E_c^4$. To realize this idea in galaxies we use a particular DM cored profile that contains three parameters: a typical scale length ($r_s$) and density ($\rho_0$) of the halo, and a core radius ($r_c$) stemming from the relativistic nature of the BDM model. We test this model by fitting rotation curves of seventeen Low Surface Brightness (LSB) galaxies from The HI Nearby Galaxy Survey (THINGS). Since the energy $E_c$ parameterizes the phase transition due to the underlying particle physics model, it is independent on the details of galaxy and/or structure formation and therefore the DM profile parameters $r_s, r_c, E_c$ are constrained, leaving only two free parameters. The high spatial and velocity resolution of this sample allows to derive the model parameters through the numerical implementation of the $\chi^2$-goodness-of-fit test to the mass models. We compare the fittings with those of Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW), Burkert, and Pseudo-Isothermal (ISO) profiles. Through the results we conclude that the BDM profile fits better, or equally well, than NFW, Burkert, and ISO profiles and agree with previous results implying that cored profiles are preferred over the N-body motivated cuspy profiles. We also compute 2D likelihoods of the BDM parameters $r_c$ and $E_c$ for the different galaxies and matter contents, and find an average galaxy core radius $r_c = 300$ pc and a transition energy between hot and cold dark matter at $E_c = 0.11^{+0.21}_{-0.07} {\rm \ eV}$ when the DM halo is the only component, therefore the maximum dark matter contribution in galaxies. In a more realistic analysis, as in Kroupa mass model, we obtain a core $r_c = 1.48$ kpc, and energy $E_c = 0.06^{+0.07}_{-0.03} {\rm \ eV}$.'
author:
- Jorge Mastache
- Axel de la Macorra
- 'Jorge L. Cervantes-Cota'
title: |
Core-Cusp revisited and Dark Matter Phase Transition Constrained\
at $\mathcal{O}(0.1)$ eV with LSB Rotation Curve
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
In the last decades intense work to understand the distribution of dark matter (DM) in galaxies has been published [@KrAl78; @Tr87; @SoRu01; @deBlok10]. Among the considered, late-type Low Surface Brightness (LSB) galaxies are of special interest since it is believed they are dominated by DM, and high resolution $HI$, $H_{\alpha}$ and optical data can help to distinguish among the different DM profiles proposed in the literature. There are essentially two types of profiles, the ones stemming from cosmological $N$-body simulations that have a cusp in its inner region, e.g. Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW) profile [@Navarro:1995iw; @Navarro:1996gj]. On the other hand, the phenomenological motived cored profiles, such as the Burkert or Pseudo-Isothermal (ISO) profiles [@Bu95]. Cuspy and cored profiles can both be fitted to most LSB rotation curves, but with a marked preference for a cored inner region with constant density. Furthermore, cuspy profiles that do fit to galaxies in many cases suffer from a parameter inconsistency, since their concentrations ($c$) are too low and velocities $V_{200}$ are too high in comparison to the ones expected from cosmological simulations [@KuMcBl08; @deBlok10]. Some other fits indicate that cuspy profiles require to tune fine the observer’s line of sight with axisymmetric potentials [@KuMcMi09]. However, different systematics may play an important role in the observations such as noncircular motions, resolution of data and other issues [@Swater99; @vandenBosch:1999ka; @Swaters:2000nt; @Rhee:2003vw; @Simon:2003xu; @deBlok:2008wp]. And there are attempts to reconcile both approaches through evolution of DM halo profiles including baryonic processes [@SpGiHa05; @Oh:2010mc] to transform cuspy to shallower profiles that follow the solid-body velocity curve ($v \sim r$) observed in late-type LSB. However, fthis issue is a matter of recent debate, see e.g. [@Pontzen:2011; @Ogiya:2011ta] for a recent discussion.
Alternatively to the above models, recently one of us proposed a profile based on a particle physics model called bound dark matter (BDM) [@delaMacorra:2009yb], in which DM particles at high densities, as in galactic inner regions, are relativistic, i.e. Hot DM (HDM), but in the outer regions they behave as standard CDM. To realize this idea in galaxies we use in the present work a particular DM cored profile that contains three parameters: a typical scale length ($r_s$) and density ($\rho_0$) of the halo and a core radius ($r_c$) stemming from the relativistic nature of the BDM model. The galactic core density is given by $\rho_c\equiv E_c^4$ and the profile properties will determine the energy scale of the particle physics model. We will show that the LSB rotation curves yield a phase transition energy scale $E_c$, between HDM and CDM for our BDM profile, at $E_c = 0.11^{+0.21}_{-0.07} {\rm \ eV}$, when we consider only DM and $E_c = 0.06^{+0.07}_{-0.03}$ when considering gas, DM halo, and the minimum contribution of stars [@delaMacorra:2011df]. The $E_c$ parameter is a new fundamental scale for DM which can be theoretically determined using gauge group dynamics, i.e. it does not depend on the properties of galaxies, once the gauge group is known. However, even though we propose $E_c$ as a new fundamental constant for DM, close related to the mass of our DM particle, and it is important to note that its value is not yet known and we require observational evidence to determine it. The same is true for all masses of the standard model of particles, i.e. their value is not predicted by the standard model and it is the experimental results that fixed them in a consistent manner. We use here the information on galactic rotation curves to determine $E_c$. However, the extracting of $E_c$ does depend not only on the quality of the observational data, the mass models used but also on the choice of DM profile.
To perform this task, we use The HI Nearby Galaxy Survey (THINGS), which collects high spectral resolution data revealing extended measurements of gas rotation velocities and circular baryonic matter trajectories [@Walter:2008wy]. Given these properties it is adequate to test the above-mentioned DM profiles with THINGS, which has been used to test different core/cusp mass profiles. For disk-dominated galaxies the core and cusp profiles fit equally well, however for LSB galaxies there is a clear preference for core profiles over the cuspy models [@deBlok:2008wp]. Analysis of different high resolution datasets have confirmed this tendency in past recent years [@SpGiHa05; @KuMcBl08; @Salucci:2010pz; @Gentile:2004tb; @Salucci:2007tm]. In this work, we present a study of the rotation curves using BDM, NFW, Burkert and ISO DM profiles, taking into account the contribution from different mass models: i) DM alone; ii) DM and gas; and iii) DM, gas and the stellar disk. By fitting the models to the data we find that the BDM profile fits equally well or better than the cored profiles and only for a few LSB galaxies our model resembles that of NFW.
The kinematics of stars bring a very challenging problem in the analysis, mainly due to the uncertainty of the mass-to-light ratio ($\gs$) and to its dominant behavior close to the galactic center. Some considerations have been made in order to reduce this uncertainty in the parameters [@vanAlbada; @Salpeter:1955it; @Kroupa:2000iv; @Bottema:1997qe], but still the stellar contribution is not well known. In our case, we study four different $\gs$ models and the most inner part of the data enable us to compute the BDM parameters $r_c$ and $E_c$, both related to the galactic core. We present the 1$\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ likelihood contour plots of these parameters for the different galaxies and mass models. We notice that being $r_c$ different for each mass model it is consistent within the $2\sigma$ error for each galaxy. Additionally, we find that the galaxy core radius is the order of $r_c \sim 300 {\rm \ pc}$ and the $E_c \sim \mathcal{O}(0.1 {\rm \ eV})$ which gives the transition between hot and cold DM, this is shown in preliminary study [@delaMacorra:2011df]. It is also interesting to note the coincidence in the magnitude of the sum of neutrino masses with the magnitude of $E_c$ obtained in this analysis, and how this could open an interesting connection between the generation of DM and neutrinos masses, but this will be presented elsewhere [@NBDM]. The magnitude of the energy transition $E_c$ is of the same order as the upper limit of the total mass of the neutrinos $\sum m_\nu < 0.58 {\rm \ eV} (95\% {\rm \ CL)}$ from the seven year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropic Probe (WMAP), Baryon Acoustic Oscillation (BAO), and the Hubble constant ($H_0$) [@Larson:2010gs; @Komatsu:2010fb]. In addition, the recent analysis of the Atacama Cosmology Telescope [@Dunkley:2010ge] that combined CMB data with measurements of BAO and the Hubble constant reported an excess of the effective number of relativistic degrees of freedom, $N_{eff} = 4.6 \pm 0.8$, in consistency with Ref. [@Komatsu:2010fb], opening the possibility to have extra nonstandard-model relativistic degrees of freedom, as our BDM particle.
We organized this work as follows: In Sec. \[SPM\] we explain the particle model behind the BDM profile. In Sec. \[modelo\] we present our BDM profile, which has NFW as a limit at low energies. In Sec. \[sample\] we describe the galaxy sample considered for the rotation curves study. The different mass models and components (gas, stars, DM halo) are presented in detail in Sec. \[MaMo\], while the different hypothesis of the mass-to-light ratio are discussed in subsection \[MaMoEsDi\]. The results and conclusions are presented in Sec. \[results\] and \[conclusion\], respectively. For convenience, some figures and tables are shown in the Appendices. We show in Appendices \[apend: diet-salpeter\] and \[apendix:iso\_burkert\_result\] the fitting values corresponding to the free parameters for some of the cored profiles for the maximum stellar contribution. Finally, in Appendix \[apend:LikelihoodPlot\] we present the rotation curves of the different profiles and galaxies and we include the confidence contours levels, pointing out the considerations made for each galaxy.
Particle Model {#SPM}
==============
We now present the physics and motivation behind our BDM model [@delaMacorra:2009yb]. Cosmological evolution of gauge groups, similar to QCD, have been studied to understand the nature of dark energy [@Macorra.DE] and also DM [@Macorra.DEDM]. A particle mass can be generated either by the Higgs mechanism or by a nonperturbative effect. In the Standard Model (SM) the fundamental particles (quarks, electrons, neutrinos) get their mass by the interaction with the Higgs field that acquires a nonvanishing vacuum expectation value at the electroweak scale $E_{\rm ew}=O(100 {\rm \ GeV})$, while at higher energies all SM particles have vanishing masses. On the other hand, the nonperturbative gauge mechanism is based on the strength of gauge interaction and the mass of the particles is expected to be at the same order of magnitude as the phase transition scale as for example protons and neutrons. For asymptotically free gauge groups, such as the strong Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) force in the SM, the gauge coupling constant becomes strong at low energies and binds the elementary particles (quarks) forming neutral particles such as protons, neutrons, and mesons. The condensation or phase transition scale is defined as the energy where the gauge coupling constant $g$ becomes strong, $g(\Lambda)\gg 1$, giving a condensation scale $\Lambda_c = \Lambda_i\,e^{-8\pi^2/bg^2_i}$, where $b$ is the one-loop beta function which depends only on the number of fields in the gauge group. For example for a SUSY gauge group $SU(N_c),N_f$, where $N_c(N_f)$ is the number of colors (flavors), we have $b=3N_c-N_f$ and $g_i$ is the value of the coupling constant at an initial scale $\Lambda_i$. The fact that $\Lambda_c $ is exponentially suppressed compared to $\Lambda_i$ allows as to understand why $\Lambda_c $ can be much smaller then the initial $E_i$ which may be identified with the Planck, Inflation or Unification scale. In our case the gauge group and elementary fields [*are not*]{} part of the standard model (SM). Our dark gauge group is assumed to interact with the SM only through gravity and is widely predicted by extensions of the SM, such as brane or string theories. We can relate $E_c$ to $\Lambda_c$ since the energy density depends on the average energy per particle and the particle number density $n$, i.e. $\rho_c\equiv E_c^4 = \Lambda_c\,n$.\
For asymptotic free gauge groups, such as QCD, the low energy states consist of bound gauge singlets, such as baryons and mesons in QCD, formed by fundamental (nearly massless) particles, quarks in QCD. The order of magnitude of the mass of these particles is [@delaMacorra:2009yb] \[mb\] m\_[BS]{}=dE\_c with $d=O(1)$ a proportionality constant. In QCD one has $E_c\simeq 200\,{\rm MeV}$ with the pion mass $m_\pi\simeq140 {\rm \ MeV}$ while the baryons mass (protons and neutrons) $m_b\simeq 940 {\rm \ MeV}$, i.e. the proportionality constant is in the range $0.7<d<5$, and with bound mass much larger than the mass of the quarks ($m_u\simeq (1-3) {\rm \ MeV},
m_d\simeq (3.5-6) {\rm \ MeV}$). Clearly the mass of the bound states is not the sum of its elementary particles but is due to the nonperturbative effects of the strong force and is well parameterized by $E_c$. The dynamical formation of bound states is not completely understood since it involves nonperturbative physics. However, it has been shown in RHIC [@Adams:2005dq] that at high density, above the transition scale $E_c$, the QCD quarks do indeed behave as free particles, while at low energies there are no free elementary quarks and all quarks form gauge neutral bound states. Since the interaction strength increases at lower energies, the formation of bound states is expected to be larger at the smallest possible particle bound state energy $E_{BS}$ (i.e. $E_{BS}=m_{BS}$) with momentum $p^2=E_{BS}^2-m_{BS}^2 \simeq 0$. The energy distribution of bound states formation is still under investigation [@Bazavov:2009zn] and for simplicity we take here $p=0$ which gives a vanishing particle velocity for the bound states.
It is precisely this nonperturbative gauge mechanism that we have in mind for our bound states dark matter BDM. Of course, in our case the gauge group and elementary fields [*are not*]{} part of the SM. Our “dark” gauge group is assumed to interact with the SM only through gravity and is widely predicted by extensions of the SM, such as brane or string theories. Even though we have motivated our BDM in terms of a well motivated particle physics model we stress the fact that the cosmological implications of BDM do not depend on its origin. The BDM is defined by a DM that at high energy densities, $\rbm>\rc$, the particles behave as relativistic HDM with a particle velocity $v=c$ while for lower energy densities $\rbm<\rc$, the BDM are cold bound state particles, i.e. CDM with $v \ll c$.
There are two natural places where one may encounter high energy densities $\rbm$ for dark matter. One is at early cosmological times and the second place is at the inner regions of galaxies. In the first case, we define $a_c$ as the transition scale factor where E\_c\^4= (a=a\_c) and the Universe is dense and for $a<a_c$ the BDM particles are relativistic and redshift as radiation while for $a> a_c$ we have nonrelativistic BDM particles and they redshift as matter, i.e. (a>a\_c) a\^[-3]{} In the second case, away from the center of the galaxies the energy density is smaller and it increases towards its center and in a NFW profile it blows up $\rho \rightarrow \infty$ when the radius $r\rightarrow 0$. Therefore we will have for $\rbm < \rc$ and the BDM particles are cold, i.e. CDM, but in the inner region once $\rbm\geq \rc$ one has a transition and the BDM particles become relativistic, (r>r\_c) v0 where $r_c$ is defined by $\rbm(r=r_c)=\rc$. The dispersion velocity $v$ of the BDM particles is vanishing for $r$ larger than $r_c$, the particles are CDM, while at the galactic center the BDM particles are relativistic and for $r<r_c$ it is $v=c$ it gives a core inner region at $r\leq \rrc$ and with $\rcc=\rc$, the energy density of the galaxy at $\rrc$.
BDM profile {#modelo}
===========
The BDM model simply consists of particles that at high energy densities are massless relativistic particles with the speed of light, but at low energy densities they acquire a large mass, due to nonperturbative quantum field effects, and become nonrelativistic with a vanishing (small) dispersion velocity. The phase transition takes place at an energy density defined as $\rc\equiv E_c^4$ and is related to the mass of the DM particle. The value of $\rc$ can be determined theoretically, given a gauge group model, or phenomenologically by consistency with cosmological or astrophysical data. In the present work we estimate its value through the study of the BDM from rotation curves. It is worth pointing out that the mass of the SM particles are also free parameters in the SM and it is the physics in colliders, such as in the LHC at CERN, which defines its value. In our case, since the BDM particles do interact only weakly with the SM we cannot use collider data to measure its mass and we are left with astronomical and cosmological observations.
The average energy densities in galactic halos is of the order $\rho_g \sim 10^{5} \rho_{\rm cr}$ ($\rho_{\rm cr}$, being the critical Universe’s background density) and as long as $\rho_g<\rc$ we expect a standard CDM galaxy profile, which may be given by the NFW profile, $\rho_{{\rm nfw}}$. The NFW profile has a cuspy inner region with $\rho_{{\rm nfw}}$ diverging in the center of the galaxy. Therefore, once one approaches the center of the galaxy the energy density increases in the NFW profile and once it reaches the point $\rho_g=\rc$ we encounter the phase transition and the BDM particles become massless. Inside $r<\rrc$ the BDM particles are relativistic and the DM energy density $\rrc$ remains constant avoiding a galactic cusp. Of course we would expect a smooth transition region between these two distinct behaviors but we expect the effect of the thickness of this transition region to be small and we will not consider it here.
Since our BDM behaves as CDM for $\rho < \rho_c$ as long as the density of the galaxy is $\rho_g< \rho_c$ we expect to have a NFW type profile in this limiting case. Therefore, the proposed BDM profile [@delaMacorra:2009yb] is given by a cored CDM profile \[eq:rhobdm\] \_[bdm]{}&&=\
&& = , \[eq:fix-BDM\]with $\rrc< r_s$ and $r_s,\rho_0$ are typical NFW halo dependent parameters. The BDM profile coincides with $\rho_{{\rm nfw}}$ at large radius but has a core inner region, when the galaxy energy density $\rho_{bdm}$ reaches the value $\rc=E_c^4$ at $r\simeq r_c $ and for $r_c \ll r_s$ we have \[eq:relation ec\_free\_bdm\_params\] \_[bdm]{}(r=)= , with the core radius given by $\rrc \equiv \fr{\rho_0 r_s}{2\rc}$. The value of $\rrc$ depends on the galaxy profile parameters $\rho_0$ and $r_s$.
If we assume that the transition energy of the BDM particles is a fundamental parameter in the DM nature that can be constrained by fitting the rotation curve of galaxies, we can substitute one of the three free parameters by the density $\rho_c$ in the BDM profile, Eq. (\[eq:rhobdm\]), using the relation (\[eq:relation ec\_free\_bdm\_params\]). We call “fixed-BDM” to the profile that is obtained as a result of substituting the free parameter $\rho_0$ by the fundamental quantity $\rho_c$ as in Eq.(\[eq:fix-BDM\]). The fixed-BDM profile depends now on the fundamental density $\rho_c$, which is the same for all galaxies, and on the two free parameters $r_s$ and $r_c$ that depend on the morphology of each galaxy.
The slope of BDM profile is \[sl\] - = and takes the values $\alpha=(0,1/2,1)$ for $r=(0,\rrc,\rrc\ll r\ll r_s)$ and $\alpha=(2,3)$ for $r=(r_s,r_s\ll r)$. If we are interested in the inner region of the galaxy, for values of $r\ll r_s$, Eq. (\[sl\]) can be approximated for $r_c \ll r_s$ with \[eq:sl2\] 0= < 1 in terms of $y\equiv r/\rrc$ with $0\leq y < \infty$. Given a value of $\alpha$ we can determine the value of $y =r/\rrc= \alpha/(1-\alpha)$.
For future reference (see Sec. \[results\]) we introduce here a phenomenological ansatz for a model independent DM profile, useful to investigate the central region of a galaxy, given by $\rho_\alpha=\rho_0\,r^{-\alpha}$ with $\rho_0, \alpha$ constant parameters.
Fittings to observational data have shown that the NFW halo profile is not a good description for rotation curves, and it is generally preferred a core dominated halo model [@Salucci:2007tm], although some scatter in $\alpha$ could be possible [@Simon:2005]. In the present work our objective is to test the realization of the BDM model, Eq. (\[eq:rhobdm\]), through rotation curves of a wide sample of galaxies. We aim to derive the kinematics properties of the galaxies and, in particular, we constrain the slope $\alpha$ and the transition energy $E_c$.
The Sample {#sample}
==========
With the current HI data provided by THINGS high resolution and excellent sensitivity of the velocity fields and rotation curves are available making possible to revisit some of the outstanding questions about DM, and to compare the applicability of both core or cusp models. THINGS galaxies have an observing data sample of 34 nearby galaxies containing a large range of luminosities and Hubble types at the desired sub-[kpc]{} resolution, but we limit our sample to seventeen low luminous (early type and dwarf) galaxies with smooth, symmetric and extended to large radii rotation curves and small or none bulge, see Table \[tab:things\]. These properties provide a good estimate of the DM halo in galaxies because it is believed that it dominates over all other components at all radii. For technical details and systematic effects treatment of the observations of the THINGS sample refer to Refs. [@Walter:2008wy; @Trachternach:2008wv; @Oh:2008ww] and for a complete analysis of its rotation curves see [@deBlok:2008wp], hereafter deBlok08.
The mass models (in Sec. \[MaMo\]) are constructed with the rotation curves extracted with THINGS data and the $3.6 \ {\rm \mu m}$ data from SINGS (Spitzer Infrared Nearby Galaxies Survey) [@Kennicutt:2003dc]. We follow the analysis of deBlok08 and McGaugh et al. (2007) [@McGaugh:2006vv] for the sample considered here.
Mass Models {#MaMo}
===========
Our mass models include the three main components of a spiral galaxy: thin gaseous disk, $V_G$, a thick stellar disk, $V_{\star}$, and a DM halo, $V_H$. In most cases the stellar disk can be well described by a single exponential disk. When necessary, in a small number of galaxies we have considered an additional central component, a bulge, containing a small fraction of the total luminosity of the galaxy, as described by deBlok08 [@deBlok:2008wp]. The gravitational potential of the galaxy is the sum of each mass component, thus the observed rotation velocity is
\^2 = [V\_H]{}\^2 + [V\_G]{}\^2 + \^2. \[VelT\]
As an input we need the observational rotation curve, $V_{obs}$, the rotation curve of the gas component, $V_G$, and the stellar component $V_\star$. With this data we can extract information for the DM halo through our theoretical model. We describe in more detail the treatment for the gas component in Sec. \[MaMoGa\], as well for the stellar component in Sec. \[MaMoEsDi\]. In Sec. \[MaMoDM\] we describe the DM models used.
Neutral Gas Distribution \[MaMoGa\]
-----------------------------------
For the gas we assume an infinitely thin disk in order to compute the corresponding rotation curve. For more technical details we refer to *deBlok08*. We point out that the case of a disk with sufficient central depression in the mass distribution can yield a net force pointing outwards, and this generates an imaginary rotation velocity and therefore a negative $V_G^2$. An imaginary velocity is just a reflect of the effective force of a test particle caused by a nonspherical mass distribution with a depression mass in the center. We have not include the contribution of the molecular gas since its surface density is only a few percent of the that of the stars, therefore its contribution is reflected in a small increase in $\gs$ [@Portas:2009].
Stellar Distribution \[MaMoEsDi\]
---------------------------------
To model the stellar disk we use the approximation of a radial exponential profile of zero thickness, the Freeman disk [@Freeman:1970mx], since the disk vertical scale height does not change appreciably with radius and the correction to the velocity is around 5% in most cases [@Burlak:1997]. Thus, the central surface density is $\Sigma(R) = \Sigma_0 e^{-R/Rd}$, where $R_d$ is the scale length of the disk and $\Sigma_0$ is the central surface density with units \[$M_\sun pc^{-2}$\]. These two parameters are obtained first by fitting the observed surface brightness profile, extracted from the SINGS images at the $3.6 \mu m$ band and synthesized by deBlok08, to the linear formula $\mu(R) = \mu_0 + 1.0857 R/R_d$ where $\mu_0$ is the central surface brightness given in observational units \[mag arcsec$^{-2}$\], $\mu_0$ and the surface brightness are related by a simple change of units. We get the surface density thanks to the mass-to-light ratio $\gs$, an additional free parameter in the mass model, introduced because we generally can only measure the distribution of the light instead of the mass.
The rotation velocity of an exponential disk is given by the well know Freeman formula [@Freeman:1970mx] $V_\star(y') \propto y'^2 \left[I_0(y')K_0(y') - I_1(y')K_1(y')\right]$, where $y' \equiv R/(2 R_d)$ and $I_n$ and $K_n$ are the modified Bessel functions of order *n* of the first and second kind, respectively.
When we deduce the DM properties, the $\gs$ as well as the Initial Mass Function (IMF) remain as the major sources of uncertainty. The unknown value of $\gs$ makes it hard to pick out between cusp and core profiles. In order to constrain the wide range of DM halo parameters we follow the approach used by deBlok08 instead of the van Albada & Sancisi [@vanAlbada]. We considered a “diet”-Salpeter IMF [@Salpeter:1955it] in which stellar mass population syntheses have proved [@Bell:2000jt] to maximize the disk mass contribution (maximum disk) for a given photometric constraint, J-K color band. We also consider the Kroupa IMF [@Kroupa:2000iv] based on stellar population studies in the Milky Way that produces lower disk masses that minimizes the baryonic contribution by a factor of 1.4 less massive than the diet-Salpeter ones.
In the numerical analysis we use the $\gs$ from the $3.6\mu m$ obtained in deBlok08 using an empirical approach into the relation between the $3.6\mu m$ emission and $\gs$ using the J-K colors given in the 2MASS Large Galaxy Atlas [@Jarrett:2003uy].
Disk galaxies sometimes show radial color gradients, and it is believed that this provides an indication of stellar population between the inner and outer regions of a galaxy and produce $\gs$ gradients between these two regions of the disk [@Taylor:2005sf]. We take the $\gs$ as a function of the radius in order to consider the different stars contribution as it depends on the region that we were analyzing.
The $\gs$ has been modeled (e.g. Salpeter [@Salpeter:1955it], Kroupa [@Kroupa:2000iv], Bottema[@Bottema:1997qe]), but the precise value for an individual galaxy is not well known and depends on extinction, star formation history, IMF, among others. Some assumptions have to be made respect to $\gs$ in order to reduce the number of free parameters in the model. We present a disk-halo decomposition using different assumptions for $\gs$ for the galaxy sample considered here.
Minimal disk
: This model assumes that the observed rotation curve is only due to DM. This gives the upper limit on how concentrated the DM component can be in the galaxy.
Minimal disk plus gas
: The contribution of the atomic gas and the DM halo is taken into account, but stars have no contribution ($\gs=0$).
Kroupa
: Studies of the stellar population in the Milky Way suggest that the Kroupa IMF produces low disk masses that we consider as the minimal limit for the stellar disk.
diet-Salpeter
: Here $\gs$ is set to be a constant value based on the diet-Salpeter IMF, in which the stellar population synthesis model has proven to give a maximum stellar disk for a given photometric constraint.
Free $\gs$
: Here we ignore a priori any knowledge of the IMF and treat $\gs$ as an extra free parameter in the model, and we let the program to choose the best-fitted value for $\gs$.
The contribution of the atomic gas is considered in the Kroupa, diet-Salpeter, and Free $\gs$ mass models. In our fit we consider radial color gradient and, when present, the bulge for the stellar disk. In the results section we make emphasis on some difference in the core fit when we do not take into account one or both of these two ingredients in the stellar disk.
DM Halos \[MaMoDM\]
-------------------
We use three well-known models for the DM distribution. $\Lambda$CDM simulations come up with a DM density profile independent of the mass of the halo characterized by a cusp central density, the NFW profile. On the other hand observational determinations of the inner mass density distribution seems to indicate that mass density profiles of DM halos can be better described using an approximately constant-density inner core ($\rho \sim r^\alpha$ with $\alpha \ll 1$). This core has a typical size of order of a [kpc]{} [@Moore:1994yx; @de; @Blok:1996ns], and examples of these profiles are the ISO and Burkert. Here we also consider our proposed BDM to test it and compare it.
Strictly speaking, we are dealing with circular rotation velocities of test particles in the plane of the galaxy and we assume spherical halos. For this distribution of matter the circular velocity at radius $r$ is given by $V_H^2(r) = G M(r)/r$. We do not consider the adiabatic contraction of the dark matter halo but be are aware that it predicts the increase of dark matter density in the 5% of the virial radius [@Gnedin:2004cx].
### NFW Halo \[MaMoNFW\]
The NFW profile takes the form \[eq:rhoNFW\] \_[[nfw]{}]{} = , where $r_s$ is the characteristic radius of the halo, and $\rho_0$ is related to the density of the Universe at the time of collapse of the DM halo. This mass distribution gives rise to a halo rotation curve V\_H\^2(r) = . This density profile has an inner and outer slope of -1 and -3, respectively. The inner slope implies a density cusp. The halo density can be specified in terms of a concentration parameter $c = r_{200}/r_s$ that indicates the amount of collapse that the DM halo has undergone, where the radius $r_{200}$ is defined as the radii at which the density contrast of the galaxy is 200 times greater than the critical density $\rho_{\rm cr}$, defined as $\rho_{\rm cr} = 3 H^2/(8 \pi G)$, [*H*]{} being the Hubble parameter.
We use the $\rho_0$ and $r_s$ as the free parameters for the NFW model instead of the classical $c$ and $V_{200}$, because these two parameters can be interpreted and compared directly with the free parameters of other DM halo profiles.
### BDM Halo \[MaMoBDM\]
Recalling that the BDM model predicts an inner galaxy core radius determined by the energy scale $E_c$, which corresponds to the phase transition energy scale of the subjacent elementary particle model. The proposed profile is shown in Eq. (\[eq:rhobdm\]) coincides with $\rho_{{\rm nfw}}$ profile at large radii since $\rho \propto r^{-3}$ but has a core inner region at $r = r_c$ where $\rho \propto \rho_0 r_s r_c^{-1}$. Its circular velocity is given by V\_H(r)\^2 = , where the additional free parameter $r_c$ is the galaxy core radius that demarcates the place where the BDM particles have an energy greater than $E_c$ and behaves as HDM for $r < r_c$. If the radius is greater than $r_c$ the BDM particles acquire a large mass through a nonperturbative mechanism and behave as CDM. $r_s$ is just a characteristic scale for the DM halo.
### Burkert Halo \[MaMoBur\]
The cored Burkert halo profile is given by \[eq:rhoBurkert\] \_B =, where $\rho_0$ is the central density, $r_s$ is the core radius. The rotation curves caused by this halo are given by \^2 = (- 2 ).
### Pseudo-Isothermal Halo \[MaMoIso\]
The spherical pseudo-isothermal (ISO) halo has a density profile \[eq:rhoISO\] \_[ISO]{} =, where $\rho_0$ here is the central density of the halo and $r_s$ is the core radius of the halo. The corresponding DM rotation curve is V\_H(r)\^2 = 4 G \_0 r\_s\^2.
Computing the Mass Models {#NuMe}
-------------------------
We use the observed rotation curve, stellar, and gas component as an input for the numerical code, in order to obtain the properties of the DM halo. In order to fit the observational velocity curve with the theoretical model we use the $\chi^2$-goodness-of-fit test ($\chi^2$-test), that tell us how “close" are the theoretical to the observed values. In general the $\chi^2$-test statistics is of the form: \^2 = \_[i=1]{}\^n ()\^2, where $\sigma$ is the standard deviation, and $n$ is the number of observations.
We fit the free parameters of the DM halo for the Kroupa minimal disk and diet-Salpeter maximum disk with a $\chi^2$-test. When we minimize $\chi^2$ we use different methods of minimization, Differential Evolution, NelderMead, and SimulatedAnnealing, in order to be sure that we are not in a local minimal, and at the same time we put constraints on the free parameter in order to have values greater than or equal to zero to obtain physical reasonable values. For BDM we constrain $r_c$ to values smaller than $r_s$, because it makes no sense to consider core radius greater than the characteristic radius of the DM halo.
Comparison of the fits derived can tell us which of the DM models is preferred. More important are the differences between the reduced $\chi^2_{\rm red}=\chi^2/(n-p-1)$ values, where $n$ is the number of observations and $p$ is the number of fitted parameters.
The uncertainties in the rotation velocity are reflected in the uncertainties in the model parameters.
As the ISO and Burkert halo have no basis in standard cosmology, there are no a priori expectations for its model parameters. One can derive them and check for possible trends with other fundamental galaxy parameters, as other authors have done [@Kormendy:2004se].
Results
=======
We have analyzed the rotation curves of seventeen galaxies using five disk models (Sec. \[MaMoEsDi\]) and four different DM profiles: our BDM, NFW, Burkert, and pseudo-isothermal (Sec. \[MaMoDM\]). Since we have a large number of tables and figures, and because we want to emphasize the main results, in this section we mainly present three disk models (min.disk, min.disk+gas, Kroupa) and two DM profiles (BDM and NFW). However, each DM profile is analyzed with all the disk models except for the free $\gs$, for which only the BDM profile is tested. The rest of the tables and figures are in the Appendices as explained below. In the following we shall use the term “mass models” to refer to different disk mass scenarios for the analysis of the rotation curves as described in Sec. \[MaMoEsDi\], and denote “min.disk” and “min.disk+gas” as minimal disk and minimal disk plus gas abbreviations, respectively. It is worth pointing out that including color gradients we obtain a better fit to the rotation curve in our analysis. We have also consider the effect of a bulge when it is present in the galaxy and found that the rotation curves are still consistent with a core $r_c \neq 0$. However, since the bulge contributes significantly to the inner part of the galaxy the value of $r_c$ is smaller when a bulge is taken into account and in some galaxies the $1\sigma$ standard deviation of $r_c$ may also consistent with a vanishing core. The adequate surface brightness distribution for the bulge has been proven to be of an exponential form [@deBlok:2008wp] which is the model that we consider here. Galaxies with a bulge deserve a closer analysis to the parameter estimation, as we discuss below.
We present the results of NFW and BDM profiles in order to compare them since the BDM profile that has NFW as a limit when $r_c \rightarrow 0$. The fitted values of the profile parameters are shown in the following mass models order: min.disk, min.disk+gas, and Kroupa are in Tables \[tab:onlydm\_bdmnfw\], \[tab:onlydm+gas\_bdmnfw\], and \[tab:kroupa\_bdmnfw\], respectively. We present the $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ likelihood contours plots of $\rho_0$ and $r_c$ in Figures \[tab:conflevel\_A\], \[tab:conflevel\_B\], \[tab:conflevel\_C\], and \[tab:conflevel\_inner B\].
We leave in Appendix \[apend: diet-salpeter\] the results for the diet-Salpeter (Table \[tab:salpeter\_bdmnfw\]), the BDM free $\gs$ scenario (Table \[tab:free\_bdm\]), and the fitted values for the Burkert and ISO profiles with different mass models (Tables \[tab:burkert\], \[tab:iso\]). The details of the analysis for each galaxy as well as the figures when considering the different mass scenarios are in Appendix \[apend:LikelihoodPlot\].
We have grouped the galaxies into three blocks according to the fitted values of $r_c$ of the BDM profile as shown in column (2) of Table \[tab:onlydm\_bdmnfw\]. The first one, Group A (G.A.), is composed of galaxies with a core radius $r_s > r_c \neq 0$. The second, Group B (G.B.), is formed by galaxies in which $r_c$ took its upper limit value, $r_c = r_s$, and finally, the Group C (G.C.) is where $r_c$ is negligible, $r_c/r_s < 10^{-6}$. For the sake of simplicity we conserve the same group structure for the forthcoming tables. We shall explain the physical interpretation of the results for each group in the following paragraphs.
Let us firstly discuss G.A. galaxies. This group comprises galaxies with reasonable fitted values for the BDM parameters $r_c, r_s$, and $\rho_0$, and it is composed of the galaxies DDO 154, NGC 2841, NGC 3031, NGC 3621, NGC 4736, NGC 6946, and NGC 7793. In the galaxies NGC 3031, NGC 4736, and NGC 6946 a bulge is present and it gives a better fit, but the $\chi^2$ is only slightly reduced. On the other hand, the bulge in galaxy NGC 3031 with a diet-Salpeter mass model is overestimated and the fit is worst when is analyzed without the bulge.
For G.A. galaxies we obtain values for $r_c \leq 200$ [pc]{} and an average $r_s \sim 4$ [kpc]{} in the minimal disk analysis that are typical values for a galaxy, except for DDO 154 which has a larger core, $r_c = 1.35$ [kpc]{}. On the other hand, the average of the scale radius for the NFW profile is slightly bigger, $r_s \sim 6$ [kpc]{}, shifting the cusp to larger radii. In Tables \[tab:onlydm\_bdmnfw\], \[tab:onlydm+gas\_bdmnfw\], and \[tab:kroupa\_bdmnfw\] we show the fittings for BDM and NFW profiles with the three mass models mentioned above. We see that the BDM core radius decreases, when more mass components are taking into account. The reason for this is that $r_c$ and the amount of disk and bulge masses are degenerated parameters, and this happens more when e.g. the stellar disk has a more dominant behavior close to the center of the galaxy, preventing us from having a better precision for $r_c$.
In Appendix \[apendix:ga\] we show the fittings for all DM profiles and mass models and the rotation curves for each galaxy. From the likelihoods (e.g. Fig. (\[tab:conflevel\_A\])) we see that the core radius decreases, and even $r_c \rightarrow 0$ becomes valid, when more mass components are taking into account. The reason for this is that $r_c$ and $\gs$ are degenerated parameters, and this happens more when the stellar disk has a dominant behavior close to the center of the galaxy, preventing us from having a better precision.
We notice that for all the G.A. galaxies the $\chi^2$ in BDM is smaller than NFW’s. The extra parameter ($r_c$) in BDM, however, makes the reduced $\chi^2_{\rm red}$ equivalent for both profiles. The $\chi^2_{\rm red}$ in the BDM profile tends to NFW’s value when $r_c \rightarrow 0$ as explained in Sec. \[modelo\]. When the value of $r_c \geq 40$ [pc]{}, BDM is clearly better fitted than NFW, and also than the other two cored profiles, cf. Tables \[tab:onlydm\_bdmnfw\], \[tab:burkert\] and \[tab:iso\] for the min.disk mass model. Burkert and ISO profiles have difficulties when fitting a couple galaxies (NGC 4736, NGC 3621) having $\chi^2_{\rm red} > 5$ while BDM and NFW each have $\chi^2_{\rm red} \leq 2$. For the galaxy DDO 154 all cored profiles fit equally well for every mass model, since they have a $\chi^2_{\rm red} \leq 1$, meaning that the fits lie inside the uncertainty of the observations. For galaxies NGC 3031 and NGC 7793 none of the DM profiles provide a good fit, being BDM the best fit for both galaxies with a $\chi^2_{\rm red} > 3$ for each of the mass models. Such a large $\chi^2_{\rm red}$ is due to the uncommon velocity drop in the rotation curve at large radii in these galaxies.
We now turn to the analysis of confidence levels of $r_c$ and $\rho_0$ in the BDM profile stemming from the different mass models for this set of galaxies, shown in Fig. (\[tab:conflevel\_A\]). From this table we deduce that the core average is $r_c \simeq 40$ [pc]{} and a core energy $E_c \simeq 0.22 {\rm \ eV}$ for the min.disk mass model, where we have taken a logarithm-normal distribution.It is worth noticing that energy $E_c $ has a smaller dispersion than $r_c$ or $r_s$ and we supports the hypothesis that a signal that $E_c$ is a constant parameter. This indicates the fundamental importance of the energy parameter in the BDM model. The likelihood contour plots also reveal how the central contribution of the gas makes $r_c$ to increase (c.f. min.disk vs. min.disk + gas), but on the contrary, stellar disk fades away the evidence of the core making $r_c \rightarrow 0$, e.g. the galaxies NGC 3031, NGC 3621, and NGC 6946 for the Kroupa mass model are consistent with a null $r_c$ at $1\sigma$. We also observe that even when $r_c$ is different for each mass model its value lies inside the confidence levels obtained from the other mass models for the same galaxy. For example, for the galaxy NGC 3621 the central value of $r_c < 60$ [pc]{} for min.disk and min.disk+gas, but the confidence levels are still equivalent with a zero core. On the other hand, when stars are considered in Kroupa the central value is $r_c \rightarrow 0$, but confidence contours show that can be well accepted values up to 30 [pc]{}. This, on the other hand, means that the amount of data in this galaxy is not good enough to clearly discern between a core or cusp profile. We obtain $r_c = r_s$ for the galaxy NGC 4736 (Kroupa mass model), in which the likelihoods restrict quite strongly the $r_c$ value.
Let us now discuss Group B (G.B.) which is composed of the galaxies IC 2574, NGC 2366, NGC 2903, NGC 2976, NGC 3198, NGC 3521, and NGC 925. These galaxies have preferred a fitted values $r_c \simeq r_s$, that makes our BDM profile of a particular type, $\rho \propto (r_c + r)^{-3}$. The $r_c$ value for IC 2574, NGC 2976, and NGC 925 galaxies is of the order of the farthest observation from the galactic center which entails that the density of the DM halo is constant at all observed radii. In G.B. the only galaxies that have a bulge are NGC 2903 and NGC 3198. The galaxy NGC 3198 presents a sudden reddening in the inner most region that might indicate the presence of a central component, therefore we performed the fits with and without a bulge for this galaxy. The bulge component in both galaxies overestimated the rotation velocity, indicating that is likely to be dynamically less important than suggested by the mass models. The fits for the G.B. galaxies are in Tables \[tab:onlydm\_bdmnfw\], \[tab:onlydm+gas\_bdmnfw\], \[tab:kroupa\_bdmnfw\], and \[tab:salpeter\_bdmnfw\], and the rotation curves are in Appendix \[apendix:gb\].
It is worth noticing that for this set of galaxies the BDM profile fits much better than NFW’s, having the former smaller $\chi_{\rm red}^2$. In fact, Burkert and ISO profiles also fit better than NFW’s, indicating that a core is needed for G.B. galaxies. The BDM profile fits better or equally well than the other two cored profiles in all the analyzed scenarios. The BDM and Burkert profiles are slightly better than ISO’s profile when we consider min.disk and min.disk+gas analysis. Otherwise, for Kroupa and diet-Salpeter mass models the BDM and ISO profiles have equivalent $\chi^2_{\rm red}$ and fit a bit better than Burkert’s.
The $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ likelihood contour plots of $r_c$ and $\rho_0$ for the G.B. are shown in Fig. (\[tab:conflevel\_B\]). We notice that when more mass components are included in the analysis the contours plots become broader. The BDM profile consistent fits values of $r_c \simeq r_s$ for all mass models have an average $r_c$ value of 6 and 5 [kpc]{} for min.disk and min.disk+gas, respectively. There is an exception when considering the Kroupa and diet-Salpeter mass models in IC 2574, NGC 2903, and NGC 3521 galaxies for which $r_c \ne r_s$, as seen in Table \[tab:kroupa\_bdmnfw\] and \[tab:salpeter\_bdmnfw\].
In general, the rotation curves fits prefer cored profiles over NFW’s, but for this group of galaxies we found that $r_c \simeq r_s$, that defines the particular cored profile mentioned before. To understand in more detail the parameter estimation in these galaxies we performed an analysis of the inner galactic region, see Sec. \[sec:inner\_analysis\]. The galaxies IC 2574, NGC 2976, and NGC 925 are characterized for having a rotation curve with constant positive slope at all radii, see Figs. \[fig:inner\_grph1\], \[fig:inner\_grph2\], and \[fig:inner\_grph4\]. It is important to emphasize that for these galaxies the different results obtained from the BDM and inner analysis are all in good agreement. First, the fit of BDM profile results in $r_c \simeq r_s$ that is of the order of the maximum observed radius. Then, for the inner profile $\rho_{in}$ we obtain $r_s/r_c \geq 10^2$ in most of the cases. Finally, we obtained $\alpha \leq 0.9$ for these galaxies when fitting $\rho_{\alpha}=\rho_0 r^{-\alpha}$ taking into account all the observations, see Table \[tab:inner\_result\]. The different results obtained from the different analysis imply that the DM halo density for these galaxies is constant up to the maximum observed radius. This clearly indicates that DM halos need to have cored profiles for the correct description of these galaxies.
The $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ confidence levels of $r_c$ and $\rho_c$ are shown in Fig. (\[tab:conflevel\_inner B\]). With the inner analysis we notice that the length of the core radius is reduced, for example, the average $r_c = 2.2$ [kpc]{}, $r_c = 3.5$ [kpc]{} for min.disk and min.disk+gas, respectively, with energy $E_c \sim 0.06 {\rm \ eV}$ in both cases and assuming a logarithm-normal distribution in our sample. We notice since stars are difficult to treat, for the Kroupa and diet-Salpeter mass models, the confidence levels increase up to an order of magnitude for the $r_c$ value.
The last and smallest group is Group C (G.C.) composed of galaxies NGC 2403, NGC 5055, and NGC 7331. In these galaxies is present a bulge in their stellar structure, however, their contribution is not enough to adequately explain the rotation curves. This is probably an indication that the bulge has been dynamically underestimated in the calculations, as suggested by the Kroupa or diet-Salpeter mass models, except for the NGC 2403 galaxy that has a good fit considering a diet-Salpeter mass model. These galaxies have fitted values such that $r_c/r_s < 10^{-6}$, c.f. Table \[tab:onlydm\_bdmnfw\]. The reduced number of data close to galactic center prevents us from finding whether these galaxies actually have or not a core. ISO and Burkert are poorly fitting profiles, meanwhile BDM has a fitted value for $r_c \rightarrow 0$, so, BDM is equivalent to NFW profile and both have equivalent fits. Their values are displayed in Table \[tab:onlydm\_bdmnfw\] for the minimal disk mass model and rotation curves, and confidence contours of $r_c$ and $\rho_0$ are shown in Appendix \[apend:LikelihoodPlot\] in Fig. (\[tab:conflevel\_C\]). We conclude that NFW/BDM profiles fit better than Burkert’s and ISO’s profile.
All the mass models are consistent with a null core, except for the diet-Salpeter analysis where the core take values of $r_c > r_s$ which has no physical interpretation in our model and indicates an overestimation of the stellar disk. Galaxies NGC 2403 and NGC 5055 present only few observational points close to the center, therefore we decided to perform an inner analysis that is described in section \[sec:inner\_analysis\]. We compute the confidence level contours of $r_c$ and $\rho_c$, see Fig. (\[tab:conflevel\_C\]). We obtain $0 \leq r_c \leq 50 $ [pc]{} as a plausible interval that can fit the observations within the $2\sigma$ error and $r_c < 10^{-6} r_s$. Although a cusp profile is preferred for these galaxies, a more definitive conclusion would demand more data close to the center in these galaxies.
To summarize, we have seen that in G.A. and G.B. cored profiles fit better than the cuspy NFW profile. The BDM profile prefers values for $r_c \neq 0$ and fits better or equally well than the other two cored profiles. In the cases where $r_c$ is very small ($r_c < 10^{-6} r_s$) a larger number of observational data is needed close to the center in order to clearly discern between cored or cuspy profiles. BDM, Burkert, and ISO profiles have good fits for G.B.galaxies, where NFW over-predicts the velocity in the inner parts of the galaxy or does fit with unphysical values for $r_s > \mathcal{O}(10^4)$ or $\rho_0 < \mathcal{O}(10^2) {\rm M_\sun/kpc^{3}}$ . In G.C. galaxies the Burkert and ISO profiles do not have a good fit, and the BDM profile demands a very small core radius ($r_c < 10^{-6} r_s$), but the number of inner data is poor and it does not give enough information on $r_c$. Assuming these data, BDM results are indistinguishable from NFW. Thus, BDM-NFW have much better agreement than ISO and Burkert profiles. Confidence level contours show consistency in the fitted values of $r_c$ for the different mass models. Given the richer structure the BDM profile has, through its transition from CDM to HDM, it allows for a better explanation of the rotation curves of the different galaxies.
The free mass model treats $\gs$ as an extra free parameter in the model, and the best value for $\gs$ is chosen by fitting the theory to the observations. The mass of the stellar disk is directly related to $\gs$ with the Freeman equation, refer to Sec. \[MaMoEsDi\]. The results when analyzing the BDM profile in the free mass model are presented in Table \[tab:free\_bdm\]. We notice from Tables \[tab:things\] and \[tab:free\_bdm\] that values of the stellar mass in the free mass model are in good agreement with the photometric disk masses derived from the $3.6 \mu m$ images in combination with stellar population synthesis arguments predicting diet-Salpeter as the maximum stellar disk consistent with deBlok08 [@deBlok:2008wp], nevertheless the diet-Salpeter mass scenario overestimated the rotation velocity of most of the galaxies and therefore being less realistic than the Kroupa mass scenario.
Inner Analysis {#sec:inner_analysis}
--------------
In this section we perform an analysis of the inner region of the galaxies. We only do it to galaxies in which we found a $r_c \simeq r_s$, i.e. in Group G.B. These galaxies have a large number of points in the outer region and the DM profile is therefore fixed by these points. However, the estimation of the DM profile parameters gives a bad fit to the inner region of these galaxies and gives then no information about the core. We will see that if we use only the galactic inner region we get a much better fit.
To extract information of the galactic central region and determine the core radius, central density with a inner slope of the profiles, and we examine the central region data in two different scenarios:\
i) The first one by taking the limit $r \ll r_s$ in the BDM profile which turns out to be \_[in]{} = ; ii) The second is with the ansatz profile $$\label{eq:rhoalpha}
\rho_{\alpha} = \rho_0 r^{-\alpha},$$ where $\alpha$ is a constant slope. Both approaches are related through Eq. (\[eq:sl2\]). If the slope takes values $\alpha \leq 1/2$ it implies that one is in the region where $r < r_c$, hence we have a core behavior.
In case (i), Eq.(\[in1\]), when the BDM profile is approximated by $\rho_{in}$, we take the data points for $r\leq Minimum(r_c,r_s)$ and determine the parameters $r_c$, $\rho_c$, and the corresponding chi-square, $\chi_{inn}^2$. The values obtained using this method are shown in Table \[tab:inner\_dm\_dmg\_k\]. The $\chi^2_t$ it is computed using also only the inner points but with the $r_c$ and $\rho_c$ values of the complete data. We notice that $\chi_{inn}^2$ is much smaller than $\chi_{t}^2$ in most of the cases.
We present the different G.B. galaxies that where analyzed when the DM halo is the only mass component with the inner approximation for the BDM profile $\rho_{in}$ up to a radius $r < Minimum{r_c,r_s}$ in Fig. (\[fig:inner\_grph1\] - \[fig:inner\_grph4\]) with a purple, long, dashed line. From this first approach we obtain the core distance $r_c$ and the central density $\rho_c$. The gray points are the observations with its error bars. Below we show the difference between the observational and the theoretical approach, the purple region represent the error bars and the line the fitted curve. Fitted values are presented in Table \[tab:inner\_dm\_dmg\_k\] and the confidence levels between $\rho_c$ and $r_c$ in Fig. \[tab:conflevel\_inner B\].
In case (ii), Eq.(\[eq:rhoalpha\]), we analyze the rotation curves with $\rho_{\alpha}$ and we fit the free parameters $\alpha$ and $\rho_0$ using the same dataset taken for the inner analysis described in case (i). The values obtained for $\alpha$ are in good agreement, cf. Eq. (\[eq:sl2\]), with those established for $r_c$ in case i), see Table \[tab:inner\_result\]. For most of the galaxies we obtain values in the interval $y \leq 1.08$, that implies a dominant core behavior. For galaxies NGC 2976 and NGC 3198 we obtain $y \sim 5.67$ which means that their inner data correspond to distances beyond the core region, such that $r_c < r < r_s$, which can be still accepted for the core analysis since we include the core and the transition region between $r_c$ and $r_s$. Given these results, we can now trust to the $r_c$ values obtained from the $\rho_{in}$ analysis in case i), since we confirm that the set of data points used for inner analysis correctly describes the core region of the galaxy.
It is interesting to notice that we can obtain the value of $r_c$ from the value of $\alpha$. We developed a different approach in order to calculate the core radii from the value of the slope. The constant $\alpha$ obtained from the fit with $\rho_\alpha$ is the average value of the $\alpha(r)$, Eq. (\[eq:sl2\]), in the interval from $r_{min}$ to $r_{max}$, where $r_{min}$ is the first observation and $r_{max}$ is the maximum radius where we are doing the inner analysis. The average value of $\alpha$ is given by $$\label{eq:alpha_integral}
\alpha = \frac{1}{r_{max} - r_{min}} \int_{r_{min}}^{r_{max}} \frac{r}{rc + r} \, \mathrm{d} r = 1 + \frac{r_c}{r_{max} - r_{min}}\ln\left[ \frac{r_c + r_{min}}{r_c + r_{max}} \right].$$ We can numerically solve the last equation in order to obtain the value of $r_c$. The values obtained from these method are shown in Table \[tab:inner\_result\], from which we can see that the core radius agree in the order of magnitude with those obtain from the $\rho_{in}$ analysis for most of the galaxies.
\
BDM Energy Phase Transition $E_c$ {#sec.bdm.ec}
---------------------------------
In the inner region of the galaxies and for $r\ll r_s$ the relevant parameters are $\rho_0$ and $r_c$ and we present their $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ likelihood contours for the different mass models in Figures \[tab:conflevel\_A\], \[tab:conflevel\_B\], \[tab:conflevel\_C\], and \[tab:conflevel\_inner B\]. Using the fit of the rotation curves for the seventeen LSB galaxies for our BDM halo profile, Eq. (\[eq:rhobdm\]) presented in Sec.\[results\] we determine the properties of the DM halo through its three free parameters ($r_c$, $r_s$, and $\rho_0$) and constrain the energy value $E_c$, in which the BDM particles acquire a non-perturbative mass and has the transition from CDM to HDM, as explained in Sec. \[modelo\]. We calculate the maximum, minimum, and central value of $E_c$ and $r_c$ for the four mass models and present the results in Table \[tab:statistics\_BDM\]. The values of the core radius $r_c$, central energy density $\rho_c$ and transition energy $E_c=\rho_c^{1/4}$, as defined in Sec.\[modelo\], are shown in Tables \[tab:bdm\_odm\_dmg\_k\] and \[tab:bdm\_k+s\] and we plot $E_{c}$ vs $r_c$ in Figs.\[fig:RcvsEcONLYDM\] for the different mass models and galaxies of G.A. and G.B., taking into account the inner analysis of Sec.
\[sec:inner\_analysis\]) and its respectively $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ likelihood contours errors. The circles and diamonds represent the galaxies from G.A. and G.B., respectively. We use a log-normal distribution for $E_c,r_c$ since these quantities are constraint from $(0,\infty)$, and the $1\sigma,2\sigma$ represent a $A\times 10^{\pm\sigma}$ standard deviation from the central value with $A=E_c$ or $A=r_c$.
The average core radius $r_c$ and the energy $E_c$ of the transition between HDM and CDM depends on the choice of mass models used. We can see that in general the core radius is larger for the min.disk+gas than for the min.disk but decreases when bulge and stars are considered as in Kroupa and diet-Salpeter. From Figs (\[fig:DDO154\] - \[fig:NGC7793\]) we see that the contribution of the gas is very small at small or negligible radius, however Kroupa, and even more diet-Salpeter, have a considerable contribution of mass at small radius $\mathcal{O}$(0.1 - 1 kpc) and therefore the required contribution of DM in this range of radius would be smaller than in min.disk or min.disk+gas mass models. Therefore, it is not surprising that the extraction of the properties of any DM profile for small radius in Kroupa or diet-Salpeter gives a less constraint to $r_c$, i.e. a larger standard deviation.
For galaxies and mass models where the central value of $r_c$ is vanishing, the energy density $\rc$ or $E_c$ can not be calculated because it blows up as seen in Eq.(\[eq:relation ec\_free\_bdm\_params\]). In these cases we have a blank (i.e. $"-"$) in Tables \[tab:bdm\_odm\_dmg\_k\] and \[tab:bdm\_k+s\]
. However, even though the central value of $r_c < r_s\, 10^{-6}$ it is consistent with a non-vanishing value at a $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ deviation. More data and better understanding about the distribution of stars in these galaxies are needed to settled the question of a core DM profile.
The average values for $r_c$ and $E_c$ and the standard deviations $\sigma$ are presented for the different mass models in Table \[tab:statistics\_BDM\]. For the min.disk mass scenario we have E\_c=0.11 10\^[0.46]{}[ eV]{} = 0.11\^[+0.22]{}\_[-0.07]{} [ eV]{}; r\_c = 30010\^[1.37]{}, i.e. $13\, {\rm pc}<r_c< 5308\, {\rm pc}$, while in the more realistic approach, the energy and the core for the Kroupa mass model take the values E\_c=0.06 10\^[0.33]{}[ eV]{} = 0.06\^[+0.07]{}\_[-0.03]{} [ eV]{}; r\_c = 1.4810\^[0.97]{}, The figures of $E_c$ vs $r_c$ for the different mass models are shown in Fig \[fig:RcvsEcONLYDM\]. We note that when more components are considered, the $1\sigma$ and $2 \sigma$ confidence levels of $r_c$ become larger and the transition energy $E_c$ decreases but are all consistent within a 1 and 2$\sigma$ levels as seen in Table\[tab:statistics\_BDM\].
Clearly the scale of $E_c = \mathcal{O}(0.1 {\rm \ eV})$ is very close the sum of neutrino masses. Therefore, an interesting connection could be further explored between the phase transition scale $E_c$ of our BDM model, which also sets the mass of the BDM particles, to the neutrino mass generation mechanism [@NBDM]. However, we would like to emphasize that our BDM are not neutrinos, since neutrinos are HDM, and a combination of CDM plus neutrinos would have a cuspy NFW profile with CDM dominating in the inner region of the galaxies, assuming that CDM do indeed have a NFW profile as suggested by N-body simulations [@Navarro:1995iw; @Navarro:1996gj]. A main difference between neutrinos and BDM is that neutrinos were in thermal equilibrium at $E\gg$ MeV with the SM particles, but BDM may not have been in thermal equilibrium with SM at all.
Fixed-BDM profile {#sec:bdm.fixed}
-----------------
Now we are able to extract further information of our BDM model.The BDM model predicts that the transition scale $E_c$ is an universal constant which depends on the nature of the interaction of the DM particles [@Macorra.DEDM] and as explained in Sec.\[modelo\] and is independent of the galaxies details and therefore it should be the same for all galaxies. However, the determination on the value of $E_c$ depends on the quality of the data, the choice of matter content and also on the choice of the galactic profile as the one proposed in Eq.(\[eq:rhobdm\]).
Our BDM profile has three parameters $r_s, r_c$ and $\rc=E^4_c$. In Sec.\[sec.bdm.ec\] we presented the analysis and conclusions of comparing the BDM profile to the rotation curves as described in Sec. \[results\]. We now proceed as follow: we obtain an average value of $E_c$ for each of the different mass models and then we take this average value and proceed to reanalyze the rotation curves for the BDM profile but with only two free parameters, i.e. we take $\rc$ fixed in Eq.(\[eq:fix-BDM\]) and we have $r_c$ and $r_s$ as free parameters. Following, we present these results and conclusions.
The results are shown in Tables \[tab:onlydm\_bdmnfw\] - \[tab:kroupa\_bdmnfw\], and in Table \[tab:kroupa\_bdmnfw\] for each mass model, and Table \[tab:statistics\_fix-BDM\] show the statics values of $r_s$ and $r_c$ for this analysis. We generally find that in most of the galaxies the fixed-BDM profile is better than NFW regardless of the mass model used. The fixed-BDM profile has a smaller $\chi^2_{\rm red} \sim 1$ than NFW, e.g. in DDO 154, NGC 2366, NGC 3198, or because the fit is clearly competitive with that of NFW, $\Delta\chi^2_{\rm red} < 1$, e.g. NGC 4736, NGC 2841, NGC 6946. It is also relevant that the core obtained in the min.disk scenario with the fixed-BDM profile (460 pc) is of the order to the one obtained with the BDM profile (300 pc)
[l|r|rrr|r|r|r|rrr|r]{}\
Mass Model & $E_c$ & $\tilde{r_c}$ & ${r_c}_-$ & $r_c$ & ${r_c}_+$ & $\sigma(r_c)$ & $\tilde{r_s}$ & ${r_s}_-$ & $r_s$ & ${r_s}_+$ & $\sigma(r_s)$\
& && & & & & & & & &\
Min.Disk & 0.11 & 0.81 & 0.11 & 0.46 & 1.85 & 0.61 & 4.71 & 0.51 & 2.64 & 13.44 & 0.71\
Min.Disk+gas & 0.08 & 1.86 & 0.40 & 1.28 & 4.11 & 0.51 & 3.25 & 1.03 & 2.41 & 5.62 & 0.37\
Kroupa & 0.06 & 2.01 & 0.44 & 1.27 & 3.65 & 0.46 & 13.84 & 2.90 & 8.56 & 25.26 & 0.47\
diet-Salpeter& 0.07 & 1.59 & 0.25 & 0.85 & 3.50 & 0.62 & 11.99 & 2.80 & 7.84 & 22.01 & 0.45\
Conclusions {#conclusion}
===========
We have presented the analysis of the rotation curves using four different DM profiles (BDM, NFW, Burkert, and ISO) and five different disk mass components (only DM (min.disk), DM plus gas (min.disk+gas), DM plus gas plus stellar disk (Kroupa, diet-Salpeter, Free $\gs$) for a subsample of the THINGS galaxies as described in Sec. \[MaMo\].
The new tested profile, BDM, is introduced in Sec. \[modelo\] and corresponds to CDM particles below certain critical energy density $\rc = E_c^4$ while it behaves as HDM above $\rc$ with a core radius $r_c$. Therefore, the resulting profile behaves as NFW’s for large radius, but it has a core in the central region.
We have found that fits to the THINGS galaxies favor core profiles over the cuspy NFW in accordance to general results found in other works [@deBlok:2008wp; @deBlok10] for the same galaxies. We studied the cases when the five different disk mass components are taking into account and conclude that BDM is in good agreement with observations for all the disk mass scenarios and fits better or equally well than Burkert and ISO profiles. For three galaxies (Group C) the fits to the BDM profile demanded $r_c/r_s <10^{-6}$ and in these cases the $\chi^2$ are almost identical to NFW’s. For these galaxies a cuspy profile fits best because there is not enough observational data close to the galactic center to test it.
The observational resolution of the THINGS sample is of high quality, but one still needs data closer to the center of some galaxies, on scales smaller than 200 [pc]{}, in order to discern between cored or cuspy profiles. This is because stars pose a very challenging problem when testing the core-cusp problem, largely due to the uncertainty of the mass-to-light ratio and their dominant behavior close to the center of the galaxy. We have performed an analysis of the inner regions of Group B and C galaxies, for which $r_c \leq r_s$, extracting information from the rotation curves consistent with a core profile. Confidence level contours show that the core radius depends on the number of disk mass components taking into account in the analysis. We found that $r_c$ is highly constrained if the stellar disk has a dominant behavior close to the center of the galaxy.
We computed the 1 and 2$\sigma$ confidence levels for the BDM parameters $r_c$ and $E_c$ for the different galaxies and mass models. We found that the energy of transition between HDM and CDM takes places for most galaxies with an energy $E_c = \mathcal{O}(0.1{\rm \, {\rm eV}})$ and most of the galaxies have a core radius $r_c \sim \mathcal{O}(300 \,$ [pc]{}), see Table \[tab:statistics\_BDM\]. We found that $r_c$ is highly constrained if the stellar disk has a dominant behavior close to the center of the galaxy. However, we notice that even when $r_c$ is different for each disk mass model there is an interval of values where $r_c$ is consistent for all mass models within the $1\sigma$ for most galaxies and some within the $2\sigma$ error, as shown in Figures \[tab:conflevel\_A\], \[tab:conflevel\_B\], \[tab:conflevel\_C\], and \[tab:conflevel\_inner B\]. This provides us with enough tools to later test the Universe background evolution and large scale structure formation in order to continue testing the particle-physics-motivated BDM model. This energy transition is similar to the mean energy of a relativistic neutrino (see e.g. [@Larson:2010gs]) which is such that $\sum m_\nu < 0.58 {\rm \ eV} (95\% {\rm \ CL)}$.
The dispersion on $E_c$ is much smaller than that of $r_c$ and this is consistent with our BDM model since $E_c$ is a new fundamental scale for DM model while $r_c$ depends on $r_s,\rho_0$ which depend on the formation and initial conditions for each galaxy. We test the BDM profile with a fixed energy $E_c$ finding that the proposed profile still being competitive compare with NFW profile. BDM profile has a rich -particle physics motivated- structure that, through its transition from CDM to HDM (when $\rho \simeq \rho_c$), allows for a more physical explanation of the rotation curves of the different galaxies treated here.
We thanks to Prof. Erwin de Blok for providing the observational data of THINGS and Prof. Christiane Frigerio for the help granted in the research. A.M. and J.M. acknowledge financial support from Conacyt Project 80519 and UNAM PAPIIT Project IN100612, and J.L.C.C. acknowledges support from Conacyt project 84133-F.
We organize this Appendix as follow, in section \[apend: diet-salpeter\] are shown the fitted values corresponding to the diet-Salpeter, for the NFW and BDM profile, and the free $\gs$, for BDM profile, mass models. In section \[apendix:iso\_burkert\_result\] we show the fitted values for the minimal disk, min.disk+gas, Kroupa and diet-Salpeter when considering Burkert, Table \[tab:burkert\], and pseudo-isothermal, Table \[tab:iso\], profiles. Finally, in the section \[apend:LikelihoodPlot\] we show the likelihood contour plots and the rotation curves for the different galaxies and mass models.
diet-Salpeter and Free mass model {#apend: diet-salpeter}
=================================
In this section we present the results of the diet-Salpeter mass model for the BDM, Eq. (\[eq:rhobdm\]), and NFW, Eq. (\[eq:rhoNFW\]), profile. We also present the results for the free $\gs$ mass model for the BDM profile, as explained in the Section \[MaMo\].
ISO and Burkert results {#apendix:iso_burkert_result}
=======================
In this section we present the tables where we show the results of the fit using the pseudo-isothermal (Eq.(\[eq:rhoISO\])) and Burkert profile (Eq.(\[eq:rhoBurkert\])) for all the for mass models as explained in Section \[MaMo\]. The values for BDM and NFW for min.disk, min.disk+gas and Kroupa mass model were presented in the Sec. \[results\] in Tables \[tab:onlydm\_bdmnfw\], \[tab:onlydm+gas\_bdmnfw\], \[tab:kroupa\_bdmnfw\].
![[]{data-label="tab:conflevel_A"}](GArsubcvsRhosub0.eps "fig:"){width="65.00000%"}\
Rotation curves and likelihoods contours {#apend:LikelihoodPlot}
========================================
In this Sec. we present the figures where we plot all the different profiles, presented in the mass model Sec. \[NuMe\], the confidence level contours obtained from the numerical fitting as well as the consideration made for each galaxy. The groups are described in the Sec. \[results\]. In each subsection we present the rotation curve for each galaxy and mass model, at the end of each subsection we show the respectively confidence level contours. The G.A. galaxies are presented in Sec. \[apendix:ga\], in subsection Sec. \[apendix:gb\] and \[apendix:gb\_inner\] are presented the galaxies included in G.B for the BDM and the BDM-inner analysis. Finally, in subsection \[apendix:gc\] we present G.C galaxies.
![[]{data-label="tab:conflevel_B"}](GBrsubcvsRhosub0.eps "fig:"){width="75.00000%"}\
![[]{data-label="tab:conflevel_C"}](GCrsubcvsRhosub0.eps "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}\
Inner analysis {#apendix:gb_inner}
--------------
We present the different G.B. galaxies that where analyzed when the DM halo is the only mass component with the inner approximation for the BDM profile $\rho_{in} = 2 \rho_c (1+r/r_c)^{-1}$ up to a radius $r < r_s$ with a constant positive slope shown in Fig. (\[fig:inner\_grph1\] - \[fig:inner\_grph4\]) with a purple, long, dashed line. From this first approach we obtain the the core distance $r_c$ and the central density $\rho_c$, then we use these parameters to obtain $\rho_0$ and $r_s$ from the fit of BDM profile to all the set of observational data (thick black line). Fitted values are presented in Table. \[tab:inner\_dm\_dmg\_k\] and the confidence levels between $\rho_c$ and $r_c$ in Fig. \[tab:conflevel\_B\].
![[]{data-label="tab:conflevel_inner B"}](GBINNrsubcvsRhosub0.eps "fig:"){width="75.00000%"}\
GROUP A {#apendix:ga}
-------
In this section we present the considerations made in each one of the galaxies for the numerical analysis, this galaxy has in particular fitted values of $r_c < r_s$ when analyzed with the minimal disk model, we have named this set of galaxies as G.A. The conclusion are presented in Sec. \[conclusion\]. At the end of the section can be seen the confidence level for each galaxy in every mass model.
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
GROUP B {#apendix:gb}
-------
In this section we present the considerations made the galaxies with fitted values of $r_c = r_s$ when analyzed with the minimal disk model, we have named this set of galaxies as G.B. The conclusion are presented in Sec. \[conclusion\]. At the end of the section can be see the confidence level for each galaxy in every mass model.
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
GROUP C {#apendix:gc}
-------
In this section we present the considerations made for the galaxies with fitted values of $r_c = 0$ when analyzed with the min.disk mass model. We have named this set of galaxies as G.C . The conclusion are presented in Sec. \[conclusion\] for further discussion. At the end of the section can be see the confidence level for each galaxy in every mass model.
\
\
\
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'While it was speculated that 5$d^4$ systems would possess non-magnetic $J$ = 0 ground state due to strong Spin-Orbit Coupling (SOC), all such systems have invariably shown presence of magnetic moments so far. A puzzling case is that of Ba$_2$YIrO$_6$, which in spite of having a perfectly cubic structure with largely separated Ir$^{5+}$ ($d^4$) ions, has consistently shown presence of weak magnetic moments. Moreover, we clearly show from Muon Spin Relaxation ($\mu$SR) measurements that a change in the magnetic environment of the implanted muons in Ba$_2$YIrO$_6$ occurs as temperature is lowered below 10 K. This observation becomes counterintuitive, as the estimated value of SOC obtained by fitting the RIXS spectrum of Ba$_2$YIrO$_6$ with an atomic $j-j$ model is found to be as high as 0.39 eV, meaning that the system within this model is neither expected to possess moments nor exhibit temperature dependent magnetic response. Therefore we argue that the atomic $j-j$ coupling description is not sufficient to explain the ground state of such systems, where despite having strong SOC, presence of hopping triggers delocalisation of holes, resulting in spontaneous generation of magnetic moments. Our theoretical calculations further indicate that these moments favour formation of spin-orbital singlets in the case of Ba$_2$YIrO$_6$, which is manifested in $\mu$SR experiments measured down to 60 mK.'
author:
- Abhishek Nag
- Sayantika Bhowal
- 'M. M. Sala'
- 'A. Efimenko'
- 'F. Bert'
- 'P. K. Biswas'
- 'A. D. Hillier'
- 'M. Itoh'
- 'S. D. Kaushik'
- 'V. Siruguri'
- 'C. Meneghini'
- 'I. Dasgupta'
- Sugata Ray
title: 'Origin of magnetic moments and presence of spin-orbit singlets in Ba$_2$YIrO$_6$'
---
In recent years, 5$d$ transition metal oxides which were predicted to be weakly correlated wide band metals, have surprisingly shown the presence of Mott-insulating states with unusual electronic and magnetic properties, owing to strong spin-orbit coupling (SOC) [@krempa2014; @rau2016]. It has been observed that in tetravalent iridates (Ir$^{4+}$; low spin $t_{\textup{2g}}^5$ due to strong crystal field splitting ($\Delta_{\textup{CFE}}$) underscoring Hund’s exchange energy ($J_H$)), SOC ($\lambda$) splits $t_{\textup{2g}}$ orbitals into fully filled $j_{\textup{eff}}$ = $\frac{3}{2}$ quartet and half filled narrow $j_{\textup{eff}}$ = $\frac{1}{2}$ doublet, which under a small Hubbard $U$ further splits into fully occupied lower and empty upper Hubbard bands, creating the Mott insulating state [@kim2008].
An interesting deviation from such a situation arises in pentavalent iridates (Ir$^{5+}$; $t_{\textup{2g}}^4$) within the strong spin-orbit coupled multiplet scenario, where one may end up with a non-magnetic $J$ = 0 ($M_J$ = 0) ground state [@nag2016]. The projection of orbital angular momentum onto the degenerate $t_{\textup{2g}}$ orbitals, gives an effective orbital angular momentum $L_{\textup{eff}}$ = -1 which couples with $S$ producing $^6C_4$ = 15 (4 electrons in 6 spin-polarized degenerate $t_{\textup{2g}}$ orbitals) possible arrangements or $J$ states. The relative stability of these spin-orbit coupled ($LS$/[$jj$]{}) multiplet states depends upon the strength of $\lambda$ and $J_H$ (Fig. 1(a)) [@nag2016; @svoboda2017]. Additionally, in solids or clusters, crystal field effects ($\Delta_{\textup{CFE}}$), as well as non-cubic distortions of the octahedra modify the atomic SOC severely, thereby shifting the energy separation of the $J$ states further [@chen2009; @cao2014; @dodds2011]. Therefore the effective SOC in a solid can often become comparable to the superexchange energy scales 4$t^2/U$ inducing Van-Vleck type singlet-triplet excitonic magnetism [@khaliullin2013]. Interestingly, no 5$d^4$ system possessing strong enough SOC that completely quenches magnetism, has been realized so far [@nag2016; @cao2014; @marco2015; @dey2016; @bremholm2011]. In other words, solid state and crystal field effects always drive these systems towards a magnetic ground state.
In search of an exception and to study single ion properties with minimal solid state and non-cubic crystal field effects the most suitable choice can be a double perovskite like Ba$_2$YIrO$_6$. Here, in an ordered arrangement of Ir$^{5+}$ ions separated by non-magnetic Y$^{3+}$, a $J$ = 0 ground state may be stabilized. Also, its $Fm\bar{3}m$ space group does not allow any IrO$_6$ octahedral distortion thereby maximizing the effects of SOC [@fu2005; @cao2014]. Only hopping can then compete against SOC to generate magnetic moments in Ba$_2$YIrO$_6$ [@svoboda2017]. Recent investigations on the ground state properties of this system however, has been flooded with conflicting results. While one group, from first principles calculations found dominant antiferromagnetic exchanges and large Ir bandwidth breaking down the $J$ = 0 state [@bhowal2015], another group questions the idea of ordered magnetism due to stabilisation of a non-magnetic state [@pajskr2016]. On the other hand among experimentalists, Zhang [*et al.*]{} reported a large magnetic moment of 1.44 $\mu_B$/Ir with antiferromagnetic ordering at $\sim$1.5 K [@zhang2016], whereas T. Dey [*et al.*]{} found correlated magnetic moments (0.44 $\mu_B$/Ir) that do not order till 0.4 K, contrary to their theoretical calculations [@dey2016]. In order to accommodate the tiny observed moment, more recently a picture of a largely $J$ = 0 state interrupted by only few Ir spins, arising from Ir impurity of Ir/Y disorder, has been evoked [@hammerath2017; @chen2017]. To estimate the strength of $\lambda$ and $J_H$ and the validity of the above propositions, RIXS spectrum for Ba$_2$YIrO$_6$ was fitted using an atomic model including SOC. We find that the upper estimate of the atomic $\lambda$ is as high as 0.39 eV, which should indeed ensure a $J$ = 0 state within the atomic $j-j$ description. However, this value of SOC is comparable with Sr$_2$YIrO$_6$, another double perovskite with distorted IrO$_6$ octahedra but having even higher value of magnetic moments [@yuan2017]. Moreover, in this paper we provide clear evidence from $\mu$SR measurements that in Ba$_2$YIrO$_6$, a sudden change in the magnetic environment and dynamics of the implanted muons occurs, as temperature is lowered below 10 K. This cannot certainly be explained with an atomic $j-j$ model and a $J$ = 0 description, with a $\lambda$ value as high as 0.39 eV, suggesting the inadequacy of the atomic model in describing magnetic ground states of such systems. We therefore argue that for Ba$_{2}$YIrO$_{6}$, and other similar $d^4$ systems, hopping induced delocalization of holes, and not singlet-triplet excitation, provides a natural explanation for the spontaneous generation of magnetic moments.
Neutron Powder Diffraction data recorded on Ba$_2$YIrO$_6$ at 300 K and 2.8 K (Fig. 1(b)) show that no structural transition is present down to 2.8 K; except for a lattice contraction [@SM]. The Y/Ir ordered $Fm\bar{3}m$ structure obtained from refinement is depicted in Fig. 1(c). This space group ensures a regular IrO$_6$ octahedra with cubic crystal field on Ir ions. Local structure obtained by EXAFS at Ir $L_3$ edge confirms negligible Y/Ir site disorder ($<$1%) [@SM], and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy confirms the presence of Ir$^{5+}$ ions only [@SM]. Our observation of low density of states at the Fermi level in valence band photoemission spectrum and insulating nature of the material [@SM] immediately suggests the importance of SOC, without which a 5$d^4$ state should have been metallic (Fig. 1(a)). However, in spite of strong SOC, the dc magnetic susceptibility measured in 3 T field (Fig. 1(d)), having qualitative similarity to paramagnets, shows presence of tiny magnetic moments which do not order down to 2 K. From a careful analysis using Curie-Weiss fits [@SM; @nag2017], we obtained an effective moment of around 0.3 $\mu_B$/Ir and antiferromagnetic exchanges ($\theta_W$ $\sim$ -10 K), in this proposed $J$ = 0 system [@SM].
In compounds such as Ba$_2$YIrO$_6$ where both single ion properties and lattice frustration combine to prohibit classical Néel order, signatures of a possible complex magnetic ground state can be elusive and hardly detectable in macroscopic measurements. In order to investigate accurately the nature of magnetism, we used the $\mu$SR technique which is uniquely sensitive to tiny internal fields. The measured time-evolution of the muon polarization $P(t)$ in zero external field is shown in Fig. 2(a) for some selected temperatures. Down to the base temperature of 60 mK, we observed no signature of static magnetism, neither long range ordered nor disordered. At all temperatures, the polarization could be fitted to a stretched exponential $P(t)=e^{-(\lambda' t)^\beta}$. The temperature variation of the fitting parameters $\lambda'$ and $\beta$ is shown in Fig. 2(b). On cooling down through 10 K, we observe a rather weak and gradual increase of the relaxation, corresponding to a slowing down of the spin dynamics since $\lambda' \propto 1/\nu$, where $\nu$ is the characteristics spin fluctuation frequency, which levels off below 1 K showing persistent spin fluctuations down to 60 mK. There is no signature of magnetic freezing such as fast relaxation, loss of initial asymmetry or apparition of a finite long time limit $P(t \rightarrow \infty)$. To get more insight into the origin of the relaxation observed at low temperature, we investigated the evolution of the polarization at 1.6 K, at the onset of the relaxation plateau, with an external longitudinal field $B_{LF}$. As can be seen in Fig. 2(c), weak applied fields of a few mT reduce the relaxation quite strongly, showing that the internal fields $B_{\mu}$ probed by the muons are extremely weak and fluctuate very slowly. A crude estimate of $B_{\mu}$ and $\nu$ from Redfield formula $\lambda'=\nu \gamma_\mu^2 B_\mu^2 / (\nu^2 + \gamma_\mu^2 B_{LF}^2 )$ (see inset to Fig. 2(c)) yields $B_{\mu} \sim 0.2$ mT and $\nu \sim $ 1.2 MHz. Assuming that the positively charged muons stop close to the negative oxygen ions in the structure, [*i. e.*]{} about 2 Å away from the Ir ions, the fluctuating moments needed to produce the dipolar field $B_{\mu}$, are as low as 10$^{-3}$ $\mu_B$. It is therefore more realistic to consider that the small internal fields observed by the muons arise from diluted magnetic centers out of a non-magnetic background. From the value of $B_{\mu}$, we estimate the concentration of 0.3 $\mu_B$ Ir moments to be as small as $\sim$ 0.002, too small to account for the magnetic susceptibility [@uemara1985]. Also, even though the non-magnetic background can be visualised as the stabilisation of a $J$ = 0 state [@hammerath2017; @chen2017], this goes against the observed drop in $\beta$, as shown in the lower panel of Fig. 2(b) (from $\sim 0.8$ at high temperatures to $\sim 0.55$ below 1 K), reflecting the emergence of an inhomogeneous magnetic environment for the muons at low temperature [@uemara1985; @rodriguez2011; @gauthier2017]. A more comprehensive explanation therefore can be, that the $J$ = 0 state is never stabilized in this system and small Iridium moments exist ubiquitously while the system homogeneously behaves as a paramagnet at higher temperature. As the temperature is lowered through 10 K, most of these Ir moments start to pair up to form spin-orbital singlets (See Fig. 2(b) lower panel) with vanishing magnetisation at low $T$ ($<$2 K) while a few Ir ions are left out (due to Y/Ir disorder below our sensitivity to structural disorder (EXAFS, NPD)), with a very low residual interaction between them. This is similar to the scenario proposed for Ba$_2$YMoO$_6$ [@vries2010], and these results show the strength of $\mu$SR to discern infinitesimal amounts of isolated magnetic ions which are often a cause for non-saturating bulk magnetic susceptibility in frustrated systems [@olario2008; @singh2010; @gomilsek2016].
As the presence of Iridium magnetic moments and temperature dependence of their magnetic response are convincingly recorded, it becomes important to estimate the strength of SOC in this compound in order to check if these magnetic moments are generated through excitonic mechanism or not. Therefore, we did RIXS measurement at the Ir $L_3$ edge of Ba$_2$YIrO$_6$ and $T$ = 20 K with the incident photon energy fixed at 11.216 keV, that was found to enhance the inelastic features of the $J$ multiplet excitations. Increased photon counts at particular energy losses in the RIXS spectrum (Fig. 3(a)) represent specific excitations from filled to vacant electronic states. For example, the largest energy loss features ($\sim$ 5.73 and $\sim$ 8.67 eV) can be ascribed to charge transfer excitations from the O 2$p$ bands to vacant Ir energy bands [@ishii2011]. The feature observed at $\sim$ 3.61 eV is due to the electron excitation from $t_{2g}$ to $e_g$ orbitals representing the crystal-field excitations. Our single particle mean-field calculations using muffin-tin orbital (MTO) based N$^{th}$ order MTO (NMTO) method as implemented in Stuttgart code [@anderson; @NMTO] showed $\Delta_{\textup{CFE}}$ to be 3.45 eV, close to the experimental value showing its effectiveness in estimating the gap to the SOC unaffected $e_g$ levels. We observe three sharp inelastic peaks in the highly resolved RIXS spectrum below 1.5 eV (Fig. 3(a)) which are significantly different from the peaks seen for Ir$^{4+}$ systems [@sala2014]. The low energy peaks were fitted with Lorentzian functions giving energy losses at 0.35, 0.60 and 1.18 eV. Fig. 3(a) shows these energy losses as vertical bands having widths given by the experimentally obtained FWHMs 0.033(4), 0.048(3) and 0.10(1) eV respectively. In order to extract $\lambda$ and $J_H$, these energy losses were mapped with the energy differences between the states obtained from effective full many-body atomic Hamiltonian $$\label{single_site}
H_{atomic}=H^{int}+H^{SO},$$ where, $H^{int}$ and $H^{SO}$ are the Hamiltonian for the Coulomb interaction and the SOC on the three $t_{2g}$ orbitals respectively [@kanamori1963; @matsuura2013; @nag2016; @yuan2017]. These calculations provided an upper bound for the value of the atomic $\lambda$ = 0.39 eV, for a range of Hund’s coupling $J_H$ = 0.24-0.26 eV (see Supplementary Materials [@SM] for details). Clearly, this atomic $\lambda$ is reasonably high to restrict excitonic magnetism and generation of moments. However, it is interesting to note that this value is very similar to that is observed in other $d^4$ systems, such as Sr$_2$YIrO$_6$ [@yuan2017], having substantial noncubic crystal field but possessing even higher magnetic moments [@cao2014], revealing the inadequacy of the atomic model. We argue that all the ground states of all these systems deviate from the atomic $J$ = 0 state due to hopping induced delocalization of holes which actually results in the genesis of the unquenched magnetic moment. We checked this possibility by an exact diagonalization calculation considering a two site Ir-Ir model with hopping. Our calculations confirm (See Fig. 3(b)) the presence of magnetic moments for hopping strengths relevant for Ba$_{2}$YIrO$_{6}$. One way of qualitatively understand the phenomena is to consider the simple fact that if there is a hopping of a hole between two $d^4$ Ir ions, immediately both of them would shift away from the nonmagnetic $J$ = 0 ground state, giving rise to magnetism. Additionally, the same model calculation (see Fig. 3(c)) shows that these moments will always be antiparallel irrespective of the value of the SOC parameter for the obtained value of $J_H$ = 0.26 eV [@SM], conforming to the observations from $\mu$SR.
To further probe the low energy magnetic states, heat capacity ($C$) of Ba$_2$YIrO$_6$ was measured. $C$ vs $T$ (Fig. 4(a)) shows a broad hump around 5 K, however, absence of a sharp anomaly indicates absence of a thermodynamic phase transition into long range antiferromagetic order of these small moments, which is also supported by the absence of magnetic peaks or diffuse background in NPD of 2.8 K (Inset to Fig. 1(c)). The magnetic heat capacity ($C_\textup{m}$) was extracted by subtracting the lattice contribution using isostructural non-magnetic Ba$_2$YSbO$_6$ and Bouvier scaling procedure [@bouvier1990]. The obtained $C_\textup{m}$ is plotted in Fig. 4(b), which shows a linear decay below 5 K pointing towards slowing down of spin dynamics. The most appropriate fit to the low temperature magnetic heat capacity was obtained using $C_\textup{m}$ = $\gamma$$T$ + $\delta$$T^{3}$, with $\delta$ = 4 mJ/mol-K$^4$ and a large $T$-linear component $\gamma$ = 44 mJ/mol-K$^2$, unusual for charge insulators. This may be an indirect evidence of intrinsic gapless spin excitations similar to reported gapless quantum spin liquids or presence of spinon Fermi surface [@balents2010; @clark2013; @vries2010; @norman2009; @shen2016]. Although, $\mu$SR fails to decipher the time dependent movements of the spin-orbital singlets with no net moment, magnetic heat capacity probably indicates subsisting vibrations in them, giving rise to a possible resonating valence bond state. The $C$ also does not show any variation up to applied fields of 9 T, showing its origin to be from intrinsic excitations and not any paramagnetic defects (Fig. 4(c)) [@yamashita2008; @clark2013]. On cooling to a completely ordered state, the total magnetic entropy loss of the system in a multiplet scenario would be equal to $Rln(2J+1)$ where $J$ is the spin state accessed by the electrons. For Ba$_2$YIrO$_6$, the total magnetic entropy $S_\textup{m}$ released, obtained by integrating $C_\textup{m}/T$ with $T$ as shown in Fig. 4(d) has only a value of $\sim$ 1.03 J/mol-K-Ir ($\sim$ 11 %) till 25 K. In conclusion, we find from magnetic susceptibility and $\mu$SR measurements that the Iridiums in Ba$_2$YIrO$_6$ do have magnetic moments and their magnetic response has a definite temperature dependance pointing towards the invalidness of the proposed $J$ = 0 picture. The origin of magnetic moments can be attributed to the hopping induced delocalization of holes resulting in marked deviation from the atomic state. The spontaneous moments thus generated favour formation of non-magnetic singlets which along with slowly fluctuating isolated spins give rise to an inhomogeneous magnetic state starting through 10 K and down to at least 60 mK. A material with an even stronger effective $\lambda$ is therefore required for the observation of a true non-magnetic $J~=~0$ ground state, although solid state effects like hopping will always act against and favor generation of magnetic moments.
A.N. and S. B. thank Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science, and Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR), India respectively for fellowship. S. R. thanks Department of Science and Technology (DST) \[Project No. WTI/2K15/74\] for funding, and for financial support by Indo-Italian Program of Cooperation, Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Collaborative Research Projects of Materials and Structures Laboratory at Tokyo Institute of Technology (TiTech), Newton-India fund, Jawaharlal Nehru Centre for Advanced Scientific Research from DST-Synchrotron-Neutron project, for performing experiments at Elettra (Proposal No. 20140355), Photon Factory, TiTech, ISIS, and ESRF respectively. F. B. thanks financial support from project SOCRATE (ANR-15-CE30-0009-01) of French National Research Agency. [**I. D. thank Department of Science and Technology (DST), Government of India for support.**]{}
[99]{} W. Witczak-Krempa,G. Chen,Y. B. Kim, and L. Balents, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. [**5**]{}, 57 (2014). J. G. Rau, E. K.-H. Lee, H.-Y. Kee, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. [**7**]{}, 195 (2016). B. J. Kim, [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, 076402 (2008). A. Nag,[*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**116**]{}, 097205 (2016). C. Svoboda, M. Randeria, and N. Trivedi, Phys. Rev. B [**95**]{}, 014409 (2017). G. Chen, L. Balents, and A. P. Schnyder, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 096406 (2009). G. Cao, T. F. Qi, L. Li, J. Terzic, S. J. Yuan, L. E. DeLong, G. Murthy, and R. K. Kaul, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**112**]{}, 056402 (2014). T. Dodds, T. P. Choy, and Y. B. Kim, Phys. Rev. B [**84**]{}, 104439 (2011). G. Khaliullin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**111**]{}, 197201 (2013). M. A. Laguna-Marco, P. Kayser, J. A. Alonso, M. J. Martínez-Lope, M. van Veenendaal, Y. Choi, and D. Haskel, Phys. Rev. B [**91**]{}, 214433 (2015). T. Dey, [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**93**]{}, 014434 (2016). M. Bremholm, S. E. Dutton, P. W. Stephens, and R. J. Cava, J. Solid State Chem. [**184**]{}, 601 (2011).
W. T. Fu, and D.J.W. IJdo, J. Alloys Compd. [**394**]{}, L5 (2005). S. Bhowal, S. Baidya, I. Dasgupta, and T. S.-Dasgupta, Phys. Rev. B [**92**]{}, 121113(R) (2015). K. Pajskr, P. Nov$\acute{a}$k, V. Pokorn$\acute{y}$, J. Koloren$\check{c}$, R. Arita, and J. Kune$\check{s}$, Phys. Rev. B [**93**]{}, 035129 (2016). H. Zhang, J. Terizc, F. Ye, P. Schlottmann, H. D. Zhao, S. J. Yuan, and G. Cao, arXiv:1608.07624 (2016). F. Hammerath[*et. al.*]{}, arxiv:1707.06027 (2017). Q. Chen[*et. al.*]{}, arxiv:1707.06980 (2017). B. Yuan, [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**95**]{}, 235114 (2017). K. Momma, and F.Izumi, J. Appl. Crystallogr. [**44**]{}, 1272 (2011). See Supplementary Material at \[URL will be inserted by publisher\], which includes Ref. [@carvajal1993; @meneghini2009; @otsubo2006], details of the experiments and theory, structural parameters from NPD and XRD, EXAFS, XPS, resistivity and magnetic susceptibility results along with the atomic model Hamiltonian considered for fitting RIXS data. J. Rodríguez-Carvajal, Physica B [**192**]{}, 55 (1993). C. Meneghini, Sugata Ray, F. Liscio, F. Bardelli, S. Mobilio, and D. D. Sarma, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**103**]{}, 046403 (2009). T. Otsubo, S. Takase, and Y. Shimizu, ECS Transactions [**3 (1)**]{}, 263 (2006). A. Nag, and S. Ray, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. [**424**]{}, 93 (2017). Y. J. Uemura, T. Yamazaki, D. R. Harshman, M. Senba, and E. J. Ansaldo, Phys. Rev. B [**31**]{}, 546 (1985). J. Rodriguez, A. Amato, and E. Pomjakushina, arXiv:1112.1618 (2011). N. Gauthier, B. Prévost, A. Amato, C. Baines, V. Pomjakushin, A. D. Bianchi, R. J. Cava, and M. Kenzelmann, arxiv:1702.07161 (2017). M. A. de Vries, A. C. Mclaughlin, and J.-W. G. Bos, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, 177202 (2010). A. Olariu, P. Mendels, F. Bert, F. Duc, J. C. Trombe, M. A. de Vries, and A. Harrison, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 087202 (2008). R. R. P. Singh, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, 177203 (2010). M. Gomilsek, M. Klanjsek, M. Pregelj, H. Luetkens, Y. Li, Q. M. Zhang, and A. Zorko, Phys. Rev. B [**94**]{}, 024438 (2016). K. Ishii, I. Jarrige, M. Yoshida, K. Ikeuchi, J. Mizuki, K. Ohashi, T. Takayama, J. Matsuno, and H. Takagi, Phys. Rev. B [**83**]{}, 115121 (2011). O. K. Andersen and T. Saha-Dasgupta, Phys. Rev. B [**62**]{}, 16219(R) (2000); O. K. Andersen, T. Saha-Dasgupta, R. W. Tank, C. Arcangeli, O. Jepsen, and G. Krier, Electronic Structure and Physical Properties of Solids. The Uses of the LMTO Method, Springer Lecture Notes in Physics (Berlin: Springer), [**3**]{} (2000); O. K. Andersen, T. Saha-Dasgupta, and S. Ezhov, Bull. Mater. Sci. [**26**]{}, 19 (2003). M. M. Sala, K. Ohgushi, A. Al-Zein, Y. Hirata, G. Monaco, and M. Krisch, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**112**]{}, 176402 (2014). J. Kanamori, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**30**]{}, 275 (1963). H. Matsuura and K. Miyake, J. Phys. Soc. of Jpn. [**82**]{}, 073703 (2013). B. Koteswararao, R. Kumar, P. Khuntia, S. Bhowal, S. K. Panda, M. R. Rahman, A. V. Mahajan, I. Dasgupta, M. Baenitz, Kee Hoon Kim, and F. C. Chou, Phys. Rev. B [**90**]{}, 035141 (2014). Y. Okamoto, M. Nohara, H. Aruga-Katori, and H. Takagi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 137207 (2007). M. Bouvier, P. Lethuillier, and D. Schmitt, Phys. Rev. B [**43**]{}, 13137 (1991). L. Clark, J. C. Orain, F. Bert, M. A. De Vries, F. H. Aidoudi, R. E. Morris, P. Lightfoot, J. S. Lord, M. T. F. Telling, P. Bonville, J. P. Attfield, P. Mendels, and A. Harrison, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**110**]{}, 207208 (2013). M. R. Norman, and T. Micklitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 067204 (2009). L. Balents, Nature [**464**]{}, 199 (2010). Y. Shen, [*et al.*]{}, Nature [**540**]{}, 559 (2016). S. Yamashita, Y. Nakazawa, M. Oguni Y. Oshima, H. Nojiri, Y. Shimizu, K. Miyagawa, and K. Kanoda, Nat. Phys. [**4**]{}, 459 (2008).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper proposes a region based convolutional neural network for segmentation-free word spotting. Our network takes as input an image and a set of word candidate bounding boxes and embeds all bounding boxes into an embedding space, where word spotting can be casted as a simple nearest neighbour search between the query representation and each of the candidate bounding boxes. We make use of PHOC embedding as it has previously achieved significant success in segmentation-based word spotting. Word candidates are generated using a simple procedure based on grouping connected components using some spatial constraints. Experiments show that R-PHOC which operates on images directly can improve the current state-of-the-art in the standard GW dataset and performs as good as PHOCNET in some cases designed for segmentation based word spotting.'
author:
-
title: 'R-PHOC: Segmentation-Free Word Spotting using CNN'
---
Introduction
============
Word spotting is the task of searching for a given input word over a large collection of manuscripts. Indexing and browsing over large handwritten databases is an elusive goal in document analysis. The straightforward option for this includes using state-of-the-art OCR technologies to digitise the documents and then applying information retrieval techniques for information extraction. However, in case of handwritten manuscripts this strategy does not work well as OCR available for printed documents are not directly applicable to these documents due to challenges like diversity of the handwriting style or the presence of noise and distortion in historical manuscripts. Thus, word spotting has been proposed as an alternative to OCR, as a form of content-based retrieval procedure, which results in a ranked list of word images that are similar to the query word. The query can be either an example image (Query-By-Example (QBE)) or a string containing the word to be searched (Query-By-String (QBS)). Initial approaches on word spotting followed a similar pipeline as OCR technologies, starting with binarization followed by structural/layout analysis and segmentation at word and/or character level. Example of this type of framework are the works of [@Vinci; @Serrano]. The main drawbacks of these methods come from the dependence on the segmentation step, which can be very sensible to handwriting distortions. Other initial attempts on QBS based methods relied on the extraction of letter or glyph templates, either manually [@Konidaris; @Leydier] or by means of some clustering scheme [@Marinai; @Liang]. Then these character templates are put together in order to synthetically generate an example of the query word. Although such methods proved to be effective and user friendly, their applicability is limited to scenarios where individual characters can be easily segmented. More generic solutions have been proposed in [@Fischer; @Frinken], where they learned models for individual characters and the relationship among them using either an HMM [@Fischer] or a NN [@Frinken]. These models are trained on the whole word or even on complete text lines without needing an explicit character segmentation. They are used to generate a word model from the query string that has to be compared with the whole database at query time. Therefore, computational time can rapidly increase with the size of the dataset.
In this context it can be mentioned that example based methods are in a clear advantage as they can represent handwritten words holistically by compact numeric feature vectors. In this direction the work of Rusiñol [*et al.*]{}[@Rusinol] proposes a representation of word images with a fixed-length descriptor based on the well known bag of visual words (BoW) framework. Comparison between the query and candidate image regions can be done by a simple cosine or Euclidean distance can be used, making a sliding window over the whole image feasible. In addition, Latent Semantic Indexing (LSI) is used to learn a latent space where the distance between word representations is more meaningful than in the original bag of words space. In [@almazan2014a] Almazán [*et al.*]{}proposed to use a HOG based word representation in combination with an exemplar-SVM framework to learn a better representation of the query from a single example. Compression of the descriptors by means of product quantization permits a very efficient computation over a large dataset in combination with a sliding window-based search.
One of the challenges for QBS word spotting using compact word representations is to find a common representation that can be easily derived from both strings and images and permits a direct comparison between them. For that, Almazán [*et al.*]{}[@almazan2014] proposed to learn a fixed length word representation based on character attributes to perform both QBE and QBS using the same framework. The attribute representation encodes the presence/absence of characters in different spatial positions in the word image through a Pyramidal Histogram of Characters (PHOC). Although originally the representation was learned using Fisher Vector as image features, some adaptations using CNNs to learn the attribute space have also been proposed [@PHOCNET; @CNN-Ngram]. All the different variants of this representation have shown to be highly discriminant achieving state-of-the-art results in segmentation-based word spotting.
However using PHOC embedding in segmentation-free word spotting needs to embed all possible candidate words in PHOC space. In CNN based PHOC embedding [@PHOCNET; @CNN-Ngram] this amounts to applying one CNN forward pass for each candidate (possibly in batch with GPU) and then computing the distance metric with the query. Fisher vector based PHOC was used for segmentation-free word spotting in [@ghosh2015sliding]. Utilizing the additive nature of Fisher Vector embedding they propose to use a integral image of PHOC attributes to make the computation faster. In this work we propose a framework to extend in a more efficient way the PHOC word representation to segmentation-free word spotting leveraging more discriminative CNN features. To make the computations feasible, we take advantage of recent works in object detection [@R-CNN; @fastR-cnn] that leverage a set of blind object proposals to find all instances of objects in an image using a single forward pass in a CNN. We take a similar approach for word detection using a set of candidate word proposals generated by grouping connected components based on a set of spatial constraints. The whole network (called R-PHOC) is trained end-to-end to generate the PHOC representation of every candidate region. Thus, given a query, word spotting can be performed by simply computing the distance between the PHOC representation of the query and the PHOC representation of all candidate regions obtained through the R-PHOC network. As these can be computed in a single forward pass in the network, the whole procedure is very efficient in terms of computation time. We evaluate our approach using standard George Washington showing state-of-the-art results for QBE word spotting.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: In section \[sec:methodology\], we discuss the proposed methodology, which includes a sub-section \[sec:cand:gen\], \[sec:PHOC\] \[sec:CNN-RPHOC\] which respectively discuss the issues regarding generation of word candidates, basic PHOC embedding and details of training the PHOC embedding using region based CNN features. In section \[sec:exp\] we show the results of the experiments carried out to validate our approach. Finally in section \[sec:conclusion\] we report the conclusions of our work.
Methodology {#sec:methodology}
===========
An overall scheme of the framework is illustrated in figure \[fig:schematic\], the following sub-sections describes each componnents separately.
Generation of candidate word regions {#sec:cand:gen}
------------------------------------
In order to generate a set of blind candidate word regions over the whole image we rely on the analysis and grouping of connected components in such a way that we can guarantee a high recall in word localization. Connected components can easily be extracted from the document image. Moreover, in handwriting, connected components are mostly formed by pen strokes made by writers and thus atomic in nature. In general, they will not span more than a word. Therefore, any potential word in the document can be obtained by the combination of one or several neighbouring connected components.
For connected component analysis, the document is binarized by setting the threshold as 75% of the mean intensity of the image and then connected components are extracted using 8-pixel neighbourhood. As in this stage our goal is to retain as much information as we can in the images, rather than finding a clean binarized image, we use a high threshold to enhance the overall recall. Although this can lead to a larger number of false positives, the retrieval process can later discard them.
For the combination of connected components into word candidate regions we will impose some spatial constraints on the total possible number of combinations to guarantee that candidate words are only composed of horizontally neighbouring connected components. The first constraint that we apply is co-linearity. For that, we avoid to use an explicit line segmentation method as usually, line segmentation methods are prone to errors and sensitive to noise. Our goal is not to find perfect line separation but rather to infer potential collinear connected components.
In order to achieve that we first generate an over-complete set of line separation hypotheses by simply finding local minima in the horizontal projection of the image, after applying an average filter in order to smooth the projection profile . Then, every connected component will be assigned to all the lines for which they have a certain degree of overlapping. All connected components assigned to the same line will be considered as collinear. Let us note that one connected component can span more than one line hypothesis and therefore, can be combined with connected componentes in different lines. This is a way of assuring a high recall of word hypothesis.
In the process of finding minima of the projection profile, word ascenders and descencers can introduce some noise. Therefore, we pre-process connected components before computing the horizontal projection in order to remove this noise. For that, we replace every connected component by a minimal bounding box obtained following a greedy approach where we first compute the pixel density of the atomic bounding box. Then, starting from the middle of the bounding box we keep growing in both vertically and horizontally directions until we reach an area which contains 90% of the pixel density of the corresponding bounding box.
Once each connected component has been assigned to one or more lines, candidate word regions will be generated as combinations of connected components within the same line. For that we will make use of the knowledge that words are arranged left to right in English and will enforce some spatial ordering. Thus, we sort all connected components from left to right according to the $x$ position of their top left corner. Then, cnadidate word regions will be generated as any possible combination of consecutive connected components assigned to the same line.
Finally, to reduce the computation time in further steps, we propose to use a simple and fast binary classifier in order to classify all these word candidate regions into word/non-word and filter non-word regions. To learn this binary classifier we use simple features, which can be computed very fast. For each candidate region we compute a fixed length feature vector in the following way. Every candidate is divided vertically into $P$ segments and horizontally into $Q$ segments. For each segment the pixel density is calculated. This gives a $P + Q$ dimensional feature vector. We add to this feature vector the height and the width to the text box proposal normalize with respect to the average line height and width of all the text box proposals in the training set, respectively. This leads to a final feature vector of length $P + Q +2$. A linear support vector machine binary classifier is learned using these features.
PHOC embedding {#sec:PHOC}
--------------
PHOC representation[@almazan2014] provides an excellent embedding space where both strings and word images can be represented as low dimensional points. Once queries and candidate words are encoded in this embedded space word spotting is reduced to a nearest neighbour problem.
The PHOC representation is based on the concatenation of spatial binary histograms of characters, encoding which characters appear in different positions of the string. The basic representation is just a histogram of characters over the whole string. In order to increase the discrimination power of the representation, new histograms are added at different levels in a pyramidal way to account for differences in the position of characters. Thus, at level 2, the word is split in two halves and the same histogram of characters is computed for each of the two halves. At level 3, the word is split in 3 sub-parts, at level 4 in 4, and so on. At the end, all histograms are concatenated in a single final word representation. In practice, 5 levels of decomposition are used and the histogram of the 50 most common English bigrams at level 2 is also added to the final representation to capture some relationship between adjacent characters, leading to a final word representation of $604$ dimensions.
For images, each dimension of the representation each dimension is an attribute encoding the probability of appearance of a given character in a particular region of the image, using the same pyramidal decomposition as in the PHOC representation. Originally each attribute was independently learned using an SVM classifier on a Fisher Vector description of the word image, enriched with the $x$ and $y$ coordinates and the scale of the SIFT descriptor. Recently the same embedding has been extended by Sebastian [*et al.*]{}in [@PHOCNET], where they used CNN features in place of Fisher Vectors, improving overall accuracy. They trained a CNN to predict the estimated PHOC representation of a given input image, changing the usual softmax layer used for classification by a sigmoid activation function which is applied to every element of the output. They also used Spatial Pyramid Pooling to be able to feed images of different sizes to the network. In the next section we give more details about this network and how we have used it in our R-PHOC architecture.
[ [**Architecture of the R-PHOC network**]{} ]{}
PHOC embedding for regions {#sec:CNN-RPHOC}
--------------------------
The task of word spotting is in a way similar to that of object detection, where the task is to find salient objects in an image and classify them into some predefined categories. Traditionally object detection using CNN features was performed using a sliding window protocol over the input image. However like any sliding window based approach this involves lot of redundant computation. To do this efficiently an specific architecture is needed, which can take as input the entire image and produce labels for all salient objects. The first breakthrough in this direction was made by Girschik [*et al.*]{}in [@R-CNN], where they proposed the idea of region based CNN features and then SVM classifiers to classify regions into salient objects. A further modification of this approach was proposed in [@fastR-cnn]. In Fast-RCNN [@fastR-cnn] the concept of region of interest(ROI) pooling was first introduced, which enables the network to aggregate features from different salient regions of the image without needing to feed all the regions separately to the network. Additionally the network is trained to regress the bounding box to predict more precise locations of salient objects. The whole network is trained end-to-end using a single multi-task loss function. In a nutshell a fast-RCNN framework takes a set of class independent object proposals as input and provides two set of outputs for each proposal: classification scores for each object category and an Offset for bounding box regression for each category of objects.
In this work we adopted this framework for handwritten text spotting. However, as the number of different English words is very large, text detection can not be seen as a classification problem. To deal with this we train the network to predict the PHOC representation of the candidate window. Thus, this can be seen as an extension of the PHOC framework to a segmentation-free scenario using region based CNN features, thus the name R-PHOC is coined for our network. In the following sub-section the proposed architecture is described. The proposed architecture is given in Figure \[fig:network\]. Thus architecture of the network contains the same set of convolutional and max pooling layers used [@PHOCNET] in order to to leverage their pre-trained models. This is done purposefully to be able to use transfer learning, i.e. to reuse the learned weights from their pre-trained network, which is a common practice in other computer vision tasks like image classification etc. However for simplicity and to be able to back-propagate the gradients the spatial pyramid layer is replaced by a ROI pooling layer in order to obtain the features for every candidate. Finally the feature representation produced by the ROI layer is fed to sigmoid activation layer. The ROI pooling layer uses max pooling to obtain a feature map from a ROI, by dividing the region of interest into sub-windows of fixed size. For example a ROI of $(x,y,h,w)$ is divided into grids of approximate size $h/H$ and $w/W$ and pooling the features from each grid into the corresponding output grid cell. Similar to standard max pooling, feature from each channel is pooled independently. Our goal is to train the network to predict the PHOC embeddings for each ROI (word candidate region) using the CNN features. Then, the problem is different to most classification problems. Instead of having one one true class for every training example in PHOC there can be multiple positive classes (PHOC attributes) for every training sample. For classification problems a softmax layer is the de-facto standard to obtain the final output. However for multi-label classification tasks this can not be used. This is dealt in [@PHOCNET] by using a sigmoid activation function in place of the softmax layer. In this work we also make use of sigmoid activation functions to obtain the final output of the network. Sigmoid cross entropy loss (or logistic loss) is used for training the network. Thus, the loss between a predicted PHOC $\hat \sigma$ and the real PHOC $\sigma$ of a given image is given as:
$$l(\hat \sigma,\sigma) = -\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}{\sigma_i\log(\hat\sigma_i) +(1-\sigma_i)(\log(1-\hat\sigma_i)} ,$$
where $n$ is the number of attributes in the PHOC representation $\sigma$. Given an image with a set of candidate words (ROIs), the loss is calculated as the summation of the individual loss for each ROI. Though the network could be used to regress the bounding box of every ROI to get a more precise location of every word, we leave that for future work.
Training
========
Training a deep network takes significant effort. Here, some of the hyper parameters are discussed in order to help the reproducibility of our method. As the loss function adopted in this work is differentiable, the network can be trained end-to-end by back propagation. We used stochastic Gradient Descent with a learning rate initially fixed at 0.0001 and updated every 1000 iterations. We trained the network for 30000 iterations. As the size of the document images in comparison to the images in Pascal dataset for object detection are much bigger, we divide the image into overlapping segments of size $600 \times 1000$ to be able to load the images in a GPU. One training epoch takes 0.524 seconds on average. We use a batch size of 128, i.e in one minibatch 128 ROIs are processed. The minibatches are sampled so as at least 60% of them contain valid text regions with an overlap of more than 0.5. From the candidate word regions obtained using the procedure described in section \[sec:cand:gen\], we only used the candidates with more than 50% overlap with ground truth words as text class and with less than 20% overlap as background. The text candidates with text overlap between 20% to 50% are filtered as although they contain some text they do not constitute any valid word (e.g two consecutive words can be one candidate). Thus predicting PHOC for such candidates can act as a distractor.
Experiments {#sec:exp}
===========
Dataset
-------
**The George Washington (GW) dataset** [@Rath] has been used by most researchers in this field and has become one of the most important datasets to benchmark the results. This dataset contains 4860 words annotated at word level. The dataset comprises 20 handwritten letters written by George Washington and his associates in the 18th century. The writing styles present only small variations and it can be considered as a single-writer dataset.
Experimental Protocol
---------------------
We performed Query-By-Example word spotting on the GW dataset following the standard protocols. A retrieved candidate is considered positive if it overlaps with some ground truth word for which the labels are same and the Intersection over union between the ground truth word and the retrieved word region is more than some threshold. In our experiments we set this threshold to 50% as it is usual practice in most cases. In GW, as the number of pages of the dataset is very small, we performed 4-fold cross validation, so that all words can be evaluated. We randomly divide the 20 pages into 4 bins of 5 pages each, and therefore for each fold, we used 15 pages for training and 5 for test. While testing we only used words from the test pages and the list of queries was also formed by the words from these 5 pages. On average every fold contains 1230 words.
Results
-------
For baseline analysis we perform QBE word spotting in GW dataset for segmented words, i.e each segmented word is assumed as a ROI and every document page is passed through the network once. The results for this experiment are shown in \[tab:baseline\]. Though the goal of this work is not segmentation-based word spotting, we did this study to analyse the effect of region based CNN features. As we can see that in segmentation-based scenario the R-PHOC method reaches 92.75% mAP which is comparable to FV-PHOC of [@almazan2014]. R-PHOC performs slightly worse than PHOCNET, which is expected as in region based approaches features are integrated in discrete intervals. However, as described above this is very efficient in comparison to other PHOC based approaches as in one forward pass all candidate words of the entire document can be evaluated, thus achieving a massive parallelism.
\[tab:baseline\]
**Methods** **Mean Average Precision**
--------------------------- ----------------------------
PHOCNET [@PHOCNET] 96.71
FV-PHOC [@almazan2014] 93.04
R-PHOC (Region based CNN) 92.75
: Performance of R-PHOC for QBE word spotting in segmented word images)
[ [**QBE word spotting in segmentation-free scenario**]{} ]{} Table \[table:comparisonQBE\] summarises the results of applying the R-PHOC network to segmentation-fre QBE word spotting, compared to other methos in the state-of-the-art.
For a better comparison of the effect of using region based features we also provided the results of performing segmentation-free QBE word spotting using the original PHOCNET model. To generate these results we used the same candidates as in our approach, but in this case the PHOC representation is obtained by processing each candidate one by one. As our network is also learned to predict PHOC given a ROI of an image, the baseline result of PHOCNET is a way to provide an upper limit to our network. However this comes with a huge cost of applying the CNN for every candidate, while our network obtains the PHOC representation of all candidates in a single forward pass.
This can be verified in Table \[table:comparisonQBE\]. First of all, we can see that all results using PHOC as the basis for word representation clearly outperform the rest of methods. The baseline consisting of applying PHOCNET separately to all word candidate regions achieves an accuracy of 87.71, but the cost of applying the CNN to all individual candidate makes this approach unfeasible in terms of computation time. When applying R-PHOC the performance decreases to 79.83, still outperforming all other methods by a significant margin, but reducing by a factor of almost 10 the computation time required. This result shows that the using ROI pooling permits to obtain a high accuracy while enabling the computation of the signature from all word candidates from an image by a single forward pass, which makes this approach computationally efficient. We have noticed that the down-sampling in ROI pooling has a larger effect on the small words. A similar phenomenon is observed in the case of object detection where small objects remain undetected by state-of-the-art CNN detector. Thus, we also evaluated our network on words which contain more than 5 letters and obtained an accuracy of 86.7, which is comparable to the baseline PHOCNET.
[width=,center=]{}
Method Segmentation Dataset Accuracy Query evaluation time (in sec)
---------------------------------------------------- -------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- --------------------------------
Recurrent Neural Networks [@Frinken] Line Level 20 pages, all words of the training set appearing in all 4 folds as queries 71% mean prec.
Character HMMs [@Fischer] Line Level all words of the training set ap- pearing in all 4 folds as queries 62% mean prec.
Slit style HOG features [@slitstyle] Line Level 20 pages, 15 queries 79.1% mAP
Gradient features with elastic distance[@Leydier2] NO 20 Pages, 15 Queries 60%
BOVW+HMM [@Rothacker] No 5 pages Test and 20% overlap is considered as true positive 61.35% mAP
Exemplar SVM [@almazan2012bmvc] NO All ground truth words as queries 54.5%
bag-of-visual-words+LSI [@Rusinol] NO All Ground Truth Words as Queries 61.35% mAP
Baseline PHOCNET NO All Ground Truth Words as Queries 87.71%mAP 371 sec.
R-PHOC (Proposed) NO All Ground Truth Words from test set as queries 79.83%mAP 48sec.
R-PHOC (Proposed) $>5$ characters NO All Ground Truth Words from test set as queries 86.7%mAP 48sec.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusion}
===========
An efficient CNN based segmentation-free word spotting is proposed. We apply a simple pre-segmentation to generate a set of word candidates which are then passed through a convolutional neural network to predict PHOC embedding for all candidates in a single forward pass in the network. Word spotting is then performed using nearest neighbour approach. We observed that region based features obtained by integrating CNN feature maps can be used to train PHOC embeddings, thus generating an efficient scheme for segmentation-free word spotting. Though the proposed approach performs better than most of the approaches using hand crafted features, our method still performs very poorly in case of words with a low number of characters. In the future this needs to be taken care of by applying feature maps of various sizes. Another future direction could be automatically generate candidate bounding boxes by means of regression using the same architecture.
[1]{}
J. Almazán and A. Gordo and A. Fornés and E. Valveny, Word Spotting and Recognition with Embedded Attributes, TPAMI,2014
A. Vinciarelli, S. Bengio, H. Bunke, Offline recognition of unconstrained handwritten texts using HMMs and statistical language models, IEEE Transactions on PAMI, 26 (2004), 709–-720.
J. Rodríguez-Serrano, F. Perronnin, Local gradient histogram features for word spotting in unconstrained hand-written documents: ICFHR, 2008
Y. Leydier, A. Ouji, F. Lebourgeois, H. Emptoz, Towards an omnilingual word retrieval system for ancient manuscripts, Pattern Recognition 42 (2009) 2089–-2105.
Y. Leydier, F. Lebourgeois, H. Emptoz, Text search for medieval manuscript images, Pattern Recognition 40 (12) (2007)
M. Rusinol, D. Aldavert, R. Toledo, J. Llad[ó]{}s, Efficient segmentation-free keyword spotting in historical document collections. Pattern recognition, 545-555, 2014
L. Rothacker, M. Rusiñol, G. A. Fink, Bag-of-Features HMMs for Segmentation-free Word Spotting in Handwritten Documents, in: International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition, 2013, pp. 1305–-1309
J. Almazán and A. Gordo and A. Fornés and E. Valveny, Segmentation-free Word Spotting with Exemplar SVMs, Pattern Recognition,2014.
T. Rath and R. Manmatha, Word spotting for historical documents, IJDAR , 2007
S. Marinai, E. Marino, and G. Soda, Font adaptive word indexing of modern printed documents, IEEE Transactions on PAMI, August 2006.
T. Konidaris, B. Gatos, K. Ntzios, I. Pratikakis, S. Theodoridis, and S. Perantonis, Keyword-guided word spotting in historical printed documents using synthetic data and user feedback,International Journal on Document Analysis and Recognition,April 2007.
Y. Liang, M. Fairhurst, and R. Guest, A synthesised word approach to word retrieval in handwritten documents, Pattern Recognition, December 2012.
A. Fischer, A. Keller, V. Frinken, and H. Bunke, Lexicon-free handwritten word spotting using character HMMs, Pattern Recognition Letters, May 2012.
V. Frinken, A. Fischer, R. Manmatha, and H. Bunke, A novel word spotting method based on recurrent neural networks, IEEE Transactions on PAMI, February 2012. S. K. Ghosh, E. Valveny, A Sliding Window Framework for Word Spotting Based on Word Attributes, Iberian Conference on Pattern Recognition and Image Analysis, 652–661, 2015
A. Kovalchuk, L.r Wolf, and N. Dershowitz A Simple and Fast Word Spotting Method, International Conference on Frontiers in Handwriting Recognition, 2014
Jon Almaz[á]{}n, Albert Gordo and Alicia Forn[é]{}s, and Ernest Valveny, British Machine Vision Conference, 2012
K. Terasawa, Y. Tanaka, Slit style HOG feature for document image word spotting, in: Proc. of the International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition, 2009.
L. Rothacker and G. A. Fink, Segmentation-free query-by-string word spotting with Bag-of-Features HMMs, 13th International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition (ICDAR), 2015
S. Sudholt and G. A. Fink, PHOCNet: A Deep Convolutional Neural Network for Word Spotting in Handwritten Documents, 2016 15th International Conference on Frontiers in Handwriting Recognition (ICFHR), 2016, pp. 277-282.
A. Poznanski and L. Wolf, CNN-N-Gram for HandwritingWord Recognition, 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2016, pp. 2305-2314. V. Romero, A. Forn[é]{}s, N. Serrano, J.A. Sánchez, A. Toselli, V. Frinken, E.Vidal, Enrique and J. Lladós, The ESPOSALLES Database: An Ancient Marriage License Corpus for Off-line Handwriting Recognition, Pattern Recognition, 46-6, Jun -2013. R. Girschick, J. Donahue, T. Darrell and J. Malik, Rich feature hierarchies for accurate object detection and semantic, CVPR, 2014
R. Girschick, Fast R-CNN, ICCV, 2015.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Laser seeding technique have been envisioned to produce nearly transform-limited pulses at soft X-ray FELs. Echo-Enabled Harmonic Generation (EEHG) is a promising, recent technique for harmonic generation with an excellent up-conversion to very high harmonics, from the standpoint of electron beam physics. This paper explores the constraints on seed laser performance for reaching wavelengths of $1$ nm. We show that the main challenge in implementing the EEHG scheme at extreme harmonic factors is the requirement for accurate control of temporal and spatial quality of the seed laser pulse. For example, if the phase of the laser pulse is chirped before conversion to an UV seed pulse, the chirp in the electron beam microbunch turns out to be roughly multiplied by the harmonic factor. In the case of a Ti:Sa seed laser, such factor is about $800$. For such large harmonic numbers, generation of nearly transform-limited soft X-ray pulses results in challenging constraints on the Ti:Sa laser. In fact, the relative discrepancy of the time-bandwidth product of the seed-laser pulse from the ideal transform-limited performance should be no more than one in a million. The generated electron beam microbunching is also very sensitive to distortions of the seed laser wavefront, which are also multiplied by the harmonic factor. In order to have minimal reduction of the FEL input coupling factor, it is desirable that the size-angular bandwidth product of the UV seed laser beam be very close to the ideal i.e. diffraction-limited performance in the waist plane at the middle of the modulator undulator.'
address:
- 'European XFEL GmbH, Hamburg, Germany'
- 'Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron (DESY), Hamburg, Germany'
author:
- 'Gianluca Geloni,'
- Vitali Kocharyan
- and Evgeni Saldin
title: Analytical studies of constraints on the performance for EEHG FEL seed lasers
---
**DEUTSCHES ELEKTRONEN-SYNCHROTRON**
**\
**
DESY 11-200
November 2011
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber &&\cr \nonumber && \cr \nonumber &&\cr\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
**Analytical studies of constraints on the performance for EEHG FEL seed lasers**
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber &&\cr \nonumber && \cr\end{aligned}$$
Gianluca Geloni,
*\
European XFEL GmbH, Hamburg*
Vitali Kocharyan and Evgeni Saldin
*\
Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY, Hamburg* $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ ISSN 0418-9833 $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
**NOTKESTRASSE 85 - 22607 HAMBURG**
\[sec:uno\] Introduction
========================
An important goal for any advanced X-ray FEL is the production of X-ray pulses with the minimum allowed photon energy width for given pulse length, which defines the transform-limit. A well-known approach to obtain fully coherent radiation in the soft X-ray region relies on frequency multiplication, a scheme known as high-gain-harmonic-generation (HGHG) [@HGHG1; @HGHG2]. In a HGHG FEL, the radiation output is obtained from a coherent subharmonic seed laser pulse. Consequently, the optical properties of HGHG FELs are expected to reflect the characteristics of the high-quality seed laser. Echo-enabled harmonic generation (EEHG) is a recent, promising technique for efficient harmonic generation [@EEHG1; @EEHG2]. The key advantage of EEHG over HGHG is that the amplitude of the achieved microbunching factor decays slowly with an increasing harmonic number. Consequently, as concerns electron beam physics issues, EEHG allows for the generation of fully coherent radiation at soft X-ray wavelengths with a single upshift stage, and using a conventional optical laser system. The remarkable up-frequency conversion efficiency of the method has stimulated wide interest to generate near transform-limited soft X-ray pulses. Several EEHG FEL projects are now under development [@LCLS2E]-[@FLEEHG]. A typical EEHG setup consists of two stages for electron beam phase space manipulation, followed by a radiator. Each stage includes an undulator, which is used to modulate the electron beam in energy with the help of a seed laser, and a chicane following the modulator, which is used to apply energy-dependent slippage to the electrons. The radiator is composed by a sequence of undulators tuned to the desired output wavelength. This final section is similar to that used for SASE FELs. However it is shorter, and produces coherent radiation only because the beam has been coherently prebunched. The seed laser is assumed to be tuned at $200$ nm (or $270$ nm) corresponding to the fourth harmonic (or the third) of a Ti:Sapphire laser.
Limitations on the performance of EEHG schemes related with electron beam dynamics issues, as the beam goes through the various undulators and chicanes, has been extensively discussed in literature [@EETOL1; @EETOL2; @EETOL3] and goes beyond the scope of this paper. Here we will focus our attention on the first part of the harmonic generation process, discussing the constraints on the seed laser performance needed for reaching wavelengths of about $1$ nm. In fact, in chirped-pulse amplification systems (CPA) systems, both temporal and spatial quality of the beam can be degraded due to the propagation through the optical components, non-linear effects or inhomogeneous doping concentration in the amplifying media, and thermal effects linked to the pumping process. In particular, the aim of this work is to evaluate the impact of variations of the characteristics of output radiation when the FEL is seeded by a laser with non-ideal properties, including effects such as linear and nonlinear frequency chirp and wavefront distortion.
A description of the impact of phase chirp of the EEHG (or HGHG) FEL output can be made without numerical simulation codes. In fact, as is well-known, if the phase of the seed laser is chirped, the chirp is simply multiplied by the frequency multiplication factor $N$. In this case, the method used to describe the output field perturbation is independent of the specific kind of harmonic generation technique: it only depends on the frequency multiplication factor $N$. It follows that both EEHG and HGHG FELs starting from a Ti:Sa laser with a wavelength around $800$ nm can produce transform-limited radiation down to wavelengths of $1$ nm only when the relative discrepancy of the time-bandwidth product of the compressed $800$ nm laser pulse from the ideal, transform-limited performance is no more than one in a million, roughly corresponding to the squared of the harmonic number. However, pulses from a commercially available Ti:Sapphire chirped pulse amplifiers are usually limited in such discrepancy to around $1\%$, due to non-ideal effects. Therefore, research and development activities must be performed in order to reach the required temporal quality. To the best of our knowledge, there is only one article[^1] reporting on the impact of temporal variations in seed laser pulses on EEHG FEL output radiation characteristics, [@EETOL3]. The analysis in [@EETOL3] is based on numerical simulations in the case of $1.2$ nm output radiation wavelength. According to results of the sensitivity study in [@EETOL3], the phase of the $202$ nm seed laser pulse (corresponding to the fourth harmonic of a Ti:Sa laser) must to be controlled to within $0.5$ degrees. Consequently, the phase of the Ti:Sa laser output must to be controlled to within roughly $0.1$ degrees. This result is consistent with our analysis, which is performed at a very elementary level.
We also evaluate the impact on the EEHG FEL output of wavefront errors in the seed laser. In the case of ideal performance, the seed (UV) laser beam must be characterized by a flat (i.e. diffraction-limited) wavefront in the waist plane in the middle of the modulator undulator. If the wavefront exhibits errors, errors in the microbuch wavefront follow, which are multiplied by the frequency multiplication factor. These microbunch wavefront errors do not affect the spatial quality of the FEL output radiation, which is the same for both perturbed and unperturbed wavefront cases. They only affect the input signal value at the target harmonic. However, because of the exponential dependence of the signal suppression factor on the wavefront errors, one obtains an appreciable FEL output only when phase errors are sufficiently small to give appreciable input signal. As a result, the seed UV laser beam must exhibit a nearly diffraction-limited wavefront in the waist plane, with very little phase variation. In particular for a target harmonic with wavelengths of about $1$ nm, the wavefront of the UV beam must be controlled to within a fraction of a degree across the electron beam area. These relatively small phase variations cause the signal at the entrance of the FEL amplifier to drop of a quantity of order of the ideal (diffraction-limited) performance. In contrast with phase variation in time, the spatial quality of UV seed laser beam can be improved by means of active optics and spatial filtering. However, these manipulations with laser beam usually cause significant losses in beam power.
To the best of our knowledge, the crucially important problem of seeding with beam wavefront distortions was only recently reported in workshops [@WORK1; @WORK2], where the impact of wavefront errors on the EEHG performance was discussed, based on numerical simulations, in the case of the highest target harmonic at $13$ nm. Results of [@WORK1; @WORK2] are consistent with our analysis, which has been performed purely analytically.
The suppression of the output signal due to phase variations in space seems somehow in contrast with the effects of phase variations in time, where phase errors affect the temporal quality of the output radiation, but not the FEL output power. From this viewpoint, it should be noted that the radiation field is characterized by notions such as temporal and spatial coherence. The transverse coherence of FEL radiation develops automatically, without laser seeding. This happens due to transverse eigenmode selection: due to different gains of the FEL transverse eigenmodes, only one survives at the end of the FEL process. The coherence time is defined by the inverse FEL amplification bandwidth. For conventional soft X-ray FELs the typical amplification bandwidth is much wider than the Fourier transform limited value corresponding to the radiation pulse duration, meaning that the coherence time is much shorter than the pulse duration. Consequently, microbunch phase variations in time only lead to phase variations in the output radiation pulse, without suppression of the output power level.
\[sec:due\] Issues affecting the performance of EEHG FEL
========================================================
Phase control is an important aspect in the development of all FEL sources based on harmonic generation. Methods for dealing with issues concerning temporal phase variations in frequency multipliers are based on the same general principle [@ROBI]: the effect of frequency multiplication by a harmonic factor $N$, is to multiply the phase variation by $N$. The EEHG scheme is obviously based on harmonic generation, but is more complicated than other schemes, and consists of two modulators, two dispersion sections, and one radiator undulator. A unique feature of EEHG scheme is the utilization of two different seed laser pulses which can have different temporal and spatial quality. It is thus natural to investigate the question whether the general principle above can also be applied to EEHG. Analytical results [@EEHG2] refer to the specific model an of infinitely long, uniform electron bunch only. This steady state model proved to be very fruitful, allowing for simple analytical expressions describing the main characteristics of EEHG scheme. However, as discussed above, the seed laser pulses and, consequently the electron beam microbunching, are always characterized by phase variations in time and space (wavefront distortions). We will therefore extend analytical description of EEHG scheme in [@EEHG2], following the line of derivations in that reference, to the time dependent case and account for finite duration and transverse size of the electron bunch.
To this aim, we assume that the temporal profile of the electron beam can be modeled as a Gaussian, and that the initial electron beam distribution can be factorized as a product of energy, $f_{0p}(p)$, and density, $f_{0\zeta}(\zeta)$ distributions as
$$\begin{aligned}
f_0(\zeta,p)= f_{0p}(p) f_{0\zeta}(\zeta) = \frac{N_0}{2\pi
\sigma_\zeta} \exp\left[-\frac{p^2}{2}-\frac{\zeta^2}{2
\sigma_\zeta^2}\right]~. \label{f0new}\end{aligned}$$
Here $p=(E-E_0)/\sigma_E$ is the dimensionless energy deviation of a particle from the average energy $E_0$, and the rms spread is given by $\sigma_E$. Similarly, $\zeta = \omega_l t$ is the dimensionless time, with $\omega_l$ the laser frequency, assumed to be the same in both stages, and $\sigma_\zeta$ is the rms spread of the density distribution. Finally $N_0$ is the total number of particles in the beam. The longitudinal phase space is described by the variables $(\zeta,p)$. Passing through the first modulator and dispersive section the phase space variables transform to $(\zeta',p')$, which are given by
$$\begin{aligned}
p'=p + A_1 \sin (\zeta + \phi_1) ~~, ~~~ \zeta'=\zeta + B_1 p'~,
\label{M1}\end{aligned}$$
where $A_1 = \Delta E_1/\sigma_E$, $\Delta E_1$ being the energy modulation imposed by the seed laser, $\phi_1=\phi_1(\zeta)$ is the phase of the laser pulse, which depends on the time $\zeta$, and $B_1 = R_{56}^{(1)} \sigma_E \omega_l/(E_0 c)$, $R_{56}^{(1)}$ is the strength of the first chicane. Substituting Eq. (\[M1\]) into Eq. (\[f0new\]) one can obtain the distribution after the first modulator and dispersive section. The new phase space variables $(\zeta',p')$ will transform after the passage through the second modulator and dispersive section, to $(\zeta'',p'')$, which are given, in a similar way, by
$$\begin{aligned}
p''=p' + A_2 \sin (\zeta' + \phi_2)~~, ~~~ \zeta''=\zeta' + B_2
p''~, \label{M2}\end{aligned}$$
the subscript $'2'$ referring to the second stage[^2]. Using Eq. (\[f0new\])-(\[M2\]) one can obtain an explicit expression for the phase space distribution after the second stage, $f_2(\zeta'',
p'')$, which will not be reported here. In order to analyze the harmonic composition of the current density we first need to project the phase space distribution onto the real space-time coordinates by performing an integration along $p''$. This leads to the density distribution function $\rho$, that can be Fourier-analyzed further to give
$$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\rho}(\Omega)= \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dp'' d\zeta'' \exp[-i
\Omega \zeta''] f_2(\zeta'',p'')~, \cr && \label{ffft}\end{aligned}$$
where $\Omega = \omega/\omega_l$ is the conjugate variable of $\zeta$, whose meaning is that of normalized frequency.
The integrals in Eq. (\[ffft\]) cannot be easily performed, directly. As customary, one can transform the final variables $(\zeta'', p'')$ back to the initial variables $(\zeta,p)$ and perform the required integrations with respect to the old variables. This allows to use the fact that $f_2(\zeta'',p'') = f_0(\zeta,p)$. Since $d\zeta'' dp'' = d\zeta d p$ one obtains
$$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\rho}(\Omega) && = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dp d\zeta \exp[-i
\Omega \zeta''(\zeta,p)] f_0(\zeta,p) \cr && = \frac{N_0}{2\pi
\sigma_\zeta} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dp d\zeta \exp[-i \Omega
\zeta''(\zeta,p)] \exp\left[-\frac{p^2}{2}-\frac{\zeta^2}{2
\sigma_\zeta^2}\right]~, \cr && \label{ffft2}\end{aligned}$$
where $\zeta''(\zeta,p)$ can be obtained from Eq. (\[M1\]) and Eq. (\[M2\]), and reads
$$\begin{aligned}
\zeta''(\zeta,p) =&& \zeta + (B_1+B_2) p + A_1
(B_1+B_2)\sin(\zeta+\phi_1)\cr && +A_2 B_2 \sin\left(\zeta + B_1 p +
A_1 B_1 \sin(\zeta+\phi_1)+\phi_2\right) ~.\label{zeta2}\end{aligned}$$
Substituting Eq. (\[zeta2\]) into Eq. (\[ffft2\]) we find, explicitly:
$$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\rho}(\Omega) && = \frac{N_0}{2\pi \sigma_\zeta}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dp d\zeta
\exp\left[-\frac{p^2}{2}-\frac{\zeta^2}{2 \sigma_\zeta^2}\right]~,
\cr && \times \exp\Bigg\{-i \Omega \Bigg[\zeta + (B_1+B_2) p + A_1
(B_1+B_2)\sin(\zeta+\phi_1)\cr && +A_2 B_2 \sin\left(\zeta + B_1 p +
A_1 B_1 \sin(\zeta+\phi_1)+\phi_2\right)\Bigg] \Bigg\}\label{ffft3}\end{aligned}$$
The following step consists in expanding the exponential factors containing trigonometric expressions according to[^3]:
$$\begin{aligned}
\exp[-i \Omega A_1(B_1+B_2)\sin(\zeta+\phi_1)] =
\sum_{k=-\infty}^{\infty} \exp[i k (\zeta+\phi_1)] J_k\left[-\Omega
A_1(B_1+B_2)\right] \cr && \label{expan1}\end{aligned}$$
and
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\exp\left[-i \Omega A_2 B_2 \sin\left(\zeta + B_1 p + A_1 B_1
\sin(\zeta+\phi_1)+\phi_2\right)\right] = \cr &&
\sum_{m=-\infty}^{\infty} \exp\left[i m \left(\zeta + B_1 p + A_1
B_1 \sin(\zeta+\phi_1)+\phi_2\right)\right] J_m\left[-\Omega A_2
B_2\right] ~, \label{expan2}\end{aligned}$$
where one can still expand
$$\begin{aligned}
\exp[i m A_1 B_1 \sin(\zeta+\phi_1)] = \sum_{l=-\infty}^{\infty}
\exp[i l (\zeta+\phi_1)] J_l\left[ m A_1 B_1\right] ~.\label{expan3}\end{aligned}$$
Assuming, for the moment, a dependence of the laser phases $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ on $\zeta$, and collecting terms that have a dependence on $\zeta$ we can define
$$\begin{aligned}
\bar{f}_{\zeta}(k+l+m-\Omega)=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\zeta
f_{0\zeta}(\zeta) \exp[i (k+l+m-\Omega)\zeta] \exp[i (k+l) \phi_1 +
i m \phi_2]\cr && \label{fbarz}\end{aligned}$$
and obtain from Eq. (\[ffft3\]):
$$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\rho}(\Omega) && = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \sum_{m,k,l}
\bar{f}_{\zeta}(k+l+m-\Omega) J_k\left[-\Omega A_1(B_1+B_2)\right]
J_m\left[-\Omega A_2 B_2\right] J_l\left[ m A_1 B_1\right]\cr &&
\times \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dp \exp\left[-\frac{p^2}{2}\right]
\exp[-i \Omega (B_1+B_2)p+im B_1p]~. \label{ffft4}\end{aligned}$$
The integration over $p$ can be carried out using
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{N_0} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dp \exp[-i \Omega p (B_1+B_2)
+ i m p B_1] f_{0p}(p) = \exp[(\Omega (B_1+B_2)-m B_1)^2/2] \cr
\label{uno}\end{aligned}$$
which yields
$$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\rho}(\Omega) && = \sum_{m,k,l} \bar{f}_{\zeta}(k+l+m-\Omega)
J_k\left[-\Omega A_1(B_1+B_2)\right] J_m\left[-\Omega A_2 B_2\right]
J_l\left[ m A_1 B_1\right]\cr && \times \exp[(\Omega (B_1+B_2)-m
B_1)^2/2] ~. \label{ffft5}\end{aligned}$$
Setting $n=k+l$ and using
$$\begin{aligned}
J_{k+l}(\alpha+\beta) = \sum_{l=-\infty}^{\infty}
J_l(\beta)J_k(\alpha) ~,\label{due}\end{aligned}$$
Eq. (\[ffft5\]) can be re-written as
$$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\rho}(\Omega) && = \sum_{m,n} \bar{f}_{\zeta}(n+m-\Omega)
J_n\left[-\Omega A_1(B_1+B_2)+m A_1 B_1\right] J_m\left[-\Omega A_2
B_2\right] \cr && \times \exp[(\Omega (B_1+B_2)-m B_1)^2/2] ~.
\label{ffft6}\end{aligned}$$
We now apply the adiabatic approximation imposing that the width of the peaks in $\bar{f}_{\zeta}$ is much narrower than the harmonic separation $\omega_l$ between peaks. Analysis of Eq. (\[ffft6\]) and Eq. (\[fbarz\]) shows that due to the adiabatic approximation, the contribution to $\bar{f}(\Omega)$ for a given value of $m+n$, is peaked around $\Omega \simeq m+n$. This means that the terms in the sum over $m$ in Eq. (\[ffft6\]) can be analyzed separately for a fixed value of $m+n$, and one obtains
$$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\rho}(\Omega,m+n) && = \sum_{n} \bar{f}_{\zeta}(n+m-\Omega)
J_n\left[-\Omega A_1(B_1+B_2)+m A_1 B_1\right] J_m\left[-\Omega A_2
B_2\right] \cr && \times \exp[(\Omega (B_1+B_2)-m B_1)^2/2] ~.
\label{ffft6sep}\end{aligned}$$
It should be remarked that due to the adiabatic approximation, and to non-resonant behavior of Bessel functions, in Eq. (\[ffft6\]) we can replace $\Omega$ with $m+n$ under the Bessel functions. In this way, $\bar{f}_\zeta$ can be interpreted as the Fourier transform of the electron bunch density. The physical meaning of all this, is that $\bar{f}_{\zeta}$ is peaked at frequencies $\Omega$ near to multiples $n+m$ of the laser frequency. In [@EEHG2] it is reported that, in order to maximize the modulus of the bunching factor one should impose $n=\pm 1$. This can be seen directly by inspecting the right hand side of Eq. (\[uno\]). In fact, for values of $\Omega$ near to $n+m$, the argument in the exponential function can be written as $p^2 ( B_1 n + B_2 (n+m))^2/2$. When $n=-1$ and $m$ is positive and large for example, one sees that that $B_1 n$ is large and negative, while $B_2 m$ is large and positive. Therefore, $m$ can be chosen such that $ - B_1 + B_2 (m-1) \simeq
0$. This is guarantees remarkable up-frequency conversion efficiency, almost independently on the energy spread and constitutes one of the great advantages of the EEHG scheme. We will restrict our investigation to the case $n=-1$ and $m>0$, thus obtaining
$$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\rho}(\Omega,m-1) && = \bar{f}_{\zeta}(m-1-\Omega)
J_{-1}\left[-\Omega A_1(B_1+B_2)+m A_1 B_1\right]\cr && \times
J_m\left[-\Omega A_2 B_2\right] \exp[(\Omega (B_1+B_2)-m B_1)^2/2]
~. \label{ffft6x}\end{aligned}$$
Note that if the laser phases would not depend on $\zeta$, which is not true in general, one could separately calculate
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\zeta f_{0\zeta}(\zeta) \exp[i
(m-1-\Omega)\zeta] =\cr &&
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma_\zeta}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\zeta
\exp\left[-\frac{\zeta^2}{2 \sigma_\zeta^2}\right]\exp[i
(m-1-\Omega)\zeta] =
\exp\left[-\frac{\sigma_\zeta^2}{2}(m-1-\Omega)^2 \right]~.\cr &&
\label{depzeta2}\end{aligned}$$
In this case, the adiabatic approximation can be simply enforced imposing that $\sigma_\zeta \gg 1$. Finally, it should be noted that the initial electron density distribution and laser phases $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ are not only functions of $\zeta$, but also of the transverse position $\vec{r}$. It should be understood that the transverse direction can be factorized, which is a simplifying but not principal assumption, and that therefore, all the expressions above are considered valid at any fixed transverse position.
To conclude, let us consider our initial question, whether the general principle of the frequency multiplier chains is valid or not for EEHG. The answer is affirmative, and can be seen by inspecting Eq. (\[ffft6x\]) and Eq. (\[fbarz\]). In the case when $\phi_1=\phi_2$ such principle can be applied strictly. In case $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ differ, but are still of the same order of magnitude, we can conclude that, since $n=-1$ and $m$ is large, only $\phi_2$ is important and the principle is applicable with accuracy roughly $1/N$.
\[sec:tre\] Temporal quality of the seed laser beam
===================================================
Nowadays, high peak power laser systems are capable of producing very high intensities, thus fulfilling the requirements for many high field applications including EEHG FELs. In particular, femtosecond laser systems have become the primary method to deal with these applications. The reasons for this are the availability of broadband, efficient lasing media such as titanium-doped sapphire (Ti:Sa), and of techniques like Kerr-lens mode locking and chirp pulse amplification (CPA). In CPA systems, light passes through a number of optical components. Moreover, non-linear effects take place in the amplifying medium. This can degrade the temporal quality of the output pulse, which can be appropriately modeled in a slowly-varying real field envelope and time-dependent carrier frequency approximation. The time-bandwidth product constitutes a proper measure of the departure from the ideal case, in which there are no temporal variations of the carrier frequency. In this Section we quantitatively describe the relation between carrier frequency chirp and corresponding broadening of the spectrum. This leads to a time-bandwidth product exceeding the Fourier limit.
Pulse duration and spectral width
---------------------------------
For our purposes, it is convenient to consider a Gaussian pulse with a linear frequency chirp. This choice is one of analytical convenience only, and may be generalized. The slowly complex field envelope is given by
$$\begin{aligned}
E(t) = A \exp\left[-\frac{t^2}{2 \tau^2}\right]\exp\left[i
\frac{\alpha t^2}{2\tau^2}\right] \label{pulsec}\end{aligned}$$
where $\alpha$ is the chirp parameter, and the FWHM pulse duration is related to the rms duration $\tau$ by $\Delta \tau = \sqrt{4 \ln
2} \cdot \tau$.
By Fourier transforming Eq. (\[pulsec\]), it can be demonstrated (see e.g. [@MILO]) that the spectral intensity is a Gaussian with a FWHM given by $\Delta \omega = (\sqrt{4\ln 2}/\tau) \sqrt{1 +
\alpha^2}$. The time-bandwidth product of the pulse is therefore
$$\begin{aligned}
\Delta \omega\cdot \Delta \tau = 4 \ln 2 \cdot \sqrt{1 + \alpha^2}
\label{TBp}\end{aligned}$$
This is larger than the time-bandwidth product of an unchirped Gaussian pulse, which is just $4 \ln 2$ . In other words, chirping increases the time-bandwidth product by broadening the pulse spectrum while preserving the pulse width. Note that $\Delta \omega
\cdot \Delta \tau = 4 \ln 2$ is the smallest time-bandwidth product for a Gaussian pulse corresponding to the transform-limit (or bandwidth limit, or Fourier limit).
The temporal quality of the pulse can be defined by a quality factor $M_t^2$, defined as the ratio between the time-bandwidth product for real and transform-limited pulse. Hence, one can characterize pulse by specifying its quality through the $M_t^2$ factor and by giving the pulse shape. In our case of interest, $M_t^2 = \sqrt{1 +
\alpha^2}> 1$ for Gaussian pulses with linear frequency chirp.
Finally, it should be noted that considerations analogous to those just discussed above, can be proposed for the electron beam microbunching. For example the current envelope of a Gaussian, chirped electron beam can be described similarly as in Eq. (\[pulsec\]), with a chirp parameter $\alpha_m$. A time-bandwidth product can be defined, and a quality factor $M_{t,m}$ can be defined as well.
\[sub:con\] Constraint on temporal phase variation for the output Ti:Sa laser pulse
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are several simplifying assumptions that will be used in our analysis. As has been the case for the analysis presented in the previous paragraph, we restrict our attention to a microbunched electron beam with Gaussian shape. This is not a significant restriction, and extensions are not difficult to consider.
We introduce the following criterion: we consider the electron beam microbunching nearly transform-limited when the performance ratio $M_{t,m}^{-2}$ is down not more than $1/\sqrt{2}$. For a microbunching with Gaussian shape and linear frequency chirp, this criterion will be satisfied under the restriction that the microbunch chirp parameter $\alpha_m < 1$.
A specific example of a microbunched beam with Gaussian profile could be realized in the case when EEHG scheme uses an electron bunch with Gaussian temporal profile and a seed laser pulse with flat-top profile in time across the duration of the electron bunch. As demonstrated in e.g. [@EETOL3], the generated bunching is not sensitive to the peak current. Therefore, EEHG can operate with a nonuniform electron bunch profile. In the next paragraph we will demonstrate that in any case, due to non-linear (self-phasing) effects in the Ti:Sa laser system and in the post-laser optics system, the seed laser must have flat-top profile in time with very little temporal variation. Therefore, the model of a seed pulse with flat-top profile and of an electron bunch with Gaussian profile is consistent with the EEHG scheme. Now, if the phase of the seed laser is chirped, the microbunching chirp is simply multiplied by the frequency multiplication factor $N$. This can be seen by looking at the harmonic contents of the current density found in Eq. (\[ffft6\]). That expression includes $\bar{f}_{\zeta}$, which in the case of $\phi_1=\phi_2 = \alpha \zeta^2/(2 \sigma_\zeta^2)$ is given by (see Eq. (\[fbarz\])):
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\bar{f}_{\zeta}(m-1-\Omega)=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\zeta
f_{0\zeta}(\zeta) \exp[i (m-1-\Omega)\zeta] \exp[-i \phi_1 + i m
\phi_2]\cr && =
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma_\zeta}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\zeta
\exp[i (m-1-\Omega)\zeta]\exp\left[-\frac{\zeta^2}{2
\sigma_\zeta^2}\right]\exp\left[i (m-1) \frac{ \alpha \zeta^2}{2
\tau_\zeta^2}\right]\cr && \label{fbarz2}\end{aligned}$$
The last phase factor under integral shows that the laser phase is indeed multiplied by $N=m-1$.
We will define the frequency chirp in the seed laser pulse only across the target duration of the electron bunch, and use the same time normalization as for the beam microbunching. The complex field envelope of a laser pulse with stepped profile and linear frequency chirp is given by
$$\begin{aligned}
E(\zeta) = E_0 \exp\left[i \frac{\alpha \zeta^2}{2
\sigma_\zeta^2}\right]~, \label{Et}\end{aligned}$$
where $E_0$ is a constant. As discussed above, the frequency multiplication yields a complex “microbunching” envelope with carrier frequency $\omega_0 = (m-1) \omega_l$
$$\begin{aligned}
a(\zeta) = a_0 \exp\left[- \frac{\zeta^2}{2 \sigma_\zeta^2}\right]
\exp\left[i \frac{\alpha_m \zeta^2}{2 \sigma_\zeta^2}\right]
\label{Et}\end{aligned}$$
where $\rho_0$ is a constant, and $\alpha_m = N\alpha$ is the microbunching chirp parameter. Note that what we loosely defined as “microbunching” is, more formally, the slowly-varying amplitude of the electron density modulation with carrier frequency $\Omega=N$. It follows from the previous analysis that the EEHG scheme can produce nearly transform-limited microbunching only under the restriction $\alpha_m \lesssim 1$, meaning that the laser chirp parameter must obey $\alpha \lesssim 1/N$. The EEHG seed laser is assumed to be a Ti:Sa laser. The actual seed laser beam consists in the third or in the fourth harmonic of the Ti:Sa laser beam. Usually, laser frequency multipliers are based on the use of Beta Barium Borate (BBO) crystals. The effect of frequency multiplication on phase variation amounts again to multiplication of the phase variations. Therefore we may say that when we study constraints on the performance of Ti:Sa seed laser for EEHG schemes, the total frequency multiplication chain consists of two stages. The first stage is the BBO crystals with a frequency multiplication factor $N_1 =3$ (or $N_1 =4$). The second stage is the EEHG setup itself, with frequency multiplication factor up to $N_2 \sim 270$ (or $N_2
\sim 200$). If the final required output radiation is around wavelengths of $1$ nm, the total frequency multiplication factor $N
= N_1 N_2$ is about $N \sim 800$.
From the previously discussed condition $\alpha \lesssim 1/N$ it can be seen that the Ti:Sa laser produces nearly transform-limited microbunching at wavelengths around $1$ nm only when the laser chirp parameter $\alpha \lesssim 10^{-3}$. Thus, for most purposes, if the total multiplication factor is around $800$ or exceeds it, we may formulate the constraint on the Ti:Sa laser quality by requiring a quality factor $M_t^2$ departing from unity of no more than about $10^{-6}$.
One can think that the above-discussed constraints on seed laser may be true only for the particular case of EEHG. However, we can show that these constraints are actually of more general validity. For example, HGHG schemes can produce nearly transform-limited radiation spanning down to wavelengths of $1$ nm only under the same restrictions on temporal quality of the seed Ti:Sa laser. The key advantage of the EEHG scheme is that the amplitude of the achieved microbunching factor slowly decays with increasing harmonic number and that, consequently, generation of coherent soft X-ray emission within a single upshift stage becomes possible [@EEHG1; @EEHG2]. However, considering constraints on the seed laser $M_t^2$ factor, all harmonic generation schemes are similar, and must obey the universal result
$$\begin{aligned}
M_t^2-1 \lesssim \frac{1}{N^2}~. \label{unires}\end{aligned}$$
The requirement in the inequality (\[unires\]) can be somehow relaxed if the requirement of near-Fourier limit is relaxed as well. For example, the operation of a EEHG FEL is characterized by two microbunch bandwidth scales of interest. One is associated with inverse electron bunch duration $\Delta \omega_b = 1/\tau_b$, $\tau_b$ being the electron bunch duration. The other is the FEL amplification bandwidth $\Delta \omega_a$. One can relax the requirement of near-Fourier limit substituting it by the requirement to achieve an output radiation bandwidth narrower than the SASE bandwidth $\Delta \omega_a$. On the one hand, the product of bunch duration by amplification bandwidth can be estimated in the order of $\tau_b \Delta \omega_a \sim 10^2$ in the soft X-ray wavelength range. On the other hand, the FEL radiation bandwidth broadening due to the effect of linear frequency chirp is about $\Delta \omega \sim
|\alpha_m|/\tau_b$. Therefore, in the case when
$$\begin{aligned}
|\alpha_m| > (\tau_b \Delta \omega_a) \sim 10^2 ~,\label{alpham}
\label{alpham}\end{aligned}$$
the output signal has a bandwidth larger than the SASE bandwidth, and harmonic generation techniques have no practical applications. However, if, for example, we have a microbunching chirp parameter $|\alpha_m| \sim 10$, the effective radiation bandwidth becomes ten times narrower than the SASE bandwidth, although is ten times wider compared to the ideal transform-limited bandwidth. Following this discussion, a weaker constraint on the temporal quality factor of seed laser is $M_t^2 - 1 < 10^2/N^2$. For a Ti:Sa laser seed and a radiation wavelength of $1$ nm it is possible to discuss about harmonic generation techniques applications only when $M_t^2 - 1 <
10^{-4}$.
To complete the picture, we should note that an alternative method to harmonic generation setups, called self-seeding [@SELF; @TREU; @MARI], is available, and allows for the generation of temporally coherent radiation in XFELs. A self-seeded soft X-ray FEL consists of two undulators separated by a monochromator installed within a magnetic chicane. The remarkable temporal quality of the output radiation and the wavelength tunability of self-seeding schemes has stimulated interest in using this technique to generate nearly transform-limited soft- X-ray pulses. A project of self-seeding schemes with grating monochromator is now under development at LCLS II [@LCLS2]-[@FENG]. EEHG output will compete with self-seeding output only when the temporal quality of the seed laser beam obeys the mores stringent requirement (\[unires\]).
\[sub:self\] Self-phasing and constraints on field amplitude variation
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The seeding pulse from the Ti:Sa laser must necessarily propagate through vacuum window and BBO crystals without experiencing temporal phase distortions. Above a power density of $1 \mathrm{GW/cm^2}$, the refractive index $n$ becomes intensity-dependent according to the well-known expression
$$\begin{aligned}
n = n_0 + n_2 I ~, \label{refrin}\end{aligned}$$
where $n_0$ is the index of refraction at low intensity and $I$ is the laser intensity. Due to temporal variations of the laser pulse intensity, the pulse phase will then be distorted according to [@MILO]
$$\begin{aligned}
B = \frac{2\pi}{\lambda} \int_0^{L} dz n_2 I ~.\label{B}\end{aligned}$$
Here $\lambda$ is the laser wavelength, and $B$ represents the amount of phase distortions accumulated by the pulse over a length $L$. The dimensionless $B$ parameter, also known as $B$ integral, is often used as a measure of the strength of nonlinear effects due to the non-linear refractive index $n_2 I$. Field intensities, propagation distances, and values of $n_2 I$ such that $B> 1$ generally yield significant nonlinear effects, including self-phase modulation. Usually, in laser optics, when $B < 0.5$ pulse distortions should not be a problem.
Let us consider an optical setup behind the Ti:Sa laser with $B \sim
0.5$. In order to have minimal FEL output spectral broadening, the seed laser must have flat-top profile in time with very little temporal variation. The intensity variation must satisfy
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\Delta I}{I} < \frac{2}{N} \label{DII}\end{aligned}$$
For $1$ nm wavelength mode of operation $N \sim 800$, and in the case of near transform-limited FEL output pulse, the intensity of Ti:Sa laser pulse must be controlled to about $0.3 \%$ across the target duration of the electron bunch.
\[sec:quattro\] Spatial quality of seed laser beam
==================================================
In the last section we considered part of the constraints on the performance required for EEHG seed lasers. In particular, our discussion has been restricted to the temporal quality of laser beams. The former restriction allows one to obtain results which depend on the frequency multiplication factor only, so that the treatment discussed above applies not only to EEHG schemes, but to more general cases as well. In this section we discuss, instead, the influence of errors on the wavefront of the seed laser beam. A general principle discussed before states that the effect of frequency multiplication by a factor $N$ is to multiply the phase variation in time by $N$. The same principle holds when dealing with phase variations in space. If the wavefront of the UV seed laser exhibits errors, the errors of the microbunching wavefront are multiplied by the frequency multiplication factor. This can be seen with an analysis similar to that in paragraph \[sub:con\], based on the results in Section \[sec:due\], which led to Eq. (\[fbarz2\]). However, now, the phase variations are to be considered as a function of spatial coordinates. In the case of variation in time, the temporal quality of the output FEL radiation is a replica of the temporal quality of the microbunching input. It seems natural to use the same principle for characterizing the spatial quality of the output FEL radiation. However, this cannot be done. The reason is that the transverse coherence of FEL radiation is settled without laser seeding. This is due to the transverse eigenmode selection mechanism: only the ground eigenmode survives at the end of the amplification process. It follows that the microbunching wavefront errors do not affect the spatial quality of the output radiation. They only affect the input signal value. The description of the influence of phase errors depends in detail on the harmonic generation process. For example, in the case of HGHG, the seed laser directly produces microbunching in the first cascade only, which is characterized by a relatively small frequency multiplication factor $N < 5$. In EEHG schemes instead, the generation of coherent radiation in the soft X-ray wavelength range should be achieved with a single upshift stage using a UV ( $200$ nm or $270$ nm) laser beam. In this case the frequency multiplication factor amounts to about $N \sim 200$. Consequently, the EEHG technique is much more sensitive to laser wavefront errors. This disadvantage is actually related to the key EEHG advantage, that is to allow for high frequency multiplication numbers within a single, compact scheme.
To understand the effects of wavefront errors we shall use an analogy between time and space. This analogy suggests the possibility of simply translating the effects related to phase perturbation in time into effects related to wavefront perturbations as shown in Table \[tt1\].
Temporal (pulse) Spatial (beam)
------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------
transform-limited pulse diffraction-limited beam
temporal frequency spatial frequency
bandwidth of amplification bandwidth of amplification
temporal frequency shift (temporal linear phase chirp) wavefront tilt (spatial linear phase chirp)
linear temporal frequency chirp (temporal quadratic phase chirp) defocusing aberration (spatial quadratic phase chirp)
nonlinear temporal frequency chirps high order wavefront aberrations
phase fluctuations in time chaotic phase variation across the beam
: Analogy between temporal and spatial characteristics
\[tt1\]
We defined the ideal seed pulse as a transform-limited pulse i.e. a pulse without phase variations in time. The space-domain analog of a transform-limited pulse is a diffraction-limited beam, i.e. a beam without phase variations in space. From this definition follows that a beam can be diffraction-limited only at its waist, where it takes on the minimum possible product between size and spatial frequency bandwidth. In fact, beam propagation leads to a beam broadening and to a spatial quadratic phase chirp. Since the ideal seed laser beam is characterized by microbunching wavefront without phase variation across the electron beam, it follows that the seed laser beam must be diffraction-limited at its waist, which must be placed in the middle of the modulator undulator.
Simple physical considerations directly lead to a crude approximation for the amplification bandwidth. As already discussed in paragraph \[sub:con\], in the time domain the amplification bandwidth is about two order of magnitudes larger than transform-limited bandwidth:
$$\begin{aligned}
\tau_b \Delta \omega_a \sim 10^2 ~. \label{taub}\end{aligned}$$
This fact has some interesting consequences. Suppose that we consider microbunching with linear phase chirp in time, which is actually equivalent to a shift of the signal frequency. In the case when the shift is smaller than the amplification bandwidth, the temporal quality and the output power of the radiation pulse are not changed. At variance, microbunching with nonlinear phase chirp leads to a spectral broadening of the output radiation and, consequently, to degradation of the temporal quality. However, in the case when the broadening is smaller than the amplification bandwidth, the output power is not suppressed. The situation is quite different when considering the spatial domain. In fact, qualitatively, the spatial frequency amplification bandwidth and the diffraction-limited bandwidth are the same, so that any shift or broadening of the spatial frequency spectrum immediately leads to input signal suppression.
Let us study the discrepancy between the direction of the electron motion and the normal to the microbunching wavefront. In the case when the discrepancy between these two directions is larger than the FEL angular amplification bandwidth the input signal is exponentially suppressed. Let us assume that the spatial profile of the microbunching is close to that of the electron beam, and is characterized by a Gaussian shape with standard deviation $\sigma_b$. The FEL angular amplification bandwidth can then be estimated as $\Delta \theta_a \sim (k \sigma_b)^{-1}$, where $k$ is wavenumber at the target harmonic.
One can then estimate the angular spectrum of e.g. the LCLS output for the wavelength of $1.5$ nm. The transverse distribution of the electron beam is described by $\sigma_b \sim 30 \mu$m, and our estimations give $\Delta \theta_a \sim 8 \mu$rad. The angular amplification bandwidth corresponds to the HWHM of the FEL output angular distribution. Results of numerical simulations, confirmed by experimental results, give an angular distribution of the radiation intensity with HWHM $\sim 10 \mu$rad. From these numbers one can see that the above approach provides an adequate description, at least in the wavelength range around $1$ nm. The value $\Delta \theta_a$ can subsequently be used to estimate the maximum angular error allowed between the normal to the laser beam wavefront (at its waist) and the direction of the electron beam motion in the modulator undulator. It follows from the previous reasoning that in the case of radiation wavelength around $1$ nm we find an alignment tolerance of about $10 \mu$rad.
The wavefront tilting is a relatively simple (first order) geometrical distortion and its measure is simply an angle, which is the same for the microbunching wavefront and for the laser beam wavefront. The width of the seed laser beam at its waist can be much larger than the width of the electron beam, but the tilt is completely characterized by such angle only. There are several criteria to analyze the performance of laser system to higher order aberrations. To characterize the spatial quality of the laser beam, we will use the Strehl ratio $S$, usually defined[^4] as:
$$\begin{aligned}
S=\frac{\max[|FT\{E(x,y)\exp[i\phi(x,y)]\}|^2]}{\max[|FT[E(x,y)]|^2]}~,
\label{Sratio} \end{aligned}$$
where “FT” indicates the 2D spatial Fourier transform operation, $E(x,y)$ is the ideal wave amplitude, and $\phi(x,y)$ is the phase aberration. The Strehl ratio $S$ becomes an important figure of merit from the viewpoint of seeding evaluation.
Let us consider the practical situation in which both laser and electron beams are characterized by a Gaussian shape, and in which the width of the laser beam at its waist is much larger than the width of the electron beam. With this assumption, within the electron beam, at the laser beam waist in the plane $z = 0$ we have asymptotically $E(x,y,0) = \mathrm{const}\cdot \exp[i\phi(x,y)]$ , where $E(x,y,0)$ is the wave amplitude, and $\phi(x,y)$ describes phase aberrations. For our purposes it is interesting to consider the Gaussian-weighted Strehl ratio $S$
$$\begin{aligned}
S = \left|\left<\exp[i \phi(x,y)]\right>\right|^2 ~,
\label{Sweight}\end{aligned}$$
where
$$\begin{aligned}
\left<\exp[i\phi(x,y)]\right> = (2\pi \sigma_p^2)^{-1} \int dx dy
\exp\left[-\frac{x^2+y^2}{2 \sigma_p^2}\right]\exp[i\phi(x,y)]~.
\label{aveX}\end{aligned}$$
Here $\sigma_p$ is a Gaussian parameter of the same order of magnitude of the rms width of the electron beam, $\sigma_b$. If the phase is sufficiently small to accurately replace $\exp[i\phi]$ with $1+ i\phi -\phi^2/2$, one obtains
$$\begin{aligned}
S = 1 - \sigma_\phi^2 ~, \label{S2}\end{aligned}$$
where
$$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_\phi^2 = <\phi^2> - <\phi>^2 \label{sigphi}\end{aligned}$$
is the variance of the phase aberration weighted across a Gaussian-amplitude pupil. To be more specific, we define the average of $\phi(x,y)$ across the pupil as
$$\begin{aligned}
<\phi> = (2 \pi \sigma_p^2)^{-1} \int dx dy \exp\left[- \frac{x^2 +
y^2}{2 \sigma_p^2}\right] \phi(x,y) ~,\label{avephi2}\end{aligned}$$
and, likewise, the average of the square of $\phi(x,y)$ as
$$\begin{aligned}
<\phi^2> = (2\pi\sigma_p^2)^{-1} \int dx dy \exp\left[-\frac{x^2 +
y^2)}{2\sigma_p^2}\right] \phi^2 ~. \label{phi2ave2}\end{aligned}$$
It follows that if the root-mean-square variations of the wavefront are of the order of a tenth of the wavelength only, we obtain a Strehl ratio of $0.6$.
Let us now discuss the spatial quality of the microbunching wavefront. The interesting value to know for EEHG operation is the input coupling factor between the microbunching and the ground eigenmode of the FEL amplifier. Let us consider the amplitude of the electron density modulation at the carrier frequency $\omega_0
= (m-1) \omega_l$ :
$$\begin{aligned}
{\rho}(x,y,t) = a(x,y,t)\exp[i (m-1) \omega_l t]~. \label{tilderho}\end{aligned}$$
In ideal case, the electron density modulation exhibits a plane wavefront and a Gaussian shape across the electron beam:
$$\begin{aligned}
a(x,y,t) = a_0(t)\exp\left[-\frac{x^2+y^2}{2\sigma_b^2}\right]~.
\label{bxyt} \end{aligned}$$
In such ideal case, the input coupling factor is therefore
$$\begin{aligned}
C = \int dx dy \exp
\left[-\frac{x^2+y^2}{2\sigma_b^2}\right]\Psi(x,y)~, \label{CCCC}\end{aligned}$$
where $\Psi(x,y)$ is the field distribution of the ground eigenmode. In the high gain linear regime, the FEL output radiation power scales as
$$\begin{aligned}
W_\mathrm{output} \sim |C|^2 ~. \label{Wout}\end{aligned}$$
In the case of a non-ideal microbunching wavefront, expressions for $a(x,y,t)$ and for the input coupling factor respectively transform to:
$$\begin{aligned}
a(x,y,t) = a_0(t)\exp[i\phi_m(x,y)]
\exp\left[-\frac{x^2+y^2}{2\sigma_b^2}\right]~ , \label{bnonid}\end{aligned}$$
and
$$\begin{aligned}
C = \int dx dy~ a(x,y,t) \Psi(x,y) ~, \label{Cnonide}\end{aligned}$$
where $\phi_m(x,y)$ is the microbunching phase aberration. The ratio of the output power for the case including microbunching wavefront errors to the output power for the case of a plane microbunching wavefront is a simple and convenient measure of the departure from the ideal situation. In our case this ratio is simply
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{W_{\mathrm{nonideal}}}{W_{\mathrm{ideal}}}
=\frac{|C_\mathrm{nonideal}|^2}{|C_\mathrm{ideal}|^2} ~.
\label{ratiomer}\end{aligned}$$
Various approximations can be invoked. One of the simplest is to use the following expression for the ground FEL eigenfunction
$$\begin{aligned}
\Psi(x,y) \sim \exp\left[-\frac{x^2+y^2}{2\sigma_b^2}\right] ~.
\label{eigenmode}\end{aligned}$$
With this approximation it can be shown that
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{|C_\mathrm{nonideal}|^2}{|C_\mathrm{ideal}|^2} = 1-
\sigma_\phi^2 ~, \label{Cration}\end{aligned}$$
where $\sigma_\phi^2$ is the variance of the microbunching phase aberration across the Gaussian-weighted pupil with
$$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_p = \frac{\sigma_b}{\sqrt{2}}~ . \label{sigp2}\end{aligned}$$
If we now look at the ratio of the power values at the FEL exit with microbunch wavefront distortions and without distortions, we see that such ratio corresponds to the already introduced laser Strehl ratio, Eq. \[S2\]. More in general, we have the same definition given in Eq. (\[Sweight\]), where the phase $\phi$ under the integral is now defined as the phase on the microbunching wavefront $\phi_m$.
Finally, we calculate the relation between the phase distortions of the laser beam and the phase distortions of the microbunching. We have concluded from our theoretical analysis in Section \[sec:due\], that if the wavefront of the seed laser beam in the waist plane exhibits errors, the errors of the microbunching wavefront are multiplied by the frequency multiplication factor $N$. Therefore we have
$$\begin{aligned}
(\sigma_\phi)_\mathrm{laser} =
\frac{1}{N}(\sigma_\phi)_\mathrm{microbunch}~, \label{sigphimicro}\end{aligned}$$
which yields
$$\begin{aligned}
1-S_\mathrm{laser} = \frac{1}{N^2} [1-S_\mathrm{microbunch}] ~.
\label{1ms}\end{aligned}$$
For EEHG schemes, $[1-S_\mathrm{microbunch}]$ must be kept below $0.4$, corresponding to microbunching wavefront distortions of $\lambda/10$. This corresponds to a UV laser Strehl ratio $S_\mathrm{laser} > 0.99999$ at the target wavelength of $1$ nm.
In order to experimentally investigate the effects of laser wavefront errors on the FEL amplification process, one should perform direct measurements of the laser beam wavefront using, for example, a Hartmann sensor. Usually, measurements of the spatial quality of the output laser beam with a Hartmann sensor give the near-field wavefront characteristics. The knowledge of the spatial phase and amplitude in a particular plane opens the possibility of calculating, by Fresnel propagation, the phase and amplitude in any other plane for a freely propagating laser beam, and in particular allows to recover results in the middle plane of the modulator undulator. Applying the definition of the Gaussian-weighted Strehl ratio in Eq. (\[Sweight\]) with $\sigma_p =\sigma_b/\sqrt{2}$ leads to the value which needs to be compared with constraint
$$\begin{aligned}
1- S < \frac{0.4}{N^2}~. \label{last}\end{aligned}$$
The arguments discussed above seem to be strong enough to suggest that EEHG FEL schemes for reaching frequency multiplication factor of $N$ will not work when the difference of the above-defined laser Strehl ratio from the unity does not satisfy the inequality in (\[last\]). This conclusion for the spatial domain contrasts with that in the time domain, where the phase distortions lead to spectral broadening but do not have an impact on the FEL output power.
\[cinque\] Conclusions
======================
It is very desirable to have a way to model the performance of EEHG FEL with high frequency multiplication factor. Such modeling would naturally start with the Ti:Sa laser system. Calculations would involve the knowledge of the temporal and spatial properties of the Ti:Sa laser source itself together with laser field propagation through the optical components used in the EEHG beamline. Most of our calculations are, in principle, straightforward applications of conventional laser optics and general theory of frequency multiplier chains. Our paper provides physical understanding of the laser seeding setup and we expect it to be useful for practical estimations, especially at the design stage of the experiment. Detailed EEHG mechanism is so complicated that we cannot accurately determine the EEHG output by analytical methods. However, a definite relation between quality of the input signal and EEHG FEL output can be worked out without any knowledge about the EEHG internal machinery.
Acknowledgements
================
We are grateful to Massimo Altarelli, Reinhard Brinkmann, Serguei Molodtsov and Edgar Weckert for their support and their interest during the compilation of this work.
[99]{}
L. -H. Yu. Phys. Rev. A 44, 5178 (1991).
L. -H. Yu, I. Ben-Zvi, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 393, 96-99 (1997).
G. Stupakov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 074801 (2009).
D. Xiang and G. Stupakov, Phys. Rev ST AB 12, 030702 (2009).
D. Xiang and G. Stupakov “Echo-seeding options for LCLS-II”, TUPB13, Proceedings of FEL 2010, Malmo, Sweden (2010).
E. Prat and S. Reiche, “EEHG seeding design for SwissFEL”, TUPA25, Proceedings of FEL 2011, Shanghai, China (2011).
K. E. Hacker, et al., Echo-seeding experiment at FLASH in 2012", TUPB10, Proceedings of FEL 2011, Shanghai, China (2011).
D. Xiang and G. Stupakov “Tolerance study for the EEHG Laser”, WE5RFP044, Proceedings of PAC09, Vancouver, BC, Canada (2009).
Z. Huang, et al., “Effect of energy chirp on EEHG Lasers”, MOPC45, Proceedings of FEL 2009, Liverpool, UK (2009).
G. Penn and M. Reinsch, Journal of Modern Optics, 1-15 (2011).
D. Ratner, https://sites.google.com/a/lbl.gov/ realizing-the-potential-of-seeded-fels-in-the-soft-x-ray-regime-workshop/talks, Workshop on Realizing the Potential of Seeded FELs in the Soft X-Ray Regime, Berkeley, CA, USA (2011) and following discussion sessions.
K. Hacker, “EEHG at FLASH 2012 and beyond”, https://indico.desy.de/conferenceDisplay.py?ovw=True$\setminus
\&$confId=4736, FLASH Accelerator Workshop, Hamburg, Germany (2011)
K. Hacker, https://sites.google.com/a/lbl.gov/realizing-the-potential-of-seeded-fels -in-the-soft-x-ray-regime-workshop/talks, Workshop on Realizing the Potential of Seeded FELs in the Soft X-Ray Regime, Berkeley, CA, USA (2011) and following discussion sessions.
W. P. Robins, “Phase Noise in Signal Sources”, IEEE Telecommunication Series, vol 9., Peter Peregrinus Ltd. (1982).
P. Milonni and J. Eberly, “Laser Physics”, Wiley and Sons, (2010).
J. Feldhaus et al., Optics. Comm. 140, 341 (1997).
R. Treusch, W. Brefeld, J. Feldhaus and U. Hahn, HASILAB Ann. report 2001 “The seeding project for the FEL in TTF phase II”
A. Marinelli et al., Proceedings of the FEL Conference 2008, MOPPH009 (2008).
The LCLS-II Conceptual Design Report, Stanford, https:// slacportal.slac.stanford.edu/ sites/lcls$\_$public/lcls$\_$ii/Pages/default.aspx (2011).
J. Wu et al., “Staged self-seeding scheme for narrow bandwidth , ultra-short X-ray harmonic generation free electron laser at LCLS”, proceedings of 2010 FEL conference, Malmo, Sweden, (2010).
Y. Feng et al., “Optics for self-seeding soft x-ray FEL undulators”, proceedings of 2010 FEL conference, Malmo, Sweden, (2010).
[^1]: The issue was also discussed during the preparation of this work in [@RATN]. There HGHG was mainly considered but, as noted above, the method used to describe the output field perturbation is independent of the specific kind of harmonic generation technique.
[^2]: We kept our notation similar to that of [@EEHG2]. However, we chose $\omega_l \equiv \omega_1=\omega_2$ from the very beginning. Therefore $K=\omega_2/\omega_1 = 1$ for us. Also note that, since reference [@EEHG2] deals with the steady state case, the phases of the two laser pulses are constant. This explains why only a relative phase $\phi$ was introduced in [@EEHG2]. At variance, in this paper we treat the time-dependent case, where the two laser phases can exhibit different time variations. As a result, here we include the phases $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ of both lasers.
[^3]: In the following $k$ is just an index, without the meaning of wavenumber.
[^4]: With this definition, the Strehl ratio is related to the transverse $M^2$ parameter by $S=1/M^2$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The initial mass function for the stars is often modeled by a lognormal distribution. This paper is devoted to demonstrating the advantage of introducing a left and right truncated lognormal probability density function, which is characterized by four parameters. Its normalization constant, mean, the variance, second moment about the origin and distribution function are calculated. The chi-square test and the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test are performed on four samples of stars.'
author:
- 'L. Zaninetti'
title: A left and right truncated lognormal distribution for the stars
---
=1
Introduction
============
The initial mass function (IMF) for the stars was [*firstly*]{} fitted with a power law by Salpeter, see [@Salpeter1955]. He suggested $p ( {{m}}) \propto {{m}}^{-\alpha}$ where $p ( {{m}})$ represents the probability of having a mass between $ {{m}}$ and $ {{m}}+d{{m}}$ and he found $\alpha= 2.35$ in the range $10 {M}_{\sun}~>~ {M} \geq 1 {M}_{\sun}$. [*Secondly*]{} the IMF was fitted with three power laws, see [@Scalo1986; @Kroupa1993; @Binney1998] and four power laws, see [@Kroupa2001; @Bastian2010; @Kroupa2013]. The piecewise broken inverse power law IMF is $$p(m) \propto m^{-\alpha_i} \quad,$$ each zone being characterized by a different exponent ${\alpha_i}$ and two boundaries $m_i$ and $m_{i+1}$. In order to have a probability density function (PDF) normalized to unity, one must have $$\sum _{i=1,n} \int_{m_i}^{m_{i+1}} c_i m^{-\alpha_i} dm =1
\quad.
\label{uno}$$ The number of parameters to be found from the considered sample for the $n$-piecewise IMF is $2n-1$ when $m_1$ and $m_{n+1}$ are the minimum and maximum of the masses of the sample. In the case of $n=4$, which fits also the region of brown dwarfs (BD), see [@Zaninetti2013a], the number of parameters is seven. In the field of statistical distributions, the PDF is usually defined by two parameters. Examples of two-parameter PDFs are: the beta, gamma, normal, and lognormal distributions, see [@evans]. The lognormal distribution is widely used in order to model the IMF for the stars, see [@Larson1973; @Miller1979; @Zinnecker1984; @Chabrier2003]. The lognormal distribution is defined in the range of $\mathcal{M}\, \in (0, \infty)$ where $\mathcal{M}$ is the mass of the star. Nevertheless, the stars have minimum and maximum values, as an example from the MAIN SEQUENCE, an M8 star has $\mathcal{M} = 0.06 \sunmass$ and an O3 star has $\mathcal{M} = 120 \sunmass$, see [@Cox]. The presence of boundaries for the stars makes attractive the analysis of a left and right truncated lognormal. In Section \[lognormal\], the structure of the lognormal distribution is reviewed. In Section \[lognormaltrunc\], the truncated lognormal distribution is derived. In Section \[applications\], a comparison between the lognormal and truncated lognormal is done on four catalogs of stars. In Section \[others\], we compare the results of the truncated lognormal distribution with the double Pareto lognormal, the truncated beta, and the truncated gamma distributions.
The lognormal distribution {#lognormal}
==========================
Let $X$ be a random variable defined in $[0, \infty]$; the [*lognormal*]{} PDF, following [@evans] or formula (14.2)$^\prime$ in [@univariate1], is $$PDF (x;m,\sigma) = \frac
{
{{\rm e}^{-\,{\frac {1}{{2\,\sigma}^{2}} \left( \ln \left( {
\frac {x}{m}} \right ) \right ) ^{2}}}}
}
{
x\sigma\,\sqrt {2\,\pi}
}
\quad,
\label{pdflognormal}$$ where $m$ is the median and $\sigma$ the shape parameter. The distribution function (DF) is $$DF (x;m,\sigma) =
\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\,{\rm erf} \left(\frac{1}{2}\,{\frac {\sqrt {2} \left( -\ln \left( m
\right ) +\ln \left( x \right ) \right ) }{\sigma}}\right )
\quad ,$$ where ${\rm erf(x)}$ is the error function, defined as $$\mathop{\mathrm{erf}\/}\nolimits
(x)=\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}}\int_{0}^{x}e^{-t^{2}}dt
\quad ,$$ see [@NIST2010]. The average value or mean, $E(X)$, is $$E (X;m,\sigma) = m{{\rm e}^{\frac{1}{2}\,{\sigma}^{2}}}
\quad ,
\label{xmlognormal}$$ the variance, $Var(X)$, is $$Var=
{{\rm e}^{{\sigma}^{2}}} \left({{\rm e}^{{\sigma}^{2}}}-1 \right ) {m
}^{2}
\quad,
\label{varlognormal}$$ the second moment about the origin, $E^2(X)$, is $$E (X^2;m,\sigma) = {m}^{2}{{\rm e}^{2\,{\sigma}^{2}}}
\quad .
\label{momento2lognormal}$$ The experimental sample consists of the data $x_i$ with $i$ varying between 1 and $n$; the sample mean, $\bar{x}$, is $$\bar{x} =\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n} x_i
\quad ,
\label{xmsample}$$ the unbiased sample variance, $s^2$, is $$s^2 = \frac{1}{n-1} \sum_{i=1}^{n} (x_i - \bar{x})^2
\quad ,
\label{variancesample}$$ and the sample $r$th moment about the origin, $\bar{x}_r$, is $$\bar{x}_r = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n} (x_i)^r
\quad .
\label{rmoment}$$ The parameter estimation is here obtained in two ways. The matching moments estimator, (MME), is the first method: $$E (X;m,\sigma) = \bar{x}_1 \quad ; \quad
E (X^2;m,\sigma)= \bar{x}_2 \quad ,$$ and therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{m} = {\frac {{\bar{x}_{{1}}}^{2}}{\sqrt {\bar{x}_{{2}}}}}
\nonumber \\
\widehat{\sigma} = \sqrt {2}\sqrt {\ln \left( {\frac {\sqrt {\bar{x}_{{2}}}}{\bar{x}_{{1}}}}
\right ) }
\quad .\end{aligned}$$ The [*second*]{} method implements the maximum-likelihood estimation (MLE), see [@evans].
The truncated lognormal distribution {#lognormaltrunc}
====================================
Let $X$ be a random variable defined in $[x_l, x_u ]$; the [*truncated lognormal*]{} PDF ($PDF_T$) is $$\begin{aligned}
PDF_T (x;m,\sigma,x_l,x_u) = \\
\frac{
\sqrt {2}{{\rm e}^{-\frac{1}{2}\,{\frac {1}{{\sigma}^{2}} \left( \ln \left( {
\frac {x}{m}} \right ) \right ) ^{2}}}}
}
{
-\sqrt {\pi}\sigma\, \left( {\rm erf} \left(\frac{1}{2}\,{\frac {\sqrt {2}}{
\sigma}\ln \left( {\frac {x_{{l}}}{m}} \right ) }\right )-{\rm erf}
\left(\frac{1}{2}\,{\frac {\sqrt {2}}{\sigma}\ln \left( {\frac {x_{{u}}}{m}}
\right ) }\right ) \right ) x
}
\quad,
\label{pdflognormaltruncated}\end{aligned}$$ where $m$ is now the scale parameter, $\sigma$ is the shape parameter, $x_l$ denotes the minimal value, and $x_u$ denotes the maximal value. The introduction of the following coefficients allows a compact notation $$a_1 = \frac{1}{2}\,{\frac {\sqrt {2} \left( -{\sigma}^{2}+\ln \left( x_{{l}}
\right ) -\ln \left( m \right ) \right ) }{\sigma}}
\quad ,
\nonumber$$ $$a_2 = \frac{1}{2}\,{\frac {\sqrt {2} \left( {\sigma}^{2}+\ln \left( m \right ) -\ln
\left( x_{{u}} \right ) \right ) }{\sigma}}
\quad ,
\nonumber$$ $$a_3 =\frac{1}{2}\,{\frac {\sqrt {2} \left( \ln \left( x_{{l}} \right ) -\ln
\left( m \right ) \right ) }{\sigma}}
\quad ,
\nonumber$$ $$a_4 =\frac{1}{2}\,{\frac {\sqrt {2} \left( -\ln \left( x_{{u}} \right ) +\ln
\left( m \right ) \right ) }{\sigma}}
\quad ,
\nonumber$$ $$a_5 =\frac{1}{2}\,{\frac {\sqrt {2} \left( -2\,{\sigma}^{2}+\ln \left( x_{{l}}
\right ) -\ln \left( m \right ) \right ) }{\sigma}}
\quad ,
\nonumber$$ $$a_6 =\frac{1}{2}\,{\frac {\sqrt {2} \left( 2\,{\sigma}^{2}+\ln \left( m \right ) -
\ln \left( x_{{u}} \right ) \right ) }{\sigma}}
\quad ,
\nonumber$$ $$a_7 =\frac{1}{2}\,{\frac {\sqrt {2} \left( -2\,{\sigma}^{2}+\ln \left( x_{{u}}
\right ) -\ln \left( m \right ) \right ) }{\sigma}}
\quad ,
\nonumber$$ $$a_8 = \frac{1}{2}\,{\frac {\sqrt {2} \left( \ln \left( x_{{u}} \right ) -\ln
\left( m \right ) \right ) }{\sigma}}
\quad .
\nonumber$$ In the compact notation the PDF is $$PDF_T (x;m,\sigma,x_l,x_u) = \frac
{
-\sqrt {2}{{\rm e}^{-\frac{1}{2}\,{\frac {1}{{\sigma}^{2}} \left( \ln \left(
{\frac {x}{m}} \right ) \right ) ^{2}}}}
}
{
\sqrt {\pi}\sigma\, \left( {\rm erf} \left(a_{{3}}\right )-{\rm erf}
\left(a_{{8}}\right ) \right ) x
}
\quad,
\label{pdflognormaltruncatedcompact}$$ the DF is $$DF_T (x;m,\sigma,x_l,x_u)=
\frac
{
-{\rm erf} \left(\frac{1}{2}\,{\frac {\sqrt {2}}{\sigma}\ln \left( {\frac {x
}{m}} \right ) }\right )+{\rm erf} \left(a_{{3}}\right )
}
{
{\rm erf} \left(a_{{3}}\right )-{\rm erf} \left(a_{{8}}\right )
}
\quad ,$$ the mean, $E(X)_T$, is $$E_T (X;m,\sigma,x_l,x_u) =
\frac
{
{{\rm e}^{\frac{1}{2}\,{\sigma}^{2}}}m \left( {\rm erf} \left(a_{{1}}\right )+
{\rm erf} \left(a_{{2}}\right ) \right )
}
{
{\rm erf} \left(a_{{3}}\right )+{\rm erf} \left(a_{{4}}\right )
}
\quad ,
\label{xmlognormaltruncated}$$ the variance, $Var_T(X)$, is $$Var_T(X;m,\sigma,x_l,x_u) =
\frac
{
N
}
{
\left( {\rm erf} \left(a_{{3}}\right )+{\rm erf} \left(a_{{4}}\right )
\right ) ^{2}
}
\quad ,$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
N={{\rm e}^{{\sigma}^{2}}} \bigg( {\rm erf} (a_{{3}} )
{\rm erf} (a_{{5}} ){{\rm e}^{{\sigma}^{2}}}+{\rm erf}
(a_{{3}} ){\rm erf} (a_{{6}} ){{\rm e}^{{\sigma}^{
2}}}+{\rm erf} (a_{{4}} ){\rm erf} (a_{{5}} ){
{\rm e}^{{\sigma}^{2}}}
\\
+{\rm erf} (a_{{4}} ){\rm erf} (
a_{{6}} ){{\rm e}^{{\sigma}^{2}}}- ( {\rm erf} (a_{{1}}
) ) ^{2}-2\,{\rm erf} (a_{{1}} ){\rm erf} (
a_{{2}} )- ( {\rm erf} (a_{{2}} ) ) ^{2}
\bigg) {m}^{2}
\quad ,\end{aligned}$$ the second moment about the origin, $E_T^2(X)$, is $$E_T (X^2;m,\sigma,x_l,x_u) =
\frac
{
-{{\rm e}^{2\,{\sigma}^{2}}}{m}^{2} \left( -{\rm erf} \left(a_{{5}}
\right )+{\rm erf} \left(a_{{7}}\right ) \right )
}
{
{\rm erf} \left(a_{{3}}\right )+{\rm erf} \left(a_{{4}}\right )
}
\quad .
\label{momento2lognormaltruncated}$$ The two parameters $x_l$ and $x_u$ are the minimal and maximal elements of the sample. The two parameters $m$ and $\sigma$ can be found through the MME, [*first*]{} method $$E_T (X ;m,\sigma,x_l,x_u) = \bar{x}_1 \quad ; \quad
E_T (X^2;m,\sigma,x_l,x_u) = \bar{x}_2 \quad .$$ The above system consists in two non-linear functions in two variables and can therefore be solved using the Powell hybrid method, see subroutine FORTRAN SNSQE in [@Kahaner1989]. The [*second*]{} method implements the MLE in order to find $m$ and $\sigma$, see Appendix \[appendixa\].
Application to the stars
========================
This section reviews some useful statistical parameters, such as the merit function $\chi^2$, the Akaike information criterion, and the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. The four samples of stars which test the truncated lognormal distribution are introduced.
The adopted statistics
----------------------
The merit function $\chi^2$ is computed according to the formula $$\chi^2 = \sum_{i=1}^n \frac { (T_i - O_i)^2} {T_i},
\label{chisquare}$$ where $n $ is the number of bins, $T_i$ is the theoretical value, and $O_i$ is the experimental value represented by the frequencies. The theoretical frequency distribution is given by $$T_i = N {\Delta x_i } p(x) \quad,
\label{frequenciesteo}$$ where $N$ is the number of elements of the sample, $\Delta x_i $ is the magnitude of the size interval, and $p(x)$ is the PDF under examination. The size of the bins, $\Delta x_i $, is equal for each bin in the the case of linear histograms, but different for each bin when logarithmic histograms are considered.
A reduced merit function $\chi_{red}^2$ is evaluated by $$\chi_{red}^2 = \chi^2/NF
\quad,
\label{chisquarereduced}$$ where $NF=n-k$ is the number of degrees of freedom, $n$ is the number of bins, and $k$ is the number of parameters. The goodness of the fit can be expressed by the probability $Q$, see equation 15.2.12 in [@press], which involves the degrees of freedom and $\chi^2$. According to [@press] p. 658, the fit “may be acceptable” if $Q>0.001$.
The Akaike information criterion (AIC), see [@Akaike1974], is defined by $$AIC = 2k - 2 ln(L)
\quad,$$ where $L$ is the likelihood function and $k$ the number of free parameters in the model. We assume a Gaussian distribution for the errors and the likelihood function can be derived from the $\chi^2$ statistic $L \propto \exp (- \frac{\chi^2}{2} ) $ where $\chi^2$ has been computed by eqn. (\[chisquare\]), see [@Liddle2004], [@Godlowski2005]. Now the AIC becomes $$AIC = 2k + \chi^2
\quad.
\label{AIC}$$
The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test (K–S), see [@Kolmogoroff1941; @Smirnov1948; @Massey1951], does not require binning the data. The K–S test, as implemented by the FORTRAN subroutine KSONE in [@press], finds the maximum distance, $D$, between the theoretical and the astronomical DF as well the significance level $P_{KS}$, see formulas 14.3.5 and 14.3.9 in [@press]; if $ P_{KS} \geq 0.1 $, the goodness of the fit is believable.
The selected sample of stars {#applications}
----------------------------
The test samples are selected from the Centre de Donn[é]{}es astronomiques de Strasbourg (CDS) in order to ensure that the test can be easily reproduced, the name of the catalog is reported. The first test is performed on the low-mass IMF in the young cluster NGC 6611, see [@Oliveira2009] and CDS catalog J/MNRAS/392/1034. This massive cluster has an age of 2–3 Myr and contains masses from $1.5 {M}_{\sun}~>~ {M} \geq 0.02 {M}_{\sun}$. Therefore the brown dwarfs (BD) region, $\approx \, 0.2\,\sunmass$ is covered. Table \[chi2valuesngc6611\] shows the values of $\chi_{red}^2$, the AIC, the probability $Q$, of the fits and the two results of the K–S test: the maximum distance, $D$, between the theoretical and the astronomical DF as well the significance level $P_{KS}$. Figure \[lognormal\_tronc\_df\_ngc6611\] shows the fit with the truncated lognormal DF for NGC 6611, and Figure \[lognormal\_tronc\_pdf\_ngc6611\] the truncated lognormal PDF.
{width="10cm"}
{width="10cm"}
The second test is performed on NGC 2362 where the 271 stars have a range $1.47 {M}_{\sun}~>~ {M} \geq 0.11 {M}_{\sun}$, see [@Irwin2008] and CDS catalog J/MNRAS/384/675/table1. This is a very young open cluster with an estimated age of 3–9 Myr. Table \[chi2valuesngc2362\] reports the statistical parameters,
Figure \[lognormal\_tronc\_df\_ngc2362\] shows the fit with the truncated lognormal DF of NGC 2362 and Figure \[lognormal\_tronc\_pdf\_ngc2362\] the fit with the truncated lognormal PDF.
{width="10cm"}
{width="10cm"}
The third test is performed on a 40$^{\prime}$ circular field in the LMC made by 1563 stars in the range of masses, evaluated assuming an age of 4 Myr, $54 {M}_{\sun}~>~ {M} \geq 5 {M}_{\sun}$, see [@Hill1994] and CDS catalog J/ApJ/425/122/table2. Table \[chi2valuelmc\] reports the statistical parameters.
Figures \[lognormal\_tronc\_df\_lmc\] and \[lognormal\_tronc\_pdf\_lmc\] shows the fit with the truncated lognormal DF and PDF respectively.
{width="10cm"}
{width="10cm"}
The fourth test is performed on $\gamma$ Velorum cluster where the 237 stars have a range $1.31 {M}_{\sun}~>~ {M} \geq 0.15 {M}_{\sun}$, see [@Prisinzano2016] and CDS catalog J/A+A/589/A70/table5. This cluster is consists of 5–10 Myr old premain sequence stars. The statistical parameters are reported in Table \[chi2valuegammavel\], Figures \[lognormal\_tronc\_df\_gamma\_velorum\] and \[lognormal\_tronc\_pdf\_gamma\_velorum\] report the truncated lognormal DF and PDF respectively.
{width="10cm"}
{width="10cm"}
Other new distributions
=======================
As an initial astronomical reference, we display a piecewise broken inverse power law PDF, see Figure \[four\_inverse\_pdf\_ngc2362\] \[others\]
{width="10cm"}
We now report three recent PDFs. The [*first* ]{} is the double Pareto lognormal distribution which has PDF $$\begin{aligned}
f(x;\alpha,\beta,\mu,\sigma) =
\frac{1}{2}\,\alpha\,\beta\,( {{\rm e}^{\frac{1}{2}\,\alpha\,( \alpha\,{
\sigma}^{2}+2\,\mu-2\,\ln ( x ) ) }}{\it erfc}
( \frac{1}{2}\,{\frac {( \alpha\,{\sigma}^{2}+\mu-\ln ( x
) ) \sqrt {2}}{\sigma}} )
\nonumber \\
+{{\rm e}^{\frac{1}{2}\,\beta\,
( \beta\,{\sigma}^{2}-2\,\mu+2\,\ln ( x ) ) }
}{\it erfc}( \frac{1}{2}\,{\frac {( \beta\,{\sigma}^{2}-\mu+\ln
( x ) ) \sqrt {2}}{\sigma}} ) ) {x}^{-
1}( \alpha+\beta ) ^{-1},\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are the Pareto coefficients for the upper and the lower tail, respectively, $\mu $ and $\sigma$ are the lognormal body parameters, and $erfc$ is the complementary error function, see [@Reed2004]. The mean ( for $\alpha >1$ ) can be expressed as $$E(\alpha,\beta,\mu,\sigma) =
\frac
{
\alpha\,\beta\,{{\rm e}^{\mu+\frac{1}{2}\,{\sigma}^{2}}}
}
{
\left( \alpha-1 \right) \left( \beta+1 \right)
}
\quad.$$
This PDF exhibits a power law behaviour in both tails $$f(x) \sim k_1 \, x ^{-\alpha -1} (x \rightarrow \infty) \quad;
\quad
f(x) \sim k_2 \, x ^{\beta -1} (x \rightarrow 0 ) \quad,$$ where $k_1$ and $k_2$ are two constants. Figures \[2log\_pareto\_df\_ngc2362\] and \[2log\_pareto\_pdf\_ngc2362\] report the double Pareto lognormal DF and PDF respectively.
{width="10cm"}
{width="10cm"}
The [*second* ]{} is the left truncated beta with scale PDF which is $$f_T(x;a,b,\alpha,\beta) = K\,{x}^{\alpha-1} \left( b-x \right )
^{\beta-1},
\label{betatruncated}$$ where the constant is $$K=\frac{-\alpha\,\Gamma \left( \alpha+\beta \right )}
{{b}^{\beta-1} H\,{a}^{ \alpha}\Gamma \left( \alpha+\beta \right )
-{b}^{\beta-1+\alpha} \Gamma \left( 1+\alpha \right ) \Gamma
\left( \beta \right )},$$ and $$H={\mbox{$_2$F$_1$}(\alpha,-\beta+1;\,1+\alpha;\,{\frac
{a}{b}})} \quad ,$$ where ${\2F1(a,b;\,c;\,z)}$ is the regularized hypergeometric function [@Abramowitz1965], see [@Zaninetti2013a]. Figure \[beta\_df\_ngc2362\] reports the DF and Figure \[beta\_pdflog\_ngc2362\] the PDF.
{width="10cm"}
{width="10cm"}
The [*third*]{} is the truncated gamma (TG) PDF which is $$f(x;b,c,x_l,x_u) =
k\; \left( {\frac {x}{b}} \right ) ^{c-1}{{\rm e}^{-{\frac {x}{b}}}}
\label{gammatruncated}$$ where the constant $k$ is $$k =
\frac{c}
{
b\Gamma \left( 1+c,{\frac {x_{{l}}}{b}} \right ) -b\Gamma \left( 1+c,
{\frac {x_{{u}}}{b}} \right ) +{{\rm e}^{-{\frac {x_{{u}}}{b}}}}{b}^{-c
+1}{x_{{u}}}^{c}-{{\rm e}^{-{\frac {x_{{l}}}{b}}}}{b}^{-c+1}{x_{{l}}}^
{c}
}
\quad ,
\label{constant}$$ where $$\mathop{\Gamma\/}\nolimits\!\left(a,z\right )=\int_{z}^{\infty}t^{{a-1}}e^{{-t}}dt,$$ is the upper incomplete gamma function, see [@Zaninetti2013e].
{width="10cm"}
{width="10cm"}
Figure \[gamma\_tronc\_df\_ngc2362\] reports the truncated gamma DF and Figure \[gamma\_tronc\_pdf\_ngc2362\] the truncated gamma PDF. Table \[chi2valuesngc2362different\] reports the parameters of these three new PDFs as well as the parameters of the truncated lognormal in the case of NGC 2362.
can be found Figure \[all\_pdf\_ngc2362\] displays all the PDFs here analysed.
{width="10cm"}
Conclusions
===========
The truncated lognormal distribution gives better results, i.e. higher $P_{KS}$, than the lognormal distribution, see Tables \[chi2valuesngc6611\], \[chi2valuesngc2362\], \[chi2valuelmc\] and \[chi2valuegammavel\]. for the samples here considered. The lower and upper boundaries in mass are connected with the physical theories on the minimum and maximum mass for the stars. Fisher’s conjecture (see [@Hald1999]) that statistical parameters are better inferred through the maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) than through the matching of moments estimator (MME) is also tested: in eight cases out of eight, the MLE produces better results, see Tables \[chi2valuesngc6611\], \[chi2valuesngc2362\], \[chi2valuelmc\] and \[chi2valuegammavel\]. The comparison of the truncated lognormal DF with other DFs assigns the best results to the truncated lognormal, i.e. higher $P_{KS}$, even if the difference from the double Pareto lognormal is small, see Table \[chi2valuesngc2362different\].
The number of free parameters of the truncated lognormal PDF is [*two*]{} once the lower and upper boundary are associated with the minimum and maximum mass of the considered sample, see \[appendixa\] for the MLE method. In contrast, the number of parameters of the widely used four-piecewise broken inverse power law IMF is [*seven*]{}.
The parameters of the truncated lognormal {#appendixa}
=========================================
The parameters of the truncated lognormal distribution can be obtained from empirical data by the maximum likelihood estimators (MLE) and by the evaluation of the minimum and maximum elements of the sample. Consider a sample ${\mathcal X}=x_1, x_2, \dots , x_n$ and let $x_{(1)} \geq x_{(2)} \geq \dots \geq x_{(n)}$ denote their order statistics, so that $x_{(1)}=\max(x_1, x_2, \dots, x_n)$, $x_{(n)}=\min(x_1, x_2, \dots, x_n)$. The first two parameters $x_l$ and $x_u$ are $${x_l}=x_{(n)}, \qquad { x_u}=x_{(1)}
\quad .
\label{eq:firstpar}$$ The MLE is obtained by maximizing $$\Lambda = \sum_i^n \ln(TL(x_i;m,\sigma,x_l,x_u)).$$ The two derivatives $\frac{\partial \Lambda}{\partial m} =0$ and $\frac{\partial \Lambda}{\partial \sigma}=0 $ generate two non-linear equations in $m$ and $\sigma$ which can be solved numerically, we used FORTRAN subroutine SNSQE in [@Kahaner1989], $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \Lambda}{\partial m}=
( {\rm erf} (\frac{1}{2}\,{\frac {\sqrt {2} ( \ln ( x_{{
l}} ) -\ln ( m ) ) }{\sigma}} )-
{\rm erf} (\frac{1}{2}\,{\frac {\sqrt {2} ( \ln ( x_{{u}}
) -\ln ( m ) ) }{\sigma}} ) )
\nonumber \\
( n\sqrt {2}\sigma\,{{\rm e}^{-\frac{1}{2}\,{\frac { ( \ln (
x_{{l}} ) -\ln ( m ) ) ^{2}}{{\sigma}^{2}}}}}
-n\sqrt {2}\sigma\,{{\rm e}^{-\frac{1}{2}\,{\frac { ( \ln ( x_{{u}}
) -\ln ( m ) ) ^{2}}{{\sigma}^{2}}}}}
\nonumber \\
-\sqrt
{\pi} ( {\rm erf} (\frac{1}{2}\,{\frac {\sqrt {2} ( \ln
( x_{{l}} ) -\ln ( m ) ) }{\sigma}}
)
\nonumber \\
-{\rm erf} (\frac{1}{2}\,{\frac {\sqrt {2} ( \ln ( x_{{
u}} ) -\ln ( m ) ) }{\sigma}} ) )
( n\ln ( m ) -\sum _{i=1}^{n}\ln ( x_{{i}}
) ) ) =0
\quad ,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\frac{\partial \Lambda}{\partial \sigma}= \frac{N}{D} =0,$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
N = \ln \left( x_{{u}} \right) \sqrt {2}{{\rm e}^{-\frac{1}{2}\,{\frac { (
\ln ( x_{{u}} ) -\ln ( m ) ) ^{2}}{{
\sigma}^{2}}}}}n\sigma-\ln ( x_{{l}} ) \sqrt {2}{{\rm e}^{
-\frac{1}{2}\,{\frac { ( \ln ( x_{{l}} )
-\ln ( m
) ) ^{2}}{{\sigma}^{2}}}}}n\sigma
\nonumber \\
+\sqrt {2}{{\rm e}^{-1/
2\,{\frac { ( \ln ( x_{{l}} ) -\ln ( m )
) ^{2}}{{\sigma}^{2}}}}}\ln ( m ) n\sigma-\sqrt {2}
{{\rm e}^{-\frac{1}{2}\,{\frac { ( \ln ( x_{{u}} ) -\ln
( m ) ) ^{2}}{{\sigma}^{2}}}}}\ln ( m
) n\sigma
\nonumber \\
+n ( \ln ( m ) ) ^{2}\sqrt {
\pi}{\rm erf} (\frac{1}{2}\,{\frac {\sqrt {2} ( \ln ( x_{{u}}
) -\ln ( m ) ) }{\sigma}} )
\nonumber \\
-n{\sigma}^{
2}\sqrt {\pi}{\rm erf} (\frac{1}{2}\,{\frac {\sqrt {2} ( \ln
( x_{{u}} ) -\ln ( m ) ) }{\sigma}}
)
\nonumber \\
-n ( \ln ( m ) ) ^{2}\sqrt {\pi}
{\rm erf} (\frac{1}{2}\,{\frac {\sqrt {2} ( \ln ( x_{{l}}
) -\ln ( m ) ) }{\sigma}} )
\nonumber \\
+n{\sigma}^{
2}\sqrt {\pi}{\rm erf} (\frac{1}{2}\,{\frac {\sqrt {2} ( \ln
( x_{{l}} ) -\ln ( m ) ) }{\sigma}}
)
\nonumber \\
+\sum _{i=1}^{n}\ln ( x_{{i}} ) ( \ln
( x_{{i}} ) -2\,\ln ( m ) ) \sqrt {\pi}
{\rm erf} (\frac{1}{2}\,{\frac {\sqrt {2} ( \ln ( x_{{u}}
) -\ln ( m ) ) }{\sigma}} )
\nonumber \\
-\sum _{i=1
}^{n}\ln ( x_{{i}} ) ( \ln ( x_{{i}} ) -
2\,\ln ( m ) ) \sqrt {\pi}{\rm erf} (\frac{1}{2}\,{
\frac {\sqrt {2} ( \ln ( x_{{l}} ) -\ln ( m
) ) }{\sigma}} )
\quad ,\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
D=\sqrt {\pi} \Bigg ( -{\rm erf}
\bigg (\frac{1}{2}\,{\frac {\sqrt {2} ( \ln
( x_{{l}} ) -\ln ( m ) ) }{\sigma}}
\bigg )
\nonumber \\
+{\rm erf} \bigg (\frac{1}{2}\,{\frac {\sqrt {2} ( \ln ( x_{{
u}} ) -\ln ( m ) ) }{\sigma}} \bigg ) \Bigg )
{\sigma}^{3} \quad .\end{aligned}$$
[10]{} url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefixhref \#1\#2[\#2]{} \#1[\#1]{}
E. E. [Salpeter]{}, [The Luminosity Function and Stellar Evolution.]{}, 121 (1955) 161–167.
J. M. [Scalo]{}, [The stellar initial mass function]{}, Fundamentals of Cosmic Physics 11 (1986) 1–278.
P. [Kroupa]{}, C. A. [Tout]{}, G. [Gilmore]{}, [The distribution of low-mass stars in the Galactic disc]{}, 262 (1993) 545–587.
J. [Binney]{}, M. [Merrifield]{}, [Galactic astronomy]{}, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1998.
P. [Kroupa]{}, [On the variation of the initial mass function]{}, 322 (2001) 231–246.
N. [Bastian]{}, K. R. [Covey]{}, M. R. [Meyer]{}, [A Universal Stellar Initial Mass Function? A Critical Look at Variations]{}, 48 (2010) 339–389. [](http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.2965), [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101642).
P. [Kroupa]{}, C. [Weidner]{}, J. [Pflamm-Altenburg]{}, I. [Thies]{}, J. [Dabringhausen]{}, M. [Marks]{}, T. [Maschberger]{}, [The Stellar and Sub-Stellar Initial Mass Function of Simple and Composite Populations]{}, Springer Netherlands, 2013, p. 115.
L. [Zaninetti]{}, [ The initial mass function modeled by a left truncated beta distribution ]{}, 765 (2013) 128–135.
M. [Evans]{}, N. [Hastings]{}, B. [Peacock]{}, Statistical Distributions - third edition, John Wiley & Sons Inc, New York, 2000.
R. B. [Larson]{}, [A simple probabilistic theory of fragmentation]{}, 161 (1973) 133. [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/161.2.133).
G. E. [Miller]{}, J. M. [Scalo]{}, [The initial mass function and stellar birthrate in the solar neighborhood]{}, 41 (1979) 513–547. [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/190629).
H. [Zinnecker]{}, [Star formation from hierarchical cloud fragmentation - A statistical theory of the log-normal Initial Mass Function]{}, 210 (1984) 43–56. [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/210.1.43).
G. [Chabrier]{}, [Galactic Stellar and Substellar Initial Mass Function]{}, 115 (2003) 763–795. [](http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:astro-ph/0304382), [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/376392).
A. N. [Cox]{}, [Allen’s astrophysical quantities]{}, Springer, New York, 2000.
N. L. [Johnson]{}, S. [Kotz]{}, N. [Balakrishnan]{}, [Continuous univariate distributions. Vol. 1. 2nd ed.]{}, [Wiley ]{}, New York, 1994.
F. W. J. e. Olver, D. W. e. Lozier, R. F. e. Boisvert, C. W. e. Clark, [NIST handbook of mathematical functions.]{}, [Cambridge University Press. ]{}, Cambridge, 2010.
D. [Kahaner]{}, C. [Moler]{}, S. [Nash]{}, Numerical Methods and Software, Prentice Hall Publishers, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1989.
W. H. [Press]{}, S. A. [Teukolsky]{}, W. T. [Vetterling]{}, B. P. [Flannery]{}, [Numerical Recipes in FORTRAN. The Art of Scientific Computing]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1992.
H. [Akaike]{}, [A new look at the statistical model identification]{}, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 19 (1974) 716–723.
A. R. [Liddle]{}, [How many cosmological parameters?]{}, 351 (2004) L49–L53.
W. [Godlowski]{}, M. [Szydowski]{}, [Constraints on Dark Energy Models from Supernovae]{}, in: M. [Turatto]{}, S. [Benetti]{}, L. [Zampieri]{}, W. [Shea]{} (Eds.), 1604-2004: Supernovae as Cosmological Lighthouses, Vol. 342 of Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, 2005, pp. 508–516.
A. [Kolmogoroff]{}, Confidence limits for an unknown distribution function, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 12 (4) (1941) 461–463.
N. [Smirnov]{}, Table for estimating the goodness of fit of empirical distributions, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 19 (2) (1948) 279–281.
J. [Massey]{}, Frank J., The kolmogorov-smirnov test for goodness of fit, Journal of the American Statistical Association 46 (253) (1951) 68–78.
J. M. [Oliveira]{}, R. D. [Jeffries]{}, J. T. [van Loon]{}, [The low-mass initial mass function in the young cluster NGC 6611 ]{}, 392 (2009) 1034–1050. [](http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.4444), [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14140.x).
J. [Irwin]{}, S. [Hodgkin]{}, S. [Aigrain]{}, J. [Bouvier]{}, L. [Hebb]{}, M. [Irwin]{}, E. [Moraux]{}, [The Monitor project: rotation of low-mass stars in NGC 2362 - testing the disc regulation paradigm at 5 Myr]{}, 384 (2008) 675–686. [](http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.2398), [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12725.x).
J. K. [Hill]{}, J. E. [Isensee]{}, R. H. [Cornett]{}, R. C. [Bohlin]{}, R. W. [O’Connell]{}, M. S. [Roberts]{}, A. M. [Smith]{}, T. P. [Stecher]{}, [Initial mass functions from ultraviolet stellar photometry: A comparison of Lucke and Hodge OB associations near 30 Doradus with the nearby field]{}, 425 (1994) 122–126. [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/173968).
L. [Prisinzano]{}, F. [Damiani]{}, G. [Micela]{}, R. D. [Jeffries]{}, E. [Franciosini]{}, G. G. [Sacco]{}, A. [Frasca]{}, A. [Klutsch]{}, A. [Lanzafame]{}, E. J. [Alfaro]{}, K. [Biazzo]{}, R. [Bonito]{}, A. [Bragaglia]{}, M. [Caramazza]{}, A. [Vallenari]{}, G. [Carraro]{}, M. T. [Costado]{}, E. [Flaccomio]{}, P. [Jofr[é]{}]{}, C. [Lardo]{}, L. [Monaco]{}, L. [Morbidelli]{}, N. [Mowlavi]{}, E. [Pancino]{}, S. [Randich]{}, S. [Zaggia]{}, [The Gaia-ESO Survey: membership and initial mass function of the [$\gamma$]{} Velorum cluster]{}, 589 (2016) A70. [](http://arxiv.org/abs/1601.06513), [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201527875).
W. J. [Reed]{}, M. [Jorgensen]{}, [The double pareto-lognormal distributiona new parametric model for size distributions](http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1081/STA-120037438), Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods 33 (8) (2004) 1733–1753. [](http://arxiv.org/abs/http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1081/STA-1200374%
38), [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/STA-120037438). [http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1081/STA-12003743%
8](http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1081/STA-12003743%
8)
M. [Abramowitz]{}, I. A. [Stegun]{}, [Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables]{}, Dover, New York, 1965.
L. [Zaninetti]{}, [A right and left truncated gamma distribution with application to the stars ]{}, Advanced Studies in Theoretical Physics 23 (2013) 1139–1147.
A. Hald, [On the history of maximum likelihood in relation to inverse probability and least squares](http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/ss/1009212248), Statist. Sci. 14 (2) (1999) 214–222. [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/ss/1009212248). <http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/ss/1009212248>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper considers three types of tensor computations. On their basis, we attempt to formulate criteria that must be satisfied by a computer algebra system dealing with tensors. We briefly overview the current state of tensor computations in different computer algebra systems. The tensor computations are illustrated with appropriate examples implemented in specific systems: Cadabra and Maxima.'
author:
- 'A. V. Korolkova'
- 'D. S. Kulyabov'
- 'L. A. Sevastyanov'
bibliography:
- 'bib/cas\_tensor.bib'
title: Tensor computations in computer algebra systems
---
[^1]
[^2]
Introduction
============
Tensor calculations are used in many fields of physics. It should be noted that the formalism of tensor analysis manifests itself in all its might not in all areas; rather frequently, its simplified versions are used.
Each tensor operation itself is sufficiently simple. However, even standard computations have to involve many elementary operations. These operations require great care and thoroughness. That is why it is important in this field to use different simplified notations and optimized operations (for example, Penrose tensor diagrams).
One of the tasks of computer algebra systems is to free the researcher from routine operations, which is also important in the case of tensor calculus.
Main Application Fields and Types of Tensor Notations
=====================================================
To define the key operations with tensors, consider the main field of application.
Nonindex Computations for Theoretical Constructs
------------------------------------------------
Nonindex computations are commonly used in theoretical constructs and often opposed to component computations. We implement the main tensor operations in the nonindex case.
- *Addition of tensors*. The addition of two tensors of valence $\left[\begin{smallmatrix} p\\q \end{smallmatrix}\right]$ yields a tensor of valence $\left[\begin{smallmatrix}
p\\q \end{smallmatrix}\right]$: $$\label{eq:9}
A + B = C.$$ The addition of tensors gives the structure of an Abelian group.
- *Multiplication of tensors*. The multiplication of tensor $A$ with valence $\left[\begin{smallmatrix}
p\\q \end{smallmatrix}\right]$ by tensor $D$ with valence $\left[\begin{smallmatrix} r\\s \end{smallmatrix}\right]$ yields tensor $E$ with valence $\left[\begin{smallmatrix}
p+r\\q+s \end{smallmatrix}\right]$: $$\label{eq:11}
A \otimes D = E.$$ The tensor multiplication defines the structure of a noncommutative semigroup.
- *Operation of Contraction*. Let us denote the operation of contraction of tensors with respect to last indices by $\mathfrak{C}$. Then, under the action of this operation, tensor $F$ with valence $\left[\begin{smallmatrix}
p+1\\q+1 \end{smallmatrix}\right]$ goes into tensor $G$ with valence $\left[\begin{smallmatrix} p\\q \end{smallmatrix}\right]$: $$\label{eq:12}
\mathfrak{C} F = G.$$
- *Operation of Permutation of Indices*. This operation is necessary for specifying the symmetry of tensors (for example, a tensor commutator or anticommutator), for expanding the operation of contraction on the contraction with respect to arbitrary indices. However, the nonindex approach gives no way of identifying this operation. Yet, the simplest symmetries can be explicitly specified in the object description (in this case, one has to impose restrictions on valence to ensure uniqueness).
Vector Computations
-------------------
Vector calculus is the simplest case of tensor calculus (a vector is a tensor of valence one). The $N$-dimensional vector $a^{n}$ is represented as a set of components $n=\overline{1,N}$, depending on the basis, and a linear law of the transformation of components for a changing basis. The frequently used operations are the construction of various differential operators and change of the basis. The most common operators are gradient, divergence, and curl (specific to the three-dimensional space $\mathbb{R}^3$) [@pfur-2012-1; @pfur-2011-2::en]).
Component calculations require a basis, a metric, and connectivity (and, accordingly, a covariant derivative) to be defined. In vector calculus, it is common to use a holonomic basis, which is constructed as a set of partial derivatives of the coordinates in a tangent bundle and the dual basis as a 1-form in the cotangent bundle: $$\label{eq:2}
\vec{\delta}_{i} = \frac{\partial}{\partial x^{i}},
\quad
\vec{\delta}^{i} = d x^{i}.$$ The connectivity and metric are constructed in such a way that the covariant derivative of the metric be equal to zero: $$\label{eq:3}
\nabla_{k} g_{i j} = 0.$$ In this case, the connectivity and metric are consistent [@mangiarotti2000connections].
It should be noted that vector computations often use a special nonholonomic basis that makes it possible not to distinguish between contravariant and covariant vectors and keep the dimension unchanged under a coordinate transformation[^3] (for details, see [@pfur-2012-1]): $$\label{eq:4}
\vec{\delta}_{i} = \frac{\partial}{\partial s^{i}},
\quad
\vec{\delta}^{i} = d s^{i},
\quad
d s^{i} = h_{j}^{i} d x^{j}.$$ Here, $d s^{i}$ is the element of length with respect to a given coordinate and $h_{j}^{i}$ are the nonholonomy coefficients (the Lamé coefficients in the case of orthogonal coordinates).
Dirac 4-Spinors
---------------
A special case of tensor objects are spinors (also called spin-tensors). Particularly, spinors are representations of the Lorentz group with a half-integer highest weight. Conventional tensors are representations with an integer highest weight.
For historical reasons, the investigations most commonly use Dirac 4-spinors, which are applied to write the Dirac equations describing fermions with spin $\frac{1}{2}$. Dirac 4-spinors are essentially irreducible spinors for the case $n = 4$ and $s=\pm 2$, where $n$ is the dimension of the vector space, $s = n - 2u$ is its signature, and $u$ is the number of negative values of the diagonal metric tensor $g_{a b}$.
Usually the handling with Dirac spinors is based on $\gamma$-matrices derived from the Clifford–Dirac equation [@cartan]: $$\label{eq:5}
\gamma_{(a} \gamma_{b)} = g_{a b} \hat{I},$$ where $\gamma_{a}$ are $N \times N$ matrices, $g_{a b}$ is a metric tensor, $\hat{I}$ is the identity $N \times N$ matrix, and $N$ is the dimension of the spinor space: $$\label{eq:7}
N =
\begin{cases}
2^{n/2}, &\text{even $n$,} \\
2^{n/2 - 1/2}, &\text{odd $n$.}
\end{cases}$$ where $\gamma$-matrices are Clifford algebra elements generating a linear transformation of the spin space.
Since the $\gamma$-matrix can be regarded as the coefficients of transition from spin to vector space, the spin coefficients should be introduced more strictly and Eq. should be written in the following way $$\label{eq:6}
\gamma_{a \rho}^{\sigma} \gamma_{b \sigma}^{\tau} + \gamma_{b
\rho}^{\sigma} \gamma_{a \sigma}^{\tau} = 2 g_{a b} \delta_{\rho}^{\sigma}.$$
The construction of a complete Clifford algebra requires also products of $\gamma$-matrices, but in view of , it is suffice to consider only antisymmetrized products $$\label{eq:10}
\gamma_{a b \dots d} := \gamma_{[a} \gamma_{b} \cdots \gamma_{d]}.$$ Also, we introduce an element $\gamma_{5}$: $$\label{eq:8}
\gamma_{5} := \frac{i}{4!} e^{a b c d} \gamma_{a}\gamma_{b}\gamma_{c}\gamma_{d},$$ where $e^{a b c d}$ is an alternating tensor.
The handling with $\gamma$-matrices is reduced to a set of relations following from algebraic symmetries, such as $$\begin{gathered}
\gamma^a \gamma_a = 4 \hat{I},
\label{eq:gamma:sym:1} \\
\gamma^a \gamma^b \gamma^c \gamma_a = 4 g^{b c} \hat{I} ,
\label{eq:gamma:sym:2} \\
\gamma_{a} \gamma_{b} = \gamma_{ab} + g_{ab} \hat{I},
\label{eq:gamma:sym:3} \\
\gamma_a \gamma_b \gamma_c = \gamma_{a b c} +
g_{a b} \gamma_c + g_{b c}\gamma_a -
g_{a c} \gamma_b.
\label{eq:gamma:sym:4}\end{gathered}$$
Tensor Calculations in the Theory of General Relativity
-------------------------------------------------------
General relativity became the first physical theory requiring the whole power of differential geometry and tensor calculations [@gerdt:1980:ufn::en]. These calculations involve bulky tensor constructs that can be simplified in view of the symmetry of tensors. Usually, one differentiates between monoterm and multiterm symmetries. A key element of the theory is the Riemann tensor, which has both very simple monoterm and complex multiterm symmetries like the Bianchi identities.
Monoterm symmetries correspond to simple permutation symmetries and are given by a group of permutations. Specifically, for the Riemann tensor, we have $$\label{eq:riman:1}
R_{bacd} = - R_{abcd}, \quad R_{cdab} = R_{abcd}.$$
Multiterm symmetries are given by an algebra of permutations. The Bianchi identity has the form[^4]: $$\label{eq:riman:2}
R_{a(bcd)} = R_{abcd} + R_{acdb} + R_{adbc} = 0.$$ The differential (second) Bianchi identity has the form[^5]: $$\label{eq:riman:3}
R_{ab(cd;e)} = \nabla_{e} R_{abcd} + \nabla_{c} R_{abde} + \nabla_{d} R_{abec} = 0.$$
It is most reasonable to specify symmetries by means of Young diagrams [@barut:1986::en]. Here, the presence of predefined classes of tensors does not eliminate the need for an explicit specification of symmetry. For example, the Riemann tensor $R_{abcd}$ in different sources has the symmetries [(ac,bd)]{} and [(ab,cd)]{}.
Types of Tensor Notation
------------------------
Thus, based on the above types of tensor calculations, one can specify three types of tensor notation: component notation, notation with abstract indices, and nonindex notation. Each type has its own specificity and application field.
Component indices actually turn a tensor into a set of scalar values used in specific calculations. Usually, it makes sense to operate with component indices only after simplifying the tensor expression and taking into account all of its symmetries.
The nonindex notation is often used when the researcher is interested in the symmetry of tensors rather than in the final result. However, this form of notation lacks in its expressiveness: the tensor is regarded as an integral entity; accordingly, only the symmetries that are related to the tensor as a whole can be considered. To operate with objects of complex structures, one has to invent new notations or add verbal explanations. It is this problem that should be treated by abstract indices [@penrose::en].
Abstract indices should be regarded as an improvement of the nonindex notation of tensors. An abstract index denotes merely the fact that a tensor belongs to a certain space, rather than obeying the tensor transformation rule (unlike component indices). In this case, one can consider both symmetries covering the full tensor (all its indices) and symmetries of individual groups of indices.
Tensor Computations and Computer Algebra Systems
================================================
Modern computer algebra systems are able to solve problems of a sufficiently wide class and from different areas of knowledge. The systems can be highly specialized or with a claim to universality (a survey of some systems can be found, for example, in [@cain; @pfur-2007-1-2::en; @ech::en]). We consider some computer algebra systems that to some extent can operate with tensors.
Requirements for Computer Algebra System
----------------------------------------
Three types of tensor notations correspond to three types of tensor analytical calculations; this leads to certain requirements for computer algebra systems.
Nonindex computing handles with tensors as integral algebraic objects. In this case, one can either specify the simplest type of symmetry (the object is a representation of a group or algebra) or use objects with predefined symmetry.
Abstract indices require the ability of specifying complex types of symmetry, for example, through Young diagrams. In addition, it is necessary to be able to work with dummy indices, specify and consider them when bringing into canonical form. Both types of abstract computations use information about symmetries for bringing into canonical form and simplifying tensor expressions.
Component indices require in fact a scalar system of computer algebra and possibly the presence of simple matrix operations. In fact, a specific coordinate system and metric are given. Since all operations are performed by components, the information about the tensor as an integral object and about its symmetries is lost. Therefore, all operations with symmetries and bringing into canonical form must be carried out in the previous phase of the study.
Notation
--------
The use of computer algebra systems often implies interactive functioning of users. In this case, the convenience of notation plays a key role. Historically, the mathematical notation of tensors follows the notation of the TeX system; namely, the tensor $T^{a}_{b}$ is written as `T^{a}_{b}`. Therefore, the use of this notation would be quite natural. This approach was implemented in *Cadabra* however, this is a specialized system for tensor computing. A tensor notation for general-purpose computer algebra systems should account for the limitations of these systems (for example, the symbol `^` is normally reserved and used for exponentiation).
Because general-purpose systems operate with functions and the basic internal data structure is a list, a functional–list notation is used. The name of a function can be given by the tensor name, and the covariant and contravariant indices are given either by a prefix (for example, as in *xAct*):
T(a,-b),
or positionally (for example, as in the *Maxima*):
T([a],[b]).
It is also possible to use associative lists, such as
Tensor[Name["T"], Indices[Up[a], Down[b]]].
Let us consider the most interesting (for practical use) implementations of tensor calculations in different computer algebra systems.
Cadabra
-------
Cadabra \[<http://cadabra.phi-sci.com/>\] refers to the type of specialized computer algebra systems. The area of its specialization is the field theory. Because complex tensor calculations are an integral part of the field theory, it is not surprising that tensor calculations in this system are supported at a high level.
However, the field theory operates mostly with abstract indices, and component computations receive much less attention. Most likely, this is the reason that component computations have not yet been implemented in Cadabra, although this option has been projected for implementation.
However, component computations require that a computer algebra system possess the capabilities of general-purpose systems, which cannot be found in Cadabra.
Maxima
------
Maxima \[<http://maxima.sourceforge.net/>\] is one of the major freeware general-purpose computer algebra systems. Maxima was derived from Macsyma, a system developed in MIT from 1968 to 1982.
Maxima implements all the three types of tensor calculations [@toth]:
- package *atensor*—nonindex algebraic calculations (with a set of basic algebras and main purpose of simplifying tensor expressions by manipulations with both monoterm and multiterm symmetries);
- package *ctensor*—component calculations (with an option of manipulating with metrics and connectivities, and with a set of the most commonly used metrics);
- package *itensor*—calculations by using (abstract) indices.
This system duplicates the functionality of the Macsyma package and actually seeks no further development. At present, the capabilities of these packages can hardly be considered as satisfactory.
Reduce
------
Reduce \[<http://www.reduce-algebra.com/>\] [@gerdt:1991:reduce] is one of the oldest (among currently existing systems) general-purpose computer algebra systems. In 2009, its license was replaced from commercial to a BSD-type. However, it should be noted that this was rather behindhand because the community at that time had dealt with other free computer algebra systems, and thus the system benefited little from the transition to a free license.
The basic system consists of:
- the package *atensor* mentioned above;
- the package *redten* \[<http://www.scar.utoronto.ca/~harper/redten.html>\] designed for component calculations.
Maple
-----
Maple \[<http://www.maplesoft.com/products/Maple/index.aspx>\] is a commercial general-purpose computer algebra system involving also the tools for numerical computations.
- Maple has built-in tools for manipulating with tensor components, which are not inferior to similar tools in other computer algebra systems. Actually, there are two packages:
- package *tensor*, which was originally designed for addressing problems of the general theory of relativity and component calculations;
- the powerful package *DifferentialGeometry* (which has currently been involved in the main system) involves the subpackage *Tensor* designed also for component calculations. Its great advantage is the possibility to use both the tensor analysis and the whole power of differential geometry (for example, the use of symmetries of groups and Lie algebras);
- *GRTensor II* \[<http://grtensor.phy.queensu.ca/>\] (GPL-license) is one of the most powerful package of component tensor calculations.
Mathematica
-----------
Mathematica \[<http://www.wolfram.com/mathematica/>\] is a commercial general-purpose computer algebra system developed by the Wolfram Research company. The system involves a large number of computational and interactive tools (for creating mathematical textbooks).
- *MathTensor* \[<http://smc.vnet.net/MathTensor.html>\] [@mathtensor] is a commercial package designed primarily for algebraic manipulations with tensors.
- *Cartan (Tensors in Physics)* \[<http://www.adinfinitum.no/cartan/>\] is a commercial package designed primarily for calculations in the theory of general relativity. Since the calculations are performed in specific metrics, the package operates with component indices.
- *Ricci* \[<http://www.math.washington.edu/~lee/Ricci/>\] is a package that generally supports algebraic manipulations and has also some elements of component operations. This package is in a state of stagnation.
- The set of packages *xAct* \[<http://www.xact.es/>\] (GPL-license) covers operations with both abstract and component indices.
In the next section, we consider in more detail two computer algebra systems: *Cadabra* and *Maxima*.
The most important criterion for the choice of these two systems was their license: only free computer algebra systems had been considered. Thus, we excluded from consideration the extension packs to commercial computer algebra systems (regardless of the license for packages themselves).
Currently, the most advanced free computer algebra system for tensor manipulations is *Cadabra*. However, this system has not yet supported component calculations. Therefore, we took the system *Maxima* as a companion to it.
A possible candidate for consideration could be *Axiom*, but this system is currently broken into several parts that are not quite compatible.
Tensor Operations in Cadabra
============================
To demonstrate the capabilities of Cadabra, we consider different operations over tensors in this system. Since the current version of Cadabra cannot operate with components, component operations will not be considered.
Nonindex Computing
------------------
Let us define commuting rules and check that they are satisfied:
{A,B}::Commuting.
{C,D}::AntiCommuting.
- The case of commuting tensors:
B A;
$$1 := B A;$$
@prodsort!(%);
$$1 := A B;$$
- The case of anticommuting tensor:
D C;
$$2 := D C;$$
@prodsort!(%);
$$2 := -C D;$$
Holonomic Coordinates
---------------------
Let us show that in the case of agreed metric and connectivity, the covariant derivative of the metric tensor is vanishing (see ).
We define a set of indices, metric, and partial derivative:
{a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,
k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u#}::Indices.
g_{a b}::Metric.
\partial_{#}::PartialDerivative.
We write the covariant derivative in the Christoffel symbols and the Christoffel symbols through the metric tensor, which just specifies the consistency of metric with connectivity:
\nabla := \partial_{c}{g_{a b}} -
g_{a d}\Gamma^{d}_{b c} -
g_{d b}\Gamma^{d}_{a c};
$$\nabla:= {\partial}_{c}{{g}_{a b}} - {g}_{a d} {\Gamma}^{d} _{b c} - {g}_{d b} {\Gamma}^{d} _{a c};$$
Gamma:=\Gamma^{a}_{b c} -> (1/2) g^{a d}
( \partial_{b}{g_{d c}} +
\partial_{c}{g_{b d}} -
\partial_{d}{g_{b c}} );
$$Gamma:= {\Gamma}^{a} _{b c} \rightarrow \frac{1}{2} {g}^{a d}
({\partial}_{b}{{g}_{d c}} + {\partial}_{c}{{g}_{b d}} -
{\partial}_{d}{{g}_{b c}} );$$
We substitute the expression of the Christoffel symbol through the metric tensor in the expression for the covariant derivative:
@substitute!(\nabla)(@(Gamma));
$$\begin{gathered}
\nabla:= {\partial}_{c}{{g}_{a b}} - \frac{1}{2} {g}_{a d}
{g}^{d e} ({\partial}_{b}{{g}_{e c}} + {\partial}_{c}{{g}_{b
e}} - {\partial}_{e}{{g}_{b c}} ) -
{} \\ -
\frac{1}{2} {g}_{d b}
{g}^{d e} ({\partial}_{a}{{g}_{e c}} + {\partial}_{c}{{g}_{a
e}} - {\partial}_{e}{{g}_{a c}} );\end{gathered}$$
and open the brackets:
@distribute!(%);
$$\begin{gathered}
\nabla:= {\partial}_{c}{{g}_{a b}} - \frac{1}{2} {g}_{a d} {g}^{d
e} {\partial}_{b}{{g}_{e c}} -
%{} \\ -
\frac{1}{2} {g}_{a d} {g}^{d e} {\partial}_{c}{{g}_{b e}} +
{} \\ +
\frac{1}{2} {g}_{a d} {g}^{d e} {\partial}_{e}{{g}_{b c}} -
\frac{1}{2} {g}_{d b} {g}^{d e} {\partial}_{a}{{g}_{e c}} -
{} \\ -
\frac{1}{2} {g}_{d b} {g}^{d e}
{\partial}_{c}{{g}_{a e}} + \frac{1}{2} {g}_{d b} {g}^{d e}
{\partial}_{e}{{g}_{a c}} ;\end{gathered}$$
We raise and drop the indices unless all metric tensors are eliminated, as indicated by the double exclamation mark:
@eliminate_metric!!(%);
$$\begin{gathered}
\nabla:= {\partial}_{c}{{g}_{a b}} - \frac{1}{2}
{\partial}_{b}{{g}_{a c}} - \frac{1}{2} {\partial}_{c}{{g}_{b
a}} + \frac{1}{2} {\partial}_{a}{{g}_{b c}} -
{} \\ -
\frac{1}{2} {\partial}_{a}{{g}_{b c}} - \frac{1}{2}
{\partial}_{c}{{g}_{a b}} + \frac{1}{2} {\partial}_{b}{{g}_{a
c}} ;\end{gathered}$$
Then, we bring the expression into the canonical form and collect the terms. The result is zero as expected:
@canonicalise!(%);
$$\begin{gathered}
\nabla:= {\partial}_{c}{{g}_{a b}} - \frac{1}{2}
{\partial}_{b}{{g}_{a c}} - \frac{1}{2} {\partial}_{c}{{g}_{a b}} +
{} \\ +
\frac{1}{2} {\partial}_{a}{{g}_{b c}} - \frac{1}{2}
{\partial}_{a}{{g}_{b c}} - \frac{1}{2} {\partial}_{c}{{g}_{a b}} +
\frac{1}{2} {\partial}_{b}{{g}_{a c}} ;\end{gathered}$$
@collect_terms!(%);
$$\nabla:= 0;$$
$\gamma$-Matrices
-----------------
Cadabra has advanced tools for operating with $\gamma$-matrices of any dimension. For definiteness, we consider $\gamma$-matrices of Dirac 4-spinors.
To simplify the calculations, we define a set of actions that are executed after each operation:
::PostDefaultRules( @@prodsort!(%),
@@eliminate_kr!(%),
@@canonicalise!(%),
@@collect_terms!(%) ).
We define the indices and their running values:
{a,b,c,d,e,f}::Indices(vector).
{a,b,c,d,e,f}::Integer(0..3).
The space dimension will be used for finding the track of the Kronecker delta.
The $\gamma$-matrices are specified using the metric (see ):
\gamma_{#}::GammaMatrix(metric=g).
g_{a b}::Metric.
g_{a}^{b}::KroneckerDelta.
Now, we demonstrate some symmetry identities satisfied by $\gamma$-matrices.
- Clifford-Dirac equation :
\gamma_{a} \gamma_{b} +
\gamma_{b} \gamma_{a};
$$1 := {\gamma}_{a} {\gamma}_{b} + {\gamma}_{b} {\gamma}_{a};$$
The algorithm `@join` converts the pairwise products of $\gamma$-matrices into the sum of $\gamma$-matrices of higher valences (see ). The additional argument `expand` indicates that the rules of antisymmetrization for $\gamma$-matrices are taken into account:
@join!(%){expand};
$$1 := 2\, {g}_{a b};$$
- Convolution of two $\gamma$-matrices :
\gamma^{a} \gamma_{a};
$$2 := {\gamma}^{a} {\gamma}_{a};$$
@join!(%){expand};
$$2 := 4;$$
- Identity :
\gamma^{a} \gamma^{b}
\gamma^{c} \gamma_{a};
$$3 := {\gamma}^{a} {\gamma}^{b} {\gamma}^{c} {\gamma}_{a};$$
@join!!(%){expand};
$$3 := ({\gamma}^{a b} + {g}^{a b}) ( - {\gamma}_{a}\,^{c} + {g}_{a}\,^{c});$$
@distribute!(%);
$$3 := - {\gamma}^{b a} {\gamma}^{c}\,_{a} - 2\, {\gamma}^{b c} + {g}^{b c};$$
@join!!(%){expand};
$$3 := 4\, {g}^{b c};$$
- Identity :
\gamma_{a} \gamma_{b};
$$4 := {\gamma}_{a} {\gamma}_{b};$$
@join!!(%){expand};
$$4 := {\gamma}_{a b} + {g}_{a b};$$
- Identity :
\gamma_{a} \gamma_{b} \gamma_{c};
$$5 := {\gamma}_{a} {\gamma}_{b} {\gamma}_{c};$$
@join!!(%){expand};
$$5 := ({\gamma}_{a b} + {g}_{a b}) {\gamma}_{c};$$
@distribute!(%);
$$5 := {\gamma}_{a b} {\gamma}_{c} + {\gamma}_{c} {g}_{a b};$$
@join!!(%){expand};
$$5 := {\gamma}_{a b c} + {\gamma}_{a} {g}_{b c} - {\gamma}_{b} {g}_{a c} + {\gamma}_{c} {g}_{a b};$$
- A more complex identity: $$\label{eq:13}
\gamma_{a b} \gamma_{b c}
\gamma_{d e} \gamma_{e a} =
- 4\, {\gamma}_{c d} + 21\, {g}_{c d} \hat{I}$$ In Cadabra, this identity has the form
\gamma_{a b} \gamma_{b c}
\gamma_{d e} \gamma_{e a};
$$6 := -{\gamma}_{a b} {\gamma}_{c a} {\gamma}_{d e} {\gamma}_{b e};$$
@join!!(%){expand};
$$6 := -(2\, {\gamma}_{b c} + 3\, {g}_{b c}) (2\, {\gamma}_{b d} - 3\, {g}_{b d});$$
@distribute!(%);
$$6 := - 4\, {\gamma}_{c b} {\gamma}_{d b} - 12\, {\gamma}_{c d} + 9\, {g}_{c d};$$
@join!(%){expand};
$$6 := - 4\, {\gamma}_{c d} + 21\, {g}_{c d};$$
Monoterm Symmetries
-------------------
As an example of monoterm symmetry, we consider the symmetries of Riemann tensor . To this end, we first specify the symmetry properties using Young diagrams:
R_{a b c d}::TableauSymmetry(shape={2,2},
indices={0,2,1,3}).
In this example, the symmetry has the form [(ac,bd)]{}.
Then, we perform symmetric and antisymmetric permutation of the indices. The algorithm `@canonicalise` brings the operand into the canonical form, accounting for monoterm symmetries.
R_{c d a b};
$$1 := {R}_{c d a b};$$
@canonicalise!(%);
$$1 := {R}_{a b c d};$$
R_{a b c d} + R_{b a c d};
$$2 := {R}_{a b c d} + {R}_{b a c d};$$
@canonicalise!(%);
$$2 := {R}_{a b c d} - {R}_{a b c d};$$
@collect_terms!(%);
$$2 := 0;$$
Multiterm Symmetries
--------------------
We demonstrate the operation with multiterm symmetries by an example of the Riemann tensor.
We introduce notations for indices and derivatives:
{a,b,c,d,e,f,g#}::Indices(vector).
\nabla{#}::Derivative.
The symmetry can be specified by the Young diagram [(ace,bd)]{}, as in the previous case:
\nabla_{e}{R_{a b c d}}::TableauSymmetry(
shape={3,2}, indices={1,3,0,2,4} ).
However, it is more convenient the following notation:
R_{a b c d}::RiemannTensor.
Similarly, we deal with the covariant derivative of the Riemann tensor, which satisfies the differential Bianchi identity:
\nabla_{e}{R_{a b c d}}::SatisfiesBianchi.
Let us check first Bianchi identity .
R_{a b c d} + R_{a c d b} + R_{a d b c};
$$1 := R_{a b c d} + R_{a c d b} + R_{a d b c};$$
@young_project_tensor!2(%){ModuloMonoterm}:
@collect_terms!(%);
$$1 := 0;$$
Now, we demonstrate that second (differential) Bianchi identity is satisfied:
\nabla_{e}{R_{a b c d}} +
\nabla_{c}{R_{a b d e}} +
\nabla_{d}{R_{a b e c}};
$$2 := {\nabla}_{e}{{R}_{a b c d}}\, + {\nabla}_{c}{{R}_{a b d e}}\, + {\nabla}_{d}{{R}_{a b e c}}\, ;$$
@young_project_tensor!2(%){ModuloMonoterm}:
@collect_terms!(%);
$$2 := 0;$$
An Example of Tensor Calculations in Maxima
===========================================
Because Cadabra currently does not support component computations, we demonstrate them in the Maxima system. As an example, we consider the Maxwell equations written in cylindrical coordinates in a holonomic basis [@pfur-2012-1].
First, we load a small package written by us that contains definitions for differential operators:
****
(%i1)
load("diffop.mac")$
We define a cylindrical coordinate system:
****
(%i2)
ct_coordsys(polar cylindrical)$
We consider the components of the metric tensor $g_{ij}$:
****
(%i3)
lg;
1 & 0 & 00 & [r]{}\^[2]{} & 00 & 0 & 1
We calculate and consider the components of the metric tensor $g^{ij}$:
****
(%i4)
cmetric()$
****
(%i5)
ug;
1 & 0 & 00 & & 00 & 0 & 1
We define the required vectors and determine their coordinate dependences. Due to the limitations of Maxima, we denote $j^1$ by `j1` and $j_1$ by `j_1`:
****
(%i6)
j:[j1,j2,j3]$
depends(j,cons(t,ct_coords))$
****
(%i8)
B:[B1,B2,B3]$
depends(B,cons(t,ct_coords))$
****
(%i10)
D:[D1,D2,D3]$
depends(D,cons(t,ct_coords))$
****
(%i12)
H:[H_1,H_2,H_3]$
depends(H,cons(t,ct_coords))$
****
(%i14)
E:[E_1,E_2,E_3]$
depends(E,cons(t,ct_coords))$
Now, we calculate all sides of the Maxwell equations written in cylindrical coordinates:
****
(%i16)
Div(B);
B3+B2+B1+
****
(%i17)
Div(D) -4*%pi*rho;
D3+D2+D1+-4
****
(%i18)
Rot(H)
+ diff(transpose(matrix(D)),t)/c
- 4*%pi/c*transpose(matrix(j));
+--+-+-
****
(%i19)
Rot(E)
+ diff(transpose(matrix(B)),t)/c;
+-+
Thus, the result coincided with the analytical expressions obtained in [@pfur-2012-1].
Conclusions
===========
This paper was prompted by the fact that the authors intended to conduct bulky tensor calculations in computer algebra systems. The search for an appropriate system brought them to formulate a set of criteria that must be met by such a computer algebra system.
Because there are several types of tensor calculations, the full implementation of tensor calculations in computer algebra systems requires a broad set of capabilities. Unfortunately, at present, there are almost no systems with a fully satisfactory support of tensors.
Component tensor calculations require almost no additional features of the universal computer algebra system. Therefore, the packages implementing this functionality are used most widely (for example, *Maxima*, *Maple*, and *Mathematica*).
The tensor notation is very different from the usual functional notation that is used by the vast majority of computer algebra systems. Therefore, the efficient operation with tensors would require a specialized system (or a specialized add-on over the universal system) that supports the natural tensor notation (for example, *Cadabra*).
As a result, we failed to find a system that fully meets the needs of tensor calculus. At the moment, the authors use the *Cadabra* specialized system and a universal computer algebra system (currently, *Maxima*).
[^1]: Published in: A. V. Korol’kova, D. S. Kulyabov, and L. A. Sevast’yanov. [Tensor computations in computer algebra systems]{}. *Programming and Computer Software*, 390 (3):0 135–142, 2013. ISSN 0361-7688. [doi: 10.1134/S0361768813030031](http://dx.doi.org/10.1134/S0361768813030031).
[^2]: Sources: <https://bitbucket.org/yamadharma/articles-2011-cas_tensor>
[^3]: Under this transformation, length goes into length, angle goes into angle, etc.
[^4]: The round brackets in denote symmetrization.
[^5]: Semicolon in denotes covariant derivative.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'There has been tremendous development of linear controllability of complex networks. Real-world systems are fundamentally nonlinear. Is linear controllability relevant to nonlinear dynamical networks? We identify a common trait underlying both types of control: the nodal “importance”. For nonlinear and linear control, the importance is determined, respectively, by physical/biological considerations and the probability for a node to be in the minimum driver set. We study empirical mutualistic networks and a gene regulatory network, for which the nonlinear nodal importance can be quantified by the ability of individual nodes to restore the system from the aftermath of a tipping-point transition. We find that the nodal importance ranking for nonlinear and linear control exhibits opposite trends: for the former large-degree nodes are more important but for the latter, the importance scale is tilted towards the small-degree nodes, suggesting strongly irrelevance of linear controllability to these systems. The recent claim of successful application of linear controllability to [*C. elegans*]{} connectome is examined and discussed.'
author:
- Junjie Jiang
- 'Ying-Cheng Lai'
title: Irrelevance of linear controllability to nonlinear dynamical networks
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
In the development of a field that involves dynamical systems, when knowledge has accumulated to certain degree, the question of control would arise naturally. For example, in nonlinear dynamics, the principle of controlling chaos was articulated in 1990 [@OGY:1990], after approximately a decade of intense research focusing on the fundamental understanding of chaotic dynamical systems. Likewise, in complex networks, the issue of control began to be addressed [@LH:2007; @RJME:2009] also approximately after ten years of tremendous growth of research triggered by the pioneering work on small world and scale-free networks. A key development is the systematic adoption of the linear structural controllability theory to complex networks with directed interactions [@LSB:2011]. Since then, there has been a great deal of effort in investigating the linear controllability of complex networks [@WNLG:2012; @NA:2012; @YRLLL:2012; @NV:2012; @YZDWL:2013; @MDB:2014; @RR:2014; @Wuchty:2014; @YZWDL:2014; @WBSS:2015; @NA:2015; @SCL:2015; @LGS:2015; @CWWL:2016; @WCWL:2017; @KSS:2017a; @KSS:2017b].
Control of linear dynamical systems is a traditional field in engineering [@Kalman:1963; @Lin:1974]. Because of the simplicity in the possible dynamical behaviors that a linear dynamical system can generate (in contrast to nonlinear dynamical systems where the behaviors are extremely rich and diverse), the general objective is to design proper control signals to drive the system from an arbitrarily initial state to an arbitrarily final state in finite time. When applying the linear controllability theory to complex networks, a primary goal has been to determine the minimum number of controllers. This problem was addressed [@LSB:2011] for complex directed networks through the development of a minimum input theory based on the concept of maximum matching [@HK:1973; @ZOY:2003; @ZM:2006]. To generalize the linear controllability theory to networks of arbitrary structures (e.g., weighted or unweighted, directed or undirected), an exact controllability theory was developed [@YZDWL:2013] based on the Popov-Belevitch-Hautus (PBH) rank condition [@PBH:1969]. The exact controllability theory provides a computationally extremely efficient method to determine not only the minimum number of controllers but also the set of the nodes to which the control signals should be applied - the set of driver nodes, for complex networks of arbitrary topology and link structures [@YZDWL:2013].
The development of the linear controllability theories has played the role of stimulating research on controlling complex networks [@LB:2016]. However, its limitations must not be forgotten. The fundamental assumption used in any linear controllability theory is that the nodal dynamics are described by a set of coupled linear, first-order differential equations. While such a setting may be relevant to engineering control systems, real-world systems are governed by nonlinear dynamics such as biologically inspired networks [@ABM:2018]. In classical control engineering, it is well recognized that controllability for nonlinear systems requires a different set of tools to be developed compared to what is known for the controllability of linear systems [@NV:book]. A serious concern is the tendency to overstate the use or the predictive power of the linear controllability theories when they are applied to real-world physical or biological systems. For example, it was claimed recently [@YVTCWSB:2017] that linear network control principles can predict the neuron function in the [*Caenorhabditis elegans*]{} connectome, a highly nonlinear dynamical neuronal network. The goal of the present work is to legitimize this concern in a quantitative manner by presenting concrete and statistical evidence that linear network controllability may not be relevant to physically or biologically meaningful control of nonlinear networks.
The physical world is nonlinear. Network dynamics in biological or ecological systems are governed by nonlinear rules with no exceptions. Control of real world complex networks based on the rules of nonlinear dynamics has remained to be an extremely difficult problem. Existing strategies include local pinning [@WC:2002; @LWC:2004; @SBGC:2007; @YCL:2009], feedback vertex set control [@FMKS:2013; @MFKS:2013; @ZYA:2017], controlled switch among coexisting attractors [@WSHWWGL:2016], or local control [@KSS:2017b]. These methods belong to the category of open-loop control, i.e., one applies pre-defined control signals or parameter perturbations to a feedback vertex set chosen according to some physical criteria. For certain nonlinear dynamical networks, especially those in ecology, closed-loop control can be articulated and has been demonstrated to be effective [@SLLGL:2017]. Recently, how to exploit biologically inspired agent based control method to choose different alternative states in engineered multiagent network systems has been studied [@GFSL:2018].
In order to answer the question “is linear controllability relevant to nonlinear dynamical networks?”, two challenges must be met. Firstly, because of lack of general controllability framework for nonlinear networks it is necessary to focus on [*specific*]{} contexts where nonlinear network control can be done in a physically or biologically meaningful way. We choose two such contexts: mutualistic networks in ecology [@BJMO:2003; @GJT:2011; @NJB:2013; @LNSB:2014; @RSB:2014; @DB:2014; @GPJBT:2017; @JHSLGHL:2018] and a gene regulatory network from systems biology [@Alon:2006; @BBILA:2006; @GBB:2016]. Secondly and more importantly, linear and nonlinear dynamical networks are fundamentally and characteristically different in many aspects, so are the respective control methods. How do we compare their control performances? (How can an apple be compared with a banana?) Our idea is that, even in the analog of apple-banana comparison, if one finds a common trait, e.g., the amount of sugar contained per gram of the substance, then a comparison between an apple and a banana in terms of the specific common trait is meaningful. We are thus led to seek a feature or a characteristic that is common in both nonlinear and linear network control. Specifically, we identify the statistical importance of individual nodes in control as such a common trait.
Our approach and main result can be described, as follows. Given a nonlinear dynamical network with its structure determined from empirical data, we focus on the concrete problem of harnessing a tipping point at which the system transitions from a normal state to a catastrophic state (e.g., massive extinction) or from a catastrophic state to a normal state abruptly as a system parameter changes through a critical point [@Schefferetal:2009; @Scheffer:2010; @WH:2010; @DJ:2010; @DVKG:2012; @BH:2013; @TC:2014; @LNSB:2014; @JHSLGHL:2018]. We exploit the ability of the individual nodes, via control, to make the system recover from the aftermath of a tipping point transition that puts the system in an extinction state. This enables a quantitative ranking of the importance of the individual nodes to be determined. The ranking is generally found to be linearly correlated with the nodal degree of the network, in agreement with intuition. The individual nodes, in terms of their ability to make the system recover, are drastically distinct. We then perform linear control on the same network by assuming artificial linear nodal dynamics. Using the exact controllability theory [@YZDWL:2013], we calculate the minimal control set. A key feature of linear network control, which was usually not emphasized in most existing literature on linear controllability [@WNLG:2012; @NA:2012; @YRLLL:2012; @NV:2012; @YZDWL:2013; @MDB:2014; @RR:2014; @Wuchty:2014; @YZWDL:2014; @WBSS:2015; @NA:2015; @SCL:2015; @LGS:2015; @CWWL:2016; @WCWL:2017; @KSS:2017a; @KSS:2017b] but was mentioned in a recent paper [@CARRSA:2017], is that the minimal control set of nodes is not unique. For a reasonably large network (e.g., of size of a few hundred), there can be vastly many such sets that are equivalent to each other in terms of control realization. Thus, in principle, there is a finite probability for a node in the network to be chosen as a control driver and the corresponding probability can be calculated from the ensemble of the minimal control sets. This probability can be defined as a kind of importance of the node in control relative to other nodes so that a nodal importance ranking can be determined. Because of the generality and universality of the linear control framework, the method to determine the nodal importance is applicable to any complex network. For a large number of real pollinator-plant mutualistic networks reconstructed from empirical data from different geographical regions of the world (Table II) and a representative gene regulatory network, we find that the linear importance ranking favors the small degree nodes, in stark contrast to the case of nonlinear control where large degree nodes are typically more valuable. The characteristic difference in the importance ranking of the nodes in terms of their role in control, linear or nonlinear, suggests that linear controllability may not be relevant to physically or biologically justified nonlinear control for the mutualistic and gene regulatory networks.
Results {#results .unnumbered}
=======
A concrete example of complex pollinator-plant mutualistic network illustrating irrelevance of linear controllability {#a-concrete-example-of-complex-pollinator-plant-mutualistic-network-illustrating-irrelevance-of-linear-controllability .unnumbered}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The assumptions of this study are as follows. For linear dynamical networks, a general controllability framework exists, which can be used to determine the nodal importance ranking and is applicable to all networks. For nonlinear networks, because of the rich diversity in their dynamics, at the present a general control framework does not exist. The control strategy thus depends on the specific physical or biological context of the network.
![ **Distinct characteristics in nonlinear and linear control of a representative complex mutualistic network.** The system is network $A$ reconstructed based on empirical data from Tenerife, Canary Islands [@DHO:2003]. The numbers of pollinators, plants, and mutualistic links are $N_A=38$, $N_P=11$, and $L=106$, respectively. For each node, the species name is given in Table I. The length of the green bar below each species is indicative of the relative importance of the node in tipping point control of the actual nonlinear dynamical network, which is calculated based on Eq. (\[eq:def\_R\_N\]). The blue bars illustrate the relative importance of the nodes when the system is artificially treated as a linear, time-invariant network, which are calculated according to Eq. (\[eq:def\_R\_L\]). There is great variation in the lengths of the green bars for different species, demonstrating a highly non-uniform nonlinear control importance ranking. In contrast, there is little variation in the length of the blue bars among the different species, indicating an approximately uniform linear control importance ranking. Linear controllability may thus not be useful for controlling the actual nonlinear dynamical network.[]{data-label="fig:SFMN"}](figure1.jpg){width="\linewidth"}
To demonstrate the characteristic statistical difference between nonlinear and linear control, we take a representative pollinator-plant mutualistic network (network $A$), and calculate the node based, nonlinear and linear control importance according to Eqs. (\[eq:def\_R\_N\]) and (\[eq:def\_R\_L\]), respectively, as described in [**Methods**]{}. Figure \[fig:SFMN\] shows the 38 pollinator and plant species, together with the relative nonlinear and linear control importance as represented by the lengths of the green and blue bars beneath the images, respectively. There is a wide spread in the nonlinear control importance, but the linear control importance appears approximately uniform across the species. There are cases where a node is not important at all for nonlinear control (e.g., the first, fifth, and sixth species in the bottom row), but the node is important for linear control. The statistical characteristics of the nodal importance in nonlinear and linear control are thus drastically distinct. An examination of other empirical mutualistic systems reveals that, for some networks, the behaviors are similar to those in Fig. \[fig:SFMN\], while in others, the nodal importance shows opposite trends in nonlinear and linear control. For example, there are cases where the nonlinear control importance tends to increase with the nodal degree, but the linear nodal importance shows the opposite trend. These results suggest that linear controllability may not be useful for controlling the actual nonlinear dynamical network.
Nonlinear and linear control importance {#nonlinear-and-linear-control-importance .unnumbered}
---------------------------------------
![ **Contrasting behaviors of nodal importance ranking in nonlinear and linear control**. The four empirical networks are labeled as $A$, $B$, $C$, and $D$ with details given in [**Methods**]{}. (a-d) Nonlinear and (e-h) linear control importance ranking for networks $A-D$, respectively. For tipping point control of the nonlinear network in (a-d), only the pollinator species are subject to external intervention through the managed maintenance of the abundance of a single species. The nodal index on the abscissa of each panel is arranged according to the degree ranking of the node: from high to low degree values (left to right). For the set of nodes with the same degree, their ranking is randomized. The nonlinear control importance is calculated from Eq. (\[eq:def\_R\_N\]) for the parameter setting $h=0.2$, $t=0.5$, $\beta_{ii}^{(A)}=\beta_{ii}^{(P)}=1$, $\beta_{ij}^{(A)}=\beta_{ij}^{(P)}=0,\alpha_i^{(A)} =\alpha_i^{(P)}=-0.3$, and $\mu_A=\mu_P=0.0001$. The coupled nonlinear differential equations are solved using the standard Runge-Kutta method with the time step $0.01$. The distinct feature associated with nonlinear control is that, in spite of the fluctuations, larger degree nodes tend to be more important (i.e., more effective in recovering the species abundances after a tipping point). The linear control importance ranking in (e-h) can be calculated for all species based on definition (\[eq:def\_R\_L\]), because the corresponding artificial linear dynamical network does not distinguish between pollinator and plant species. In each panel, the pollinators (red dots) and plants (green dots) are placed on the left and right side, respectively, and are arranged in descending values of their degree, with a vertical dashed line separating the two types of species. The striking result is that, for the pollinators, their ranking of linear control importance exhibits a trend opposite to that of nonlinear control importance. A similar behavior occurs for ranking based on betweenness centrality and actual degrees.[]{data-label="fig:4Real_MN"}](figure2.jpg){width="\linewidth"}
![ **Examples of distinct minimum controller sets associated with linear control**. For mutualistic network $E$ as described in [**Methods**]{}, (a) network structure, where the size of a circle (red and green for a pollinator and a plant, respectively) is proportional to the degree of this node, (b-d) three examples of minimum controller sets (black dots), (e) linear control importance ranking, and (f) nonlinear control importance ranking. Other parameters are the same as those in Fig. \[fig:4Real\_MN\].[]{data-label="fig:LC_NC_Net_12"}](figure3.jpg){width="0.8\linewidth"}
We present quantitative results of nonlinear and linear control importance for four empirical mutualistic networks described in [**Methods**]{}, as shown in Fig. \[fig:4Real\_MN\]. For a given empirical network, to calculate the nonlinear control importance based on definition (\[eq:def\_R\_N\]), we begin from a zero value of the average mutualistic interaction strength $\gamma_0$ where the system is in an extinction state without control, apply the control by setting the abundance of a pollinator species at $A_S=1.5$, and systematically increase the value of $\gamma_0$ towards a relatively large value (e.g., 3.0). During this process, the recovery point $\gamma_c^i$ can be obtained. When the values of the recovery point for all pollinator species have been calculated, Eq. (\[eq:def\_R\_N\]) gives the control importance for each species, as shown in Figs. \[fig:4Real\_MN\](a-d) for networks $A-D$, respectively, where the index of the pollinator species on the abscissa is arranged according to the nodal degree. Apart from statistical fluctuations, there is a high level of positive correlation between the nonlinear control importance and degree, i.e., larger degree nodes tend to be more important. In particular, managed control of larger degree nodes is more effective for species recovery. To obtain the linear control importance according to Eq. (\[eq:def\_R\_L\]), we use 1000 random minimum controller sets as determined by the linear exact controllability to calculate the probability for each species to be chosen as a driver node. Note that, because of the artificial imposition of linear time invariant dynamics on each node, there is a probability for any species to be a driver node, regardless of whether it is a pollinator or a plant species. The results are presented in Figs. \[fig:4Real\_MN\](e-h) for networks $A-D$, respectively, where the linear control importance of the pollinators (red dots) and that of the plants (green dots) - separated by the vertical dashed line, are shown. The common feature among the four empirical networks is that the linear control importance ranking has an opposite trend to the nonlinear control importance ranking. That is, smaller degree nodes tend to be more important for linear control. The correlation between linear control importance and degree is thus negative, which is in stark contrast to the behavior of nonlinear control importance. Overall, Figs. \[fig:4Real\_MN\](a-h) reveal that, for nonlinear control of tipping points, managing large degree nodes can be significantly more effective than harnessing small degree nodes, but for linear control of the same network, the large degree nodes play little role in control as they rarely appear in any minimum controller set.
The linear control importance measure, as defined in Eq. (\[eq:def\_R\_L\]), is rooted in the fact that, in the linear controllability theory, typically there are many equivalent minimum controller sets [@CARRSA:2017]. It is useful to visualize such sets. Figure \[fig:LC\_NC\_Net\_12\](a) exhibits a graphical representation of an empirical mutualistic network - network $E$ described in [**Methods**]{}, where the pollinators (red dots) and plants (green dots) are arranged along a circle, and the size of a dot is proportional to the degree of the corresponding node. By definition, mutualistic interactions mean that there are no direct links between any pair of dots with the same color - any link in the network must be between a red and a green dot. For this network, there are altogether approximately $10^{12}$ minimum controller sets of exactly the same size - three examples are shown in Figs. \[fig:LC\_NC\_Net\_12\](b-d), respectively, where the driver nodes are represented by black dots. A feature is that the minimum controller sets tend to avoid nodes of very large degrees in the network, which is consistent with the results in Fig. \[fig:4Real\_MN\]. The corresponding linear and nonlinear control importance rankings are shown in Figs. \[fig:LC\_NC\_Net\_12\](e) and \[fig:LC\_NC\_Net\_12\](f), respectively. A comparison of these results indicates that the ranking behaviors are characteristically distinct, suggesting the difference between linear controllability and nonlinear control - the same message conveyed by Fig. \[fig:4Real\_MN\].
Gene regulatory networks {#gene-regulatory-networks .unnumbered}
------------------------
![ **Nodal importance rankings associated with nonlinear and linear control of a gene regulatory network.** (a,c) Nonlinear and linear control importance rankings for the subnetwork of the giant component of size $60$, respectively. In (a), there are four nodes with $R_{NL} = 1$, because controlling any of these genes will make the system recover immediately from the tipping point collapse when the direction of the change in the bifurcation parameter is reversed. For linear control in (c), the size of any minimum controller set is $N_D = 4$. (b,d) Nonlinear and linear nodal importance rankings for the subnetwork of $81$ nodes with input connection. In (b), there are several genes with $R_{NL} = 0$, as each gene in this group lacks the ability to restore the entire system even when its activity level is maintained at a high level through external control. For linear control in (d), any minimum controller set has $N_D = 17$ nodes. In all panels, the nodal index along the abscissa is arranged in the descending order of the outgoing degrees of the genes.[]{data-label="fig:Gene_net"}](figure4.jpg){width="\linewidth"}
The opposite behaviors in the nodal importance ranking for linear controllability and nonlinear control also arise in gene regulatory networks. For such networks, tipping point dynamics similar to those in mutualistic networks can occur when a biological parameter is reduced, rendering feasible a similar control strategy (see [**Methods**]{}). Figure \[fig:Gene\_net\] shows, for the network of *S. cerevisiae* described in [**Methods**]{}, the nonlinear and linear control importance rankings for two subnetworks: the giant component (a,c) and the subnetwork of all nodes with input connections (b,d). Because of the dense connectivity in the giant component subnetwork, for linear control the size of the minimum controller set is $N_D = 4$ (c). For the subnetwork in (b,d), we have $N_D = 17$. Note that, for nonlinear control of the subnetwork (b), there are several genes that have zero nonlinear control importance, i.e., external management of the activation level of any of these genes is unable to restore the network function destroyed by a tipping point transition. The striking finding is that, for linear control, these genes are exceptionally important because the probability for any of these genes to belong to a minimum controller set is disproportionally high (e.g., $> 80\%$). If one follows the prediction of the linear controllability theory to identify those nodes as important and attempts to use them as the relevant nodes for actual control of the nonlinear network, one would be disappointed as harnessing any of these genes will have no effect on the tipping-point dynamics of the network. The occurrence of such genes with zero nonlinear control importance is the result of the interplay between the Holling-type of nonlinear dynamics and the complex network structure.
Pearson correlation and cosine distance {#pearson-correlation-and-cosine-distance .unnumbered}
---------------------------------------
![ **Pearson correlation and cosine distance between linear and nonlinear control importance**. The abscissa and ordinate correspond to the values of Pearson correlation and cosine distance, respectively, between linear and nonlinear control importance. Each green circle corresponds to a real mutualistic network (there are 43 of them) and the two red dots are for the two gene regulatory subnetworks in Fig. \[fig:Gene\_net\]. If there were a kind of relevance between nonlinear and linear control of the same network, the dots would concentrate in the lower right region of the plane with positive Pearson correlation and a small cosine distance. For most of the empirical networks tested, the dots are in the region of negative correlation with cosine distances below 0.4. For the two gene regulatory subnetworks, not only are the values of the Pearson correlation negative, the cosine distances are also large.[]{data-label="fig:CR_Cos_dis"}](figure5.jpg){width="0.9\linewidth"}
For the five mutualistic networks ($A-E$) and two gene regulatory subnetworks tested so far, the correlation between nonlinear and linear control importance is negative, as shown in Figs. \[fig:4Real\_MN\]-\[fig:Gene\_net\]. To test if this holds for a broad range of empirical networks, we calculate the Pearson correlation and the cosine distance between linear and nonlinear control importance for a large number of real networks, as shown in Fig. \[fig:CR\_Cos\_dis\]. In most cases, the correlation is negative and the cosine distance is large. There are a few mutualistic networks with positive but small correlation. Out of the 43 mutualistic networks, only one has a large correlation value and a small cosine distance (one corresponding to the rightmost green circle). A peculiar feature of this network is that it has only six pollinator species and any minimum controller set in linear control contains four such species, rendering atypical this case.
Our detailed comparison between the control importance ranking in a type of biologically meaningful nonlinear control and in linear control for a large number of real pollinator-plant mutualistic networks and a gene regulatory network provides evidence that linear controllability may generate results that are drastically inconsistent with nonlinear dynamical behaviors and control of the system. In no way should this be a surprise, as the assumption of linear, time-invariant dynamics cannot be expected to hold for nonlinear dynamical networks in the real world. However, there is a recent tendency to apply the linear controllability framework to real-world nonlinear systems such as the *C. elegans* connectome [@YVTCWSB:2017] and brain networks[@GPCTAKMVMG:2015; @MPGCGVB:2016; @Tangetal:2017; @TB:2018]. Although the linear control framework may provide insights into nonlinear dynamical networks under some specific circumstances, controlling highly nonlinear dynamical networks is still an open problem at the present. Nonetheless, a thorough analysis of the linear controllability would give clues to its inappropriateness and likely failure in real world systems (see Appendix A and Figs. \[fig:LC\_elegans\] and \[fig:C\_elegans\_SPC\]).
Discussion {#discussion .unnumbered}
==========
It is apparent that the assumption of linear, time invariant nodal dynamics is not compatible with natural systems in the real world that are governed by nonlinear dynamical processes. Why then study the linear controllability of complex networks? There were two reasons for this. Firstly, when the development of the field of complex network had reached the point at which the problem of control emerged as a forefront problem (around 2011), to adopt linear controllability, a well established framework in traditional control engineering, to complex networks seemed to be a natural starting point. The well developed mathematical foundation of linear control made it possible to address the effect of complex network structure on the controllability in a rigorous manner [@LSB:2011; @YZDWL:2013], physical or biological irrelevance notwithstanding. Secondly, to study the linear controllability of complex networks is justified from the point of view of engineering, as linear dynamical systems are relevant to subfields in engineering such as control and signal processing. That being said, the applicability of the linear controllability to real physical, chemical and biological systems is fundamentally limited because of the ubiquity of nonlinear dynamics in natural systems - a well accepted fact, thanks to more than four decades of extensive and intensive study of nonlinear dynamics and chaos theory. It is imperative and a common sense understanding that the linear controllability of complex networks not be overemphasized and its importance and significance not be overstated.
Quite contrary to the common sense understanding, there are recent claims that linear network controllability is applicable to real biological systems [@YVTCWSB:2017; @GPCTAKMVMG:2015; @MPGCGVB:2016; @Tangetal:2017; @TB:2018] for gaining new understanding. Curiosity demands a thorough reexamination of these claims. More importantly, such claims, if they are indeed unjustified but remain uncorrected, can potentially generate undesirable and negative impacts on the further development of the field of complex network control. These considerations motivated our present work.
The main question we have set out to answer is whether linear controllability is actually relevant to controlling nonlinear dynamical networks. To be able to address this question, it is necessary to have nonlinear networked systems for which a certain type of physically or biologically meaningful control can be carried out. We have identified two classes of such systems: complex pollinator-plant mutualistic networks in ecology and gene regulatory networks in systems biology. We focus on the physically significant issue of controlling tipping points, which enables the nodal importance in the control to be ranked. This is essentially a ranking associated with nonlinear control. Ignoring the nonlinear dynamics and simply using the network structure to treat it as a linear, time-invariant system enable us to calculate the minimum controller set in the linear controllability framework. Taking advantage of the exact controllability theory [@YZDWL:2013], we identify a large number of equivalent configurations of the minimum controller set and find that, typically, there is a probability for almost every node to be in such a set. This probability serves as the base for ranking the nodal importance in linear controllability. The two types of control importance rankings, one nonlinear and another linear, can then be meaningfully compared. The main finding of this paper is that the nonlinear and linear rankings are characteristically different for a large number of real world mutualistic networks and the gene regulatory network of *S. cerevisiae*. In particular, the nonlinear control importance ranking typically exhibits a behavior that in general favors high degree nodes. However, linear ranking typically exhibits the opposite trend that favors small degree nodes. These results are evidence that linear controllability theory generates information that is not useful for nonlinear control of tipping point dynamics in complex biological networks. A quite striking finding is that, for the gene regulatory network of *S. cerevisiae*, there are four genes with essentially zero nonlinear control importance in the sense that managed control of any of these genes is unable to recover the system from the aftermath of a tipping point transition. However, in linear control, these four genes are far more important than other nodes in the network. Thus, for the particular gene regulatory network studied here, linear controllability absolutely has nothing to do with the actual control of the nonlinear dynamical network.
In a recent work [@YVTCWSB:2017], it was claimed that linear structural controllability predicts neuron function in the [*C. elegans*]{} connectome. This real neuronal network has about 300 neurons, which contains four different types of neurons including the sensory neurons, inter-neurons, and motor neurons. A sensory neuron can generate an action potential propagating to other neurons, while an inter-neuron can receive action potentials from sensory neurons or other inter-neurons. The processes of generating and propagating action potentials are highly nonlinear. The claim of Ref. [@YVTCWSB:2017] is thus questionable. We find that the [*C. elegans*]{} connectome, when artificially treated as a linear network, is uncontrollable if the control signals are to be applied to sensory neurons only. A calculation of the linear control importance reveals an approximately uniform ranking across all neurons. The surprising feature is that, on average, a muscle cell is almost twice as important as a motor neuron in terms of linear controllability, but biologically any control signal must flow from neurons to muscle cells, not in the opposite direction. Linear controllability thus yields a result that is apparently biologically meaningless. In fact, the ability to predict neuron function is based on signal propagation from some sensory to some motor neurons, which can be accomplished through random stimulation of some sensory neurons. Because of the existence of great many equivalent minimal control driver sets, which sensory neuron should be chosen to deliver a control signal is completely random. From the point of view of signal paths, there exist vastly large numbers of direct paths from the sensory to the motor neurons. Because of the approximately uniform ranking in nodal importance as a result of the existence of many equivalent minimum controller sets, linear controllability theory, when being used fairly in the sense of taking into considerations of the many controller set realizations, cannot possibly yield any path that is more special than others to uncover hidden biological functions. That is, it is not necessary to use linear controllability to predict any neuron function, contradicting the claim in Ref. [@YVTCWSB:2017]. If control were to play a role in predicting some functions, it must be some kind of nonlinear control (which has not been achieved so far) due to the network dynamics’ being fundamentally nonlinear.
Is it possible to use linear controllability as a kind of centrality measure for complex networks? The answer is “it depends.” An essential requirement for such a measure is the ability to distinguish and rank the nodes in the network according to some criteria. Intuitively, one would hope that the nodes in the minimum controller set may be special and bear importance relative to other nodes. However, as demonstrated in our work, in a complex mutualistic network, the minimum controller set can be anything but unique. For a network of reasonable size, there is typically a vast number of equivalent configurations or realizations of the set, a fact that was seldom stated or studied in the existing literature of linear controllability of complex networks. We note that, besides the linear structural [@LSB:2011] and exact [@YZDWL:2013] controllability theories, there are alternative frameworks such as the energy or linear Gramian based controllability [@GPCTAKMVMG:2015]. However, the Gramian matrix depends on the chosen minimum controller set and the control signal input matrix. Our finding that, for some networks, almost all nodes can be in some realizations of the minimum controller set with approximately equal probability makes it difficult to use or exploit linear controllability as a centrality measure for nodal ranking, such as network $A$ in Fig. \[fig:4Real\_MN\](e). However, for other networks, some nodes are always or never in a driver set, which give a distribution of nodes in the minimum controller set. The distribution with respect to the topology of the network may be informative and characteristic of some empirical contexts [@RR:2014; @CARRSA:2017].
The type of nonlinear control exploited in this paper for comparison with linear controllability is controlled management of the aftermath of a tipping point transition to enable species recovery. While this is a special type of control, its merit is rooted in the feasibility to quantify and rank the ability of individual nodes to promote recovery of the nonlinear dynamical network, so that the node-based, nonlinear control importance can be meaningfully compared with the corresponding linear control importance. Is there a more general approach to nonlinear network control which can be used for comparison with linear network control? We do not have an answer at the present, as the collective behaviors of nonlinear dynamical networks are extremely diverse, so are the possible control strategies [@WC:2002; @LWC:2004; @SBGC:2007; @YCL:2009; @FMKS:2013; @MFKS:2013; @WSHWWGL:2016; @ZYA:2017; @KSS:2017b]. However, regardless of the type of nonlinear control, heterogeneity in the nodal importance ranking can be anticipated in general, due to the interplay between the nonlinear nodal dynamics and network structure. In contrast, as demonstrated in this paper, nodal importance ranking associated with linear controllability of complex networks exhibits a kind of heterogeneity opposite to that with nonlinear control, rendering linear controllability not useful for nonlinear dynamical networks in general.
Methods {#methods .unnumbered}
=======
General principle {#general-principle .unnumbered}
-----------------
To obtain a statistical description of the roles played by the individual nodes and compare the nodal importance for nonlinear and linear control, we seek real world systems that meet the following two criteria: (a) the underlying dynamical network is fundamentally nonlinear, for which a detailed mathematical description of the model is available, and (b) there exists an issue of practical significance, with which nonlinear control is feasible. We find that mutualistic networks with a Holling type of dynamics [@Holling:1959; @Holling:1973] in ecology [@BJMO:2003; @GJT:2011; @NJB:2013; @LNSB:2014; @RSB:2014; @DB:2014; @GPJBT:2017; @JHSLGHL:2018] and gene regulatory networks with Michaelis-Menten type of dynamics in systems biology [@Alon:2006; @BBILA:2006; @GBB:2016] satisfy these two criteria, with respect to the significant and broadly interesting issue of controlling tipping points.
Nonlinear dynamical networks {#nonlinear-dynamical-networks .unnumbered}
----------------------------
We have performed calculations and analyses for a large number of real-world pollinator-plant mutualistic networks available from the Web of Life database (http://www.web-of-life.es), which were reconstructed from empirical data collected from different geographic regions across different continents and climatic zones. The results reported in the main text are from the following five representative mutualistic networks: (a) network $A$ ($N_A=38$ and $N_P=11$ with the number of mutualistic links $L=106$) from empirical data from Tenerife, Canary Islands [@DHO:2003], (b) network $B$ ($N_A=79$, $N_P=25$, and $L=299$) from Bristol, England [@Memmott:1999], (c) network $C$ ($N_A=36$, $N_P=61$, and $L=178$) from Morant Point, Jamaica [@Percival:1974], (d) network $D$ ($N_A=51$, $N_P=17$, and $L=129$) from Tenerife, Canary Islands, and (e) network $E$ ($N_A=55$, $N_P=29$, and $L=145$) from Garajonay, Gomera, Spain.
As a concrete example of gene regulatory networks, we study the transcription network of *S. cerevisiae* of $4441$ nodes, for the representative parameter setting [@BBILA:2006] $B=1$, $f=1$, and $h=2$. In spite of the large number of genes involved in the network, the giant connected component in which each node can reach and is reachable from others along a directed path has $60$ nodes only, and the size of the component in which each and every node has at least one incoming connection is $81$.
Nonlinear control importance ranking {#nonlinear-control-importance-ranking .unnumbered}
------------------------------------
For convenience, here we use the term “nonlinear control importance” to mean the statistical characterization of the nodal importance when carrying out a physically meaningful type of control of the nonlinear dynamical network. Especially, we focus on controlling tipping points in complex pollinator-plant mutualistic networks and gene regulatory networks.
For the mutualistic networks, a typical scenario for a tipping point to occur is when the average mutualistic strength $\gamma_0$ is decreased towards zero. The tipping point occurs at a critical value $\gamma_0^c$, at which the abundances of all species decrease to near zero values. There is global extinction for $\gamma_0 \le \gamma_0^c$. When $\gamma_0$ is increased from a value in the extinction region (e.g., in an attempt to restore the species abundances through improvement of the environment), recovery is not possible without control. A realistic control strategy was articulated, in which the abundance of a single pollinator species is maintained at a constant value, say $A_S$, through external means such as human management. We have observed numerically that, in the presence of control, a full recovery of all species abundances can be achieved - the phenomenon of “control enabled recovery.” For the same value of the controlled species level $A_S$, the critical $\gamma_0$ value of the recovery point depends on the particular species (node) subject to control. A smaller recovery point in $\gamma_0$ thus indicates that the control is more effective, which is species dependent. The species, or nodes in the network, can then be ranked with respect to the control. This provides a way to define the nodal importance associated with control of the underlying nonlinear network. In particular, let $\gamma_c^i$ be the system recovery point when the $i$th pollinator is subject to control. Choosing each and every pollinator species in turn as the controlled species, we obtain a set of values of the recovery point: $\{\gamma_c^i \}^{N_A}_{i=1}$. Let $\gamma_c^{max}$ and $\gamma_c^{min}$ be the maximum and minimum values of the set. The importance of the pollinator species $i$ associated with control of the tipping point can then be defined as $$\label{eq:def_R_N}
R_{NL}^i=\frac{\gamma_c^{max}-\gamma_c^i}{\gamma_c^{max}-\gamma_c^{min}},$$ where $0 \le R_{NL}^i \le 1$ and the control is more effective or, equivalently, the node subject to the control is more “important” if its corresponding value of $R_{NL}^i$ is larger.
For the gene regulatory network, decreasing the value of the bifurcation parameter $C$ from one will result in a tipping point at which the activities of all genes suddenly collapse to near zero values. The behavior of sudden extinction at the tipping point can be harnessed by maintaining the activity level of a single active gene, e.g., the most active gene. In particular, when such control is present, the genes “die” in a benign way in that the death occurs one after another as the value of $C$ approaches zero, effectively eliminating the tipping point. We also find that, without control, it is not possible to recover the gene activities by increasing the value of $C$, but a full recovery can be achieved with control. When a different gene is chosen as the controlled target, for the same level of maintained activity, the recovery point on the $C$ axis, denoted as $C_c$, is different, which provides the base to rank the “importance” of the genes with respect to control of the nonlinear network. A gene with a relatively smaller value of $C_c$ is more important, as control targeted at it is more effective to restore the gene activities in the network.
Similar to our approach to ranking the control importance for the pollinator-plant mutualistic networks, we define the following importance measure for gene $i$: $$\label{eq:def_R_N_g}
R_{NL}^i=\frac{C_c^{max}-C_c^i}{C_c^{max}-C_c^{min}},$$ Where $C_c^i$ is the critical expression level to recover the whole system when the gene is subject to control, $C_c^{max}$ and $C_c^{min}$ are the maximum and minimum values of the recovery point among all the genes in the network.
![ **Illustration of non-uniqueness of driver node set in linear network control.** (a) A 10-node undirected network. Five eigenvalues of the network connection matrix are identical: $\lambda = -1$, so its algebraic multiplicity is five. The geometric multiplicity of this eigenvalue is the number of linearly dependent rows in the matrix $\lambda_i \mathcal{I}_N - \mathcal{A}$, which can be determined through elementary column transforms. (b) The matrix $\lambda_i \mathcal{I}_N - \mathcal{A}$ and its representation after a series of elementary column transforms. The first, second, third, fifth, and eighth rows are distinct from all other rows, so they are linearly independent. The fourth, sixth, seventh, ninth and tenth rows are linearly dependent rows. Because there are five linearly independent and five linearly dependent rows, the number of ways to choose the latter is $54$. (c-f) Four distinct ways to choose the control input matrix to make the rank of the matrix $\lambda_i \mathcal{I}_N - \mathcal{A},\mathcal{B}$ ten. For this small network of size ten, any one of the nine out of the the ten nodes can be chosen to be a driver node.[]{data-label="fig:ECT_B"}](figure6.jpg){width="\linewidth"}
Linear control importance ranking {#linear-control-importance-ranking .unnumbered}
---------------------------------
Here, the term “linear control importance ranking” is referred to as the statistical ranking of the nodes in terms of their roles in the control of the underlying linear dynamical network. This ranking can be determined by the exact linear controllability theory [@YZDWL:2013]. To do so, we follow the existing studies that advocate the use of linear controllability for real world networked systems, such as those in Refs. [@YVTCWSB:2017; @GPCTAKMVMG:2015; @MPGCGVB:2016; @Tangetal:2017; @TB:2018]. That is, we completely ignore the fact that the mutualistic network system and the gene regulatory network are highly nonlinear dynamical systems and instead treat them fictitiously as linear dynamical networks. For a network of $N$ nodes whose connecting topology is characterized by the adjacent matrix $\mathcal{A}$, the linear control problem is formulated according to the following standard setting of canonically linear, time-invariant dynamical system: $$\label{eq:LSE}
\frac{d\mathbf{x}(t)}{dt}=\mathcal{A} \cdot \mathbf{x}(t) +
\mathcal{B} \cdot \mathbf{u}(t),$$ where $\mathbf{x}(t) \equiv (x_1(t),...,x_N(t))^T$ is the state vector of the system, $\mathcal{B}$ is the $N\times M$ input matrix ($M\leq N$) that specifies the control configuration - the set of $M$ nodes (driver nodes) to which external control signals $\mathbf{u}(t) = (u_1(t),...,u_M(t))^T$ should be applied. In general, the linear networked system Eq. (\[eq:LSE\]) can be controlled [@Rugh:book] for properly chosen control vector $\mathbf{u}$ and for $M \ge N_D$, where $N_D$ is the minimum number of external signals required to fully control the network. The classic Kalman controllability rank condition [@Kalman:1963] states that, system Eq. (\[eq:LSE\]) is controllable in the sense that it can be driven from any initial state to any desired final state in finite time if and only if the following $N\times NM$ controllability matrix $$\mathcal{C}=(\mathcal{B}, \mathcal{A}\cdot\mathcal{B}, \mathcal{A}^2\cdot\mathcal{B},\ldots,\mathcal{A}^{N-1}\cdot \mathcal{B}),$$ has full rank: $$\mbox{rank}(C)=N.$$ For a complex directed network, the linear structural controllability theory [@Lin:1974] can be used to determine $N_D$ through identification of maximum matching [@LSB:2011], the maximum set of links that do not share starting or ending nodes. A node is matched if there is a link in the maximum matching set points at it, and the directed network can be fully controlled if and only if there is a control signal on each unmatched node, so $N_D$ is simply the number of unmatched nodes in the network.
An alternative linear controllability framework, which is applicable to complex networks of arbitrary topology (e.g., directed or undirected, weighted or unweighted), is the exact controllability theory [@YZDWL:2013] derived from the PBH rank condition [@PBH:1969]. In particular, the linear system Eq. (\[eq:LSE\]) is fully controllable if and only if the following PBH rank condition $$\label{eq:PBH_rank}
\mbox{rank}(c \mathcal{I}_N - \mathcal{A},\mathcal{B})=N,$$ is met for any complex number $c$, where $\mathcal{I}_N$ is the $N\times N$ identity matrix. For any complex network defined by the general interaction matrix $\mathcal{A}$, it was proven [@YZDWL:2013] that the network is fully controllable if and only if each and every eigenvalue $\lambda$ of $\mathcal{A}$ satisfies Eq. (\[eq:PBH\_rank\]). For a set of control input matrices $\mathcal{B}$, $N_D$ can be determined as $N_D=min\{\mbox{rank}(B)\}$. An equivalent but more practically useful criterion [@YZDWL:2013] is that, for a directed network, $N_D$ is nothing but the maximum geometric multiplicity $\mu(\lambda_i)$ of the eigenvalue $\lambda_i$ of $A$: $$\label{eq:mini_set}
N_D = max_i\{\mu(\lambda_i)\},$$ where $\lambda_i$ ($i=1,\ldots,l \le N$) are the distinct eigenvalues of $\mathcal{A}$ and geometric multiplicity of $\lambda_i$ is given by $$\mu(\lambda_i)=dimV_{\lambda_i} = N - \mbox{rank}(\lambda_i\mathcal{I}_N
- \mathcal{A}).$$ For a directed network, the exact controllability theory gives the same value of $N_D$ as determined by the structural controllability theory. For an undirected network with arbitrary link weights, $N_D$ is determined by the maximum algebraic multiplicity (the eigenvalue degeneracy) $\delta(\lambda_i)$ of $\lambda_i$: $$\label{eq:ms_udnet}
N_D = max_i\{\delta(\lambda_i)\}.$$ An issue of critical importance to our work but which is often ignored in the existing literature on linear network controllability is the non-uniqueness of the set of the required driver nodes. In fact, for an arbitrary network with the value of $N_D$ determined, there can be a large number of equivalent configurations of the driver node set. This can be seen from the matrix $c \mathcal{I}_N - \mathcal{A}$ that appears in the PBH rank condition Eq. (\[eq:PBH\_rank\]). When $c$ is replaced by one of the eigenvalues of $\mathcal{A}$, say $\lambda_i$ (the one with the maximum algebraic multiplicity), the matrix $\lambda_i \mathcal{I}_N - \mathcal{A}$ contains at least one dependent row. The quantity $N_D$ is nothing but the number of linearly dependent rows of $\lambda_i \mathcal{I}_N - \mathcal{A}$. The control signals should then be applied to those nodes that correspond to the linearly dependent rows to make full rank the combined matrix $\lambda_i \mathcal{I}_N - \mathcal{A},\mathcal{B})$ in Eq. (\[eq:PBH\_rank\]), as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:ECT\_B\] for a small network of size $N = 10$. The key fact is that there can be multiple but equivalent choices of the linearly dependent rows of the matrix $\lambda_i \mathcal{I}_N - \mathcal{A}$. For the small $10\times 10$ network in Fig. \[fig:ECT\_B\], there are $54$ such choices. The $N_D = 5$ driver nodes can then be chosen from the $N' = 9$ nodes as determined by the linearly dependent rows of $\lambda_i \mathcal{I}_N - \mathcal{A}$. When the network size $N$ is large, the $N_D \ll N$ driver nodes can be chosen from $N' \alt N$ nodes. Since $N_D \ll N'$, there can be great many distinct possibilities for choosing the set of driver nodes (the number increases faster than exponential with the network size). It is thus justified to define the probability for a node to be chosen as one of the driver nodes, so that the importance of each individual node in linear control can be determined. Specifically, the linear control importance of node $i$ can be defined as $$\label{eq:def_R_L}
R_L^i = F_i/F,$$ where $F$ is the total number of configurations of the minimum controller sets calculated and $F_i$ is the times that the $i^{th}$ node appears in these configurations. The probability $R_L^i$ thus gives the linear control importance ranking of the network, which can be meaningfully compared with the nonlinear control importance ranking.
Data Availability {#data-availability .unnumbered}
=================
All relevant data are available from the authors upon request.
Code Availability {#code-availability .unnumbered}
=================
All relevant computer codes are available from the authors upon request.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We would like to acknowledge support from the Vannevar Bush Faculty Fellowship program sponsored by the Basic Research Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering and funded by the Office of Naval Research through Grant No. N00014-16-1-2828.
Author Contributions {#author-contributions .unnumbered}
====================
YCL conceived the project. JJ performed computations and analysis. Both analyzed data. YCL wrote the paper with help from JJ.
Competing Interests {#competing-interests .unnumbered}
===================
The authors declare no competing interests.
Correspondence {#correspondence .unnumbered}
==============
To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected].
Linear controllability of *C. elegans* connectome
=================================================
![ [**Linear control importance ranking for *Caenorhabditis elegans* connectome.**]{} (a) A graphical representation of *C. elegans* connectome. The network contains $282$ neurons and $97$ muscle cells, where the yellow, green, magenta, and red nodes represent sensory neurons, inter-neurons, motor neurons, and muscle cells, respectively. The size of a node is proportional to the sum of its in- and out-degrees. The dynamical network is nonlinear, but a mathematical description of reasonable detail is not available at the present. When the network is artificially treated as a linear, time-invariant system, the size of the minimum controller set is $N_D = 101$. (b) Linear control importance ranking, where the index on the abscissa is arranged in a descending order of the nodal degree (sum of in- and out-degrees). The importance distribution is approximately uniform across the nodes, except for a small fraction of nodes. (c,d) Two realizations of the minimum controller set (black dots). Because of the relatively large size of the network, the number of distinct minimum controller sets is quite large.[]{data-label="fig:LC_elegans"}](figure7.jpg){width="\linewidth"}
We report results from a linear controllability analysis of *C. elegans* connectome, whose network structure is shown in Fig. \[fig:LC\_elegans\](a). In a recent work [@YVTCWSB:2017], the neural network was treated as a linear, time invariant dynamical system with control input signals applied to sensory neurons. It was found that such a control signal would propagate to some motor neurons, and the removal of one such neuron (that had not been identified previously) would affect the muscle movement or function [@YVTCWSB:2017]. We have calculated that the size of the minimum controller set is quite large: $N_D = 101$, which means that, since there are only $86$ sensory neurons in *C. elegans* connectome, it is not possible to control the linear network even when each and every sensory neuron receives one independent driving signal. There are many possible ways to place the required $N_D = 101$ control signals in the network, leading to many configurations of the minimum controller set. We find that a typical realization of the set contains both motor neurons and muscle cells. Figures \[fig:LC\_elegans\](b) and \[fig:LC\_elegans\](c) display two examples of the minimum controller set, where the driver nodes are represented by black dots. The two realizations share 43 common driver nodes, and the number of distinct drivers is 58. Note the appearance of some muscle cells in both realizations. Utilizing $1000$ random realizations, we calculate the linear control importance ranking, as shown in Fig. \[fig:LC\_elegans\](d). It can be seen that the statistical distribution of the importance is approximately uniform for most nodes in the network, with only a few exceptions. There is a probability for almost any neuron or muscle cell to belong to some specific realization of the minimum controller set. We find that the average values of the linear control importance for the three groups of neurons (sensory, inter- and motor neurons) are approximately the same: $\langle R_L\rangle_{SN}\approx 0.230$, $\langle R_L\rangle_{IN}\approx 0.211$, and $\langle R_L \rangle_{MN} \approx 0.221$. However, the average linear nodal importance for muscle cells is higher: $\langle R_L\rangle_{MC}\approx 0.399$. These data indicate that the neurons in the connectome have equal chance to be selected as a driver node, but a muscle cell is almost twice more likely to appear in the minimum controller set. This result contradicts a general understanding from both the biological and control perspectives, and has intriguing implications to the relevance of the linear controllability theory to *C. elegans* connectome. Specifically, from the point of view of biology, neurons send signals to the muscle cells, but not the other way around. From the standpoint of actual control of the network, a biologically meaningful driver set should favor neurons. Yet the linear controllability theory gives the opposite result, in contrast to the claim in Ref. [@YVTCWSB:2017].
In Ref. [@YVTCWSB:2017], some particular signal paths from the sensory neurons to a special motor neuron were identified and deemed to be particularly important based on the linear controllability theory. Does linear control really reveal any specially important motor neurons, i.e., are there any differences among the motor neurons in terms of linear control importance? To address this question, we map out all the direct paths among the sensory and motor neurons that control the muscle cells and hence the movement of *C. elegans*. Figure \[fig:C\_elegans\_SPC\](a) shows the total numbers of direct paths of length $l$ less than or equal to five, six, and seven from the sensory neurons to each and every motor neuron, where the abscissa is the motor neuron index. The number of these paths is large. For example, for $l \le 7$, for each and every motor neuron, there are between $10^6$ and $10^8$ such paths. Apart from statistical fluctuations, the numbers of paths are approximately constant across all the motor neurons, suggesting the nonexistence of any special motor neuron. A matrix representation of the paths for $l \le 7$ is shown in Fig. \[fig:C\_elegans\_SPC\](b). Between each and every pair of sensory and motor neurons, the number of such paths is at least of the order of $10^6$, although the numbers associated some specific paths can be about two orders of magnitude higher.
Description of real-world mutualistic networks
==============================================
\[ht!\]
---------------------------------------------- ----- ----- ------ --------------------------------------------
[[** – continued from previous page**]{}]{}
1 101 84 0.04 Cordón del Cepo, Chile
2 64 43 0.07 Cordón del Cepo, Chile
3 25 36 0.09 Cordón del Cepo, Chile
4 102 12 0.14 Central New Brunswick, Canada
5 275 96 0.03 Pikes Peak, Colorado, USA
6 61 17 0.14 Hickling, Norfolk, UK
7 36 16 0.15 Shelfanger, Norfolk, UK
8 38 11 0.25 Tenerife, Canary Islands
9 118 24 0.09 Latnjajaure, Abisko, Sweden
10 76 31 0.19 Zackenberg
11 13 14 0.29 Mauritius Island
12 55 29 0.09 Garajonay, Gomera, Spain
13 56 9 0.2 KwaZulu-Natal region, South Africa
14 81 29 0.08 Hazen Camp, Ellesmere Island, Canada
15 666 131 0.03 DaphnÃ, Athens, Greece
16 179 26 0.09 Doñana National Park, Spain
17 79 25 0.15 Bristol, England
18 108 36 0.09 Hestehaven, Denmark
19 85 40 0.08 Snowy Mountains, Australia
20 91 20 0.1 Hazen Camp, Ellesmere Island, Canada
21 677 91 0.02 Ashu, Kyoto, Japan
22 45 21 0.09 Laguna Diamante, Mendoza, Argentina
23 72 23 0.08 Rio Blanco, Mendoza, Argentina
24 18 11 0.19 Melville Island, Canada
25 44 13 0.25 North Carolina, USA
26 54 105 0.04 Galapagos
27 60 18 0.11 Arthur’s Pass, New Zealand
28 139 41 0.07 Cass, New Zealand
29 118 49 0.06 Craigieburn, New Zealand
30 53 28 0.07 Guarico State, Venezuela
31 49 48 0.07 Canaima Nat. Park, Venezuela
32 33 7 0.28 Brownfield, Illinois, USA
33 34 13 0.32 Ottawa, Canada
34 128 26 0.09 Chiloe, Chile
35 36 61 0.08 Morant Point, Jamaica
36 12 10 0.25 Flores, Açores Island
37 40 10 0.18 Hestehaven, Denmark
38 42 8 0.24 Hestehaven, Denmark
39 51 17 0.15 Tenerife, Canary Islands
40 43 29 0.09 Windsor, The Cockpit Country, Jamaica
41 43 31 0.11 Syndicate, Dominica
42 6 12 0.35 Puerto Villamil, Isabela Island, Galapagos
43 82 28 0.11 Hestehaven, Denmark
44 609 110 0.02 Amami-Ohsima Island, Japan
45 26 17 0.14 Uummannaq Island, Greenland
46 44 16 0.39 Denmark
47 186 19 0.12 Isenbjerg
48 236 30 0.09 Denmark
49 225 37 0.07 Denmark
50 35 14 0.18 Tenerife, Canary Islands
51 90 14 0.13 Nahuel Huapi National Park, Argentina
52 39 15 0.16 Tundra, Greenladn
53 294 99 0.02 Mt. Yufu, Japan
54 318 113 0.02 Kyoto City, Japan
55 195 64 0.03 Nakaikemi marsh, Fukui Prefecture, Japan
56 365 91 0.03 Mt. Kushigata, Yamanashi Pref., Japan
57 883 114 0.02 Kibune, Kyoto, Japan
58 81 32 0.12 Parc Natural del Cap de Creus
59 13 13 0.42 Parque Nacional do Catimbau
---------------------------------------------- ----- ----- ------ --------------------------------------------
: The $59$ real pollinator-plant networks are from web-of-life (http://www.web-of-life.es). For each network, the linkage is normalized with respect to the corresponding fully connected (all-to-all) network for which the linkage is $100\%$.
[70]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevX.5.011005) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevE.91.012826) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [**]{}, ed. (, ) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [**** ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.198301) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [**]{} (, ) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/RevModPhys.90.031003) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [**]{}, ed. (, , )
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'When a square tube is brought in contact with bulk liquid, the liquid wets the corners of the tube, and creates finger-like wetted region. The wetting of the liquid then takes place with the growth of two parts, the bulk part where the cross section is entirely filled with the liquid and the finger part where the cross section of the tube is partially filled. In the previous works, the growth of these two parts has been discussed separately. Here we conduct the analysis by explicitly accounting for the coupling of the two parts. We propose coupled equations for the liquid imbibition in both parts and show that (a) the length of each part, $h_0$ and $h_1$, both increases in time $t$ following the Lucas-Washburn’s law, $h_0 \sim t^{1/2}$ and $h_1 \sim t^{1/2}$, but that (b) the coefficients are different from those obtained in the previous analysis which ignored the coupling.'
author:
- Tian Yu
- Jiajia Zhou
- Masao Doi
bibliography:
- 'yu.bib'
title: Capillary Imbibition in a Square Tube
---
Introduction
============
The spontaneous filling of liquids into microchannels driven by capillary action is crucial for a broad range of applications, such as in microfluidic devices [@grunze1999driven; @gau1999liquid; @lai2010microchip], lithography [@unger2000monolithic], DNA manipulation [@burns1998integrated], and liquid management in low-gravitation environments [@weislogel2003some]. A pioneering work on the dynamics of the imbibition was conducted by Lucas [@lucas1918time] and Washburn [@washburn1921dynamics] nearly a century ago. They considered the imbibition process in a circular tube which is brought in contact with bulk liquid. When the effect of gravity and inertia are ignored, they showed that the time dependence of the filling length, $h(t)$, is described by $$\label{corrugate_1}
h(t) = k \, t^{1/2} = \sqrt {\frac{ \gamma a \cos\theta}{2\eta}} \, t^{1/2} \, ,$$ where $a$ is the radius of the tube, $\theta$ is the equilibrium contact angle of the liquid to the tube surface, $\eta$ and $\gamma$ are the viscosity and surface tension of the liquid. The $t^{1/2}$ scaling of Lucas-Washburn has been confirmed experimentally in macroscopic systems as well as in nanoscale systems [@schebarchov2008dynamics; @dimitrov2007capillary; @YaoYang2017; @YaoYang2018; @YaoYang2018a].
The Lucas-Washburn formula was obtained by considering the bulk part of the liquid only, and ignoring the front part which involves complex boundaries and complex flow fields. Such treatment is justified as long as the size of the front portion is small compared with the bulk part. If the tube has a circular cross section, such condition is fulfilled since the liquid front takes a spherical shape and its length remains finite during the imbibition process. On the other hand, if the tube has a triangular, or a square cross section (or in general polygonal shape), the effect of the front part cannot be neglected. In such a tube, the liquid wets the corners, and forms “fingers”. The liquid imbibition thus takes place with two parts, the bulk part and the finger part, both grow in time.
Many studies have been performed for the capillary filling in non-circular tubes. Theoretical calculations have been done for the filling length $h(t)$ in tubes having various cross sections, such as triangular [@rye1996wetting; @romero1996flow; @mann1995flow], rectangular [@ichikawa2004interface; @yang2011dynamics], and skewed U-shaped channels [@chen2009capillary]. Those calculations indicate that $h(t)$ obeys the Lucas-Washburn $t^{1/2}$ scaling. The front coefficient $k$ in Eq. (\[corrugate\_1\]) varies depending on the geometry and the roughness of the channel walls [@ouali2013wetting], and was shown consistently less than what Lucas-Washburn equation (\[corrugate\_1\]) predicts [@Chauvet2012]. In all these calculations, the effect of the finger part has been ignored.
In this paper, we will consider the problem of liquid imbibition in a square tube, accounting for the coupling explicitly between the bulk part and the finger part. Similar system has been studied by Weislogel [@Weislogel2012] using the Laplacian scaling method [@Weislogel2008]. We shall show that both bulk part and the finger part grows in time obeying the Lucas-Washburn law, but differ in the numerical coefficients. The imbibition is slowed down by ca 3% due to the presence of the finger part.
Model and Theory
================
We consider a horizontal square tube with a side length $2a$, put in touch with an infinite reservoir of liquid of viscosity $\eta$ and surface tension $\gamma$. A schematic picture of the system is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:sketch\](a). Here we consider the simple case of fully wetted liquid, i.e., the contact angle $\theta$ is equal to zero. A bulk liquid imbibes into the tube, accompanied by advancing fingers that wet the corners. The fingers can form when the liquid’s contact angle is less than a critical contact angle $\theta_c = 45^{\circ}$ for a square tube [@concus1969behavior; @langbein1990shape; @higuera2008capillary]. The imbibition length of liquid in the bulk is denoted by $h_0$ and the length of the meniscus front of the thin fingers is $h_1$. The liquid length of the transition region connecting the bulk and the thin fingers is $\ell$. During the imbibition process, the length $\ell$ remains finite and becomes negligibly small at late times when both $h_0$ and $h_1$ become large. Therefore, we will consider a simplified picture shown in Fig. \[fig:sketch\](b), and neglect the transition region.
We shall derive the time evolution equations for both the bulk and finger parts of the imbibing fluid using Onsager principle [@doi2013soft]. The Onsager principle presents a general framework to derive the time evolution equation for non-equilibrium system, and the method has been successfully applied to various soft matter systems [@doi2015onsager; @MengFanlong2016a; @DiYana2016; @XuXianmin2016; @ManXingkun2016; @ZhouJiajia2017; @ManXingkun2017; @DiYana2018]. For the present problem, this principle amounts to the least energy dissipation principle in Stokesian hydrodynamics, which states that the dynamics of system can be directly determined by the minimum of the Rayleighian defined by $$\label{corrugate_1_1}
\mathscr{R}=\dot{F}+\Phi\, ,$$ where $\dot{F}$ represents the time derivative of the free energy of the system, and $\Phi$ represents the energy dissipation function, equal to half of the work done to the liquid per unit time.
Free energy
-----------
and saturation is the fraction of area occupied by the wetting liquid in a cross-section of the tube. The radius can be written as a function of . The free energy of the system can be written as $$F = \int {\mathrm{d}}z f(s(z)),$$ where $f(s)$ is the local free energy density (free energy per unit length), which is a function of the local saturation $s(z)$.
[![ The black straight line goes through the two points with $s=s^*$ and $s=1$ of the curve of the free energy density for $\theta=0$. The slope of the straight line is equal to the derivative of the free energy density at the point of the equilibrium saturation $s^*$ through Eq. (\[eq:fs1\]). []{data-label="fig:freeE"}](fig2.eps "fig:")]{}
- In this case, the saturation has to satisfy the condition $$1 - \frac{\pi}{4} \le {\textcolor{black}{s(z)}} \le 1.$$ The radius of the circle is given by $${\textcolor{black}{r(z)}} = \sqrt{ \frac{4}{\pi} \big(1-{\textcolor{black}{s(z)}}\big) } a.$$ The free energy density is given by $$f(s) = 8 a (\gamma_{\rm LS} - \gamma_{\rm VS}) + 2\pi {\textcolor{black}{r(z)}} \gamma
= \left[ -8 \cos\theta + 4 \sqrt{\pi \big(1-{\textcolor{black}{s(z)}}\big)} \right] a \gamma .
\label{eq:fsO}$$ where $\gamma_{\rm LS}$ and $\gamma_{\rm VS}$ are the interfacial tensions at the liquid-solid and vapor-solid interfaces, respectively. In the last line, we have used the Young’s relation for the contact angle, $\gamma_{\rm LS} + \gamma \cos\theta = \gamma_{\rm VS}$.
- This critical saturation is given by $$s_c = \frac{C}{( \cos\theta - \sin\theta)^2}, \quad C = \cos^2 \theta - \sin\theta \cos\theta - (\frac{\pi}{4} - \theta).$$ The saturation has to satisfy the condition $$0 \le {\textcolor{black}{s(z)}} \le s_c.$$ The radius $r$ is given by $${\textcolor{black}{r(z)}} = \sqrt{ \frac{{\textcolor{black}{s(z)}}}{C} } a,$$ and the free energy density is given by $$\begin{aligned}
f(s) &=& 8 \big({\textcolor{black}{r(z)}} \cos\theta-{\textcolor{black}{r(z)}} \sin\theta \big)(\gamma_{\rm LS}-\gamma_{\rm VS}) + (2\pi-8\theta) {\textcolor{black}{r(z)}}\gamma
\nonumber \\
&=& \big[-8 (\cos\theta-\sin\theta)\cos\theta + 2\pi-8\theta\big] a\gamma \sqrt{\frac{{\textcolor{black}{s(z)}}}{C}}.
\label{eq:fs1}\end{aligned}$$
Figure \[fig:freeE\] shows the free energy density as a function of the saturation $s$ for different contact angles $\theta$ \[given by Eq. (\[eq:fsO\]) and Eq. (\[eq:fs1\])\]. For contact angle $\theta > 0$, one can show that the critical saturation $s_c > 1 - \frac{\pi}{4}$, thus in the saturation range $1-\frac{\pi}{4} < {\textcolor{black}{s(z)}} < s_c$, both states are possible.
For large saturation, the second derivative of the free energy density ${\mathrm{d}}^2 f(s)/ {\mathrm{d}}s^2$ is negative, indicating an unstable state. One of the possible stable state is $s=1$, the fully saturated state. The other possible state is given by drawing a straight line passing through $f(s=1)$ point, and the line is also tangential to the free energy curve at a small saturation $s=s^*$. This is shown as the black line for the case of $\theta=0$ in Fig. \[fig:freeE\]. For the perfectly wetting case ($\theta=0$), the saturation $s^* \simeq 0.06$ (See Appendix \[app:freeE\] for details).
Dissipation function
--------------------
We assume that liquid imbibes slowly in a horizontal capillary tube and ignore the effect of gravity and inertia. The flow of liquid is almost one-dimensional, i.e., the $z$-component of the flow velocity, $v_z$, is much larger than those in the other two directions. Thus the flow of liquid satisfies the Stokes equation $$\label{corrugate_6}
\eta \left( \frac{\partial^2 v_z}{\partial x^2}+\frac{\partial^2 v_z}{\partial y^2} \right) =\frac{\partial p}{\partial z}\, ,$$ The flow velocity $v_z$ can be expressed in a dimensionless form as [@ransohoff1988laminar] $$\label{corrugate_7}
\bar{u}=\frac{ \eta v_z}{{\textcolor{black}{L}}^2(-\frac{\partial p}{\partial z})}\, ,$$ $$\label{corrugate_8}
\frac{\partial^2 \bar{u}}{\partial \bar{x}^2}+\frac{\partial^2 \bar{u}}{\partial \bar{y}^2} =-1\, ,$$ with no-slip boundary conditions $\bar{u}=0$ at the liquid-solid interfaces and shear-free boundary condition $\bm{n}\cdot\ \nabla\bar{u}=0$ at the free surface, where $\bm{n}$ is the normal vector of the meniscus surface.
The friction constant $\xi $ of the system is given by the Darcy’s law $$\label{corrugate_9}
\frac{\partial p}{\partial z}=-\xi Q\, ,$$ where $ Q=\int \mathrm{d}x\mathrm{d}y \, {\textcolor{black}{v_z}} $ is the volume flux of liquid threading a cross section per unit time. Combining Eq. (\[corrugate\_7\]) and Eq. (\[corrugate\_9\]), $\xi $ is written as $$\label{corrugate_10}
\xi = \frac{\eta}{{\textcolor{black}{L}}^4 \int \mathrm{d}\bar{x}\mathrm{d}\bar{y} \mathop{}\!\bar{u} }\, ,$$
For a perfectly wetting liquid in the bulk and the fingers, the friction constant $\xi$ can be calculated as a function of saturation $s$. For the bulk part $s=1$, the friction constant is $$\label{corrugate_11}
\xi (s=1)=\frac{\eta B_0}{a^4}, \quad B_0 \simeq 1.7784.$$ For the finger part $$\label{corrugate_12}
\xi (s<s^*){\textcolor{black}{=\frac{106.5\eta}{r(z)^4}}}=\frac{\eta B_1}{a^4{\textcolor{black}{s(z)}}^2}, \quad B_1 \simeq 5.0 .$$ The dissipation function is then given by \[corrugate\_12\_1\] $$\Phi = \frac{1}{2} \int {\mathrm{d}}z \, \xi(s) \, [Q(z)]^2.$$
Capillary flow in the bulk
--------------------------
We start with liquid flow in the bulk and ignore the effect of liquid imbibition in the fingers for the moment. Taking the case of perfectly wetting as an example, the time derivative of the free energy of the liquid in the bulk $\dot{F}$ is obtained through Eq. (\[eq:fsO\]) as $$\label{corrugate_14}
\dot{F}=-8a\gamma\dot{h}_0\, ,$$ where $\dot{h}_0={\mathrm{d}}h_0 / {\mathrm{d}}t$ denoting the advancing velocity of liquid in the bulk. The dissipation function $\Phi$ is given by $$\label{corrugate_15}
\Phi=\frac{1}{2}\xi Q^2 h_0\, ,$$ where the flux is $$\label{corrugate_16}
Q=4a^2\dot{h}_0\, .$$ Substituting Eq. (\[corrugate\_16\]) and Eq. (\[corrugate\_11\]) into Eq. (\[corrugate\_15\]), it leads to $$\label{corrugate_17}
\Phi=8B_0\eta h_0 \dot{h}_0^2 \, .$$ The evolution of $h_0(t)$ is determined by the minimum condition $\partial(\dot{F}+\Phi)/\partial \dot{h}_0=0$. This leads to $$\label{corrugate_18}
h_0\dot{h}_0=\frac{a\gamma}{2B_0\eta} \, .$$ The above differential equation can be solved with the initial condition $h_0(t=0)=0$, and the result is $$\label{corrugate_19}
h_0=k_0\sqrt{\frac{a\gamma}{\eta}}t^{1/2} , \quad k_0 \simeq 0.75 \, .$$
Capillary imbibition in the bulk and fingers
--------------------------------------------
We now consider the liquid flow and imbibition in the bulk and fingers simultaneously. Through Eq. (\[eq:fsO\]) and Eq. (\[eq:fs1\]) the free energy of liquid in the tube, including both the bulk and fingers, can be obtained as $$\label{corrugate_20}
F=-8a\gamma h_0(t)-8 \alpha a\gamma\int_{h_0(t)}^{h_0(t)+h_1(t)}
\mathrm{d}z\sqrt{s(z,t)}\, ,$$ where we have used a shorthand notation of $\alpha=\sqrt{1-\pi/4}$. The time derivative of the free energy $\dot{F}$ is written as $$\label{corrugate_21}
\dot{F}=-8a\gamma \dot{h}_0(t)+8\alpha a\gamma\sqrt{s^*} \dot{h}_0(t)-4\alpha a\gamma\int_{h_0(t)}^{h_0(t)+h_1(t)}\mathrm{d}z\bigg[\frac{\dot{s}(z,t)}{\sqrt{s(z,t)}}\bigg]\, .$$
For the liquid in the fingers, the volume conservation requires $$\label{corrugate_22}
\frac{\partial s}{\partial t}=-\frac{1}{4a^2}\frac{\partial Q_1}{\partial z}\, ,$$ where $Q_1$ is the flux of liquid in fingers. Substituting Eq. (\[corrugate\_22\]) into Eq. (\[corrugate\_21\]), it leads to $$\label{corrugate_23}
\dot{F}=-8a\gamma \dot{h}_0(t)\Big[1-\alpha\sqrt{s^*}\Big]+\frac{\gamma\alpha }{2a}\int_{h_0(t)}^{h_0(t)+h_1(t)}\mathrm{d}z \bigg[\frac{\partial s}{\partial z}\bigg]s^{-\frac{3}{2}}Q_1- \frac {\alpha\gamma }{a}\frac {Q_1^* }{\sqrt{s^*}}\, ,$$ where $Q_1^*$ is the flux at the entrance of the fingers ($z=h_0$), and the corresponding saturation $s^* \simeq 0.06$.
The conservation condition at the interface between the bulk part and the finger part, i.e., at $z=h_0(t)$, can be written as $$\label{corrugate_25}
Q_0 = Q_1^*+ 4a^2 (1-s^*)\dot h_0 \, .$$ The dissipation function $\Phi_0$ for liquid in the bulk is given by $$\label{corrugate_24}
\Phi_0=\frac{h_0}{2}\frac{B_0\eta}{a^4} Q_0^2
= \frac{h_0}{2}\frac{B_0\eta}{a^4} \Big[Q_1^*+4a^2(1-s^*)\dot{h}_0\Big]^2 \, .$$
According to Eq. (\[corrugate\_12\]) the dissipation function $\Phi_1$ for liquid in the fingers is written as $$\label{corrugate_27}
\Phi_1=\frac{1}{2}\int_{h_0(t)}^{h_0(t)+h_1(t)}\mathrm{d}z \frac{\eta B_1}{a^4s^2(z,t)}Q_1^2(z,t)\, .$$ Through Eq. (\[corrugate\_24\]) and Eq. (\[corrugate\_27\]) the total energy dissipation function $\Phi$ for liquid in the tube is given by $$\label{corrugate_28}
\Phi=\frac{h_0}{2}\frac{B_0\eta}{a^4} \Big[Q_1^*+4a^2(1-s^*)\dot{h}_0\Big]^2 +\frac{1}{2}\int_{h_0(t)}^{h_0(t)+h_1(t)}\mathrm{d}z \frac{\eta B_1}{a^4s^2(z,t)}Q_1^2(z,t)\, .$$
The evolution equations for the imbibed liquid can be obtained by the variation $\delta (\dot{F}+\Phi)/ \delta \dot{h}_0=0$ and $\delta (\dot{F}+\Phi)/\delta Q_1=0$,
$$\label{corrugate_29}
\dot{h}_0=\frac{1}{4a^2(1-s^*)}\Big[\frac{2a^3\gamma \big(1-\alpha \sqrt{s^*} \big)}{B_0\eta(1-s^*)}\frac{1}{h_0}- Q_1^* \Big]\, ,$$
$$\label{corrugate_30}
Q_1=-\frac{\alpha a^3\gamma }{2B_1\eta}s^{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{\partial s}{\partial z}\, .$$
Substituting Eq. (\[corrugate\_22\]) into Eq. (\[corrugate\_30\]), it leads to the following time evolution equation of the fingers
$$\label{corrugate_31}
\frac{\partial s}{\partial t}=C_1\frac{\partial }{\partial z}\Big[s^{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{\partial s}{\partial z}\Big]\, ,$$
where $$\label{corrugate_32}
C_1=\frac{\alpha a\gamma }{8B_1\eta}\, .$$ Equation (\[corrugate\_31\]) has the same form with Dong’s work [@dong1995imbibition], which fixed the location of the entrance of the fingers and ignored the flow of liquid in the bulk.
The evolution equation (\[corrugate\_31\]) for the fingers involves a moving boundary at $z=h_0(t)$, and it is difficult to solve numerically. We get around by the following variable transformation $$\label{corrugate_33}
z'=z-h_0,\quad \tau=t\, .$$ The evolution equation (\[corrugate\_31\]) becomes $$\label{corrugate_34}
\frac{\partial s}{\partial \tau}=C_1\frac{\partial }{\partial z'}\Big[s^{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{\partial s}{\partial z'}\Big]+\dot{h}_0 \frac{\partial s}{\partial z'}\, .$$
Furthermore, we perform the dimensionless transformation $$\label{corrugate_34_1}
\tilde{z'}=\frac{z'}{a},\quad \tilde{h}_0=\frac{h_0}{a}\, ,$$ $$\label{corrugate_34_2}
\tilde{\tau}=\frac{\tau}{a\eta/\gamma},\quad \tilde{Q}_1=\frac{\eta}{\gamma}\frac{Q_1}{a^2}\, .$$ The evolution equations (\[corrugate\_29\]), (\[corrugate\_30\]) and (\[corrugate\_34\]) take the following dimensionless forms $$\label{corrugate_34_3}
\dot{\tilde{h}}_0=\frac{1}{4(1-s^*)}\Big[\frac{2\big(1-\alpha \sqrt{s^*} \big)}{B_0(1-s^*)}\frac{1}{\tilde{h}_0}- \tilde{Q}_1^* \Big]\, ,$$ $$\label{corrugate_34_4}
\tilde{Q}_1=-\frac{\alpha}{2B_1}s^{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{\partial s}{\partial \tilde{z'}}\, .$$ $$\label{corrugate_34_5}
\frac{\partial s}{\partial \tilde{\tau}}=\frac{\alpha}{8B_1}\frac{\partial }{\partial \tilde{z'}}\Big[s^{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{\partial s}{\partial \tilde{z'}}\Big]+\dot{\tilde{h}}_0 \frac{\partial s}{\partial \tilde{z'}}\, .$$ The boundary conditions to Eq. (\[corrugate\_34\_5\]) are $$\label{corrugate_35}
s|_{\tilde{z'}=0}=s^*=0.06,\qquad s|_{\tilde{z'}\rightarrow \infty}=0 \, .$$ Now the evolution of meniscus in the fingers becomes a fixed boundaries problem and can be solved numerically using backward difference method.
To summarize, the dynamics of the bulk $\tilde{h}_0(t)$ is given by an ordinary differential equation (\[corrugate\_34\_3\]). It coupled to the finger flow through the flux $\tilde{Q}_1^*$ at the entrance of the finger. The dynamics of the finger part is given by a partial differential equation (\[corrugate\_34\_5\]) with the boundary conditions (\[corrugate\_35\]). It cannot be solved without knowing the dynamics of the bulk part, because it contains the term $\dot{\tilde{h}}_0$. To obtain the full dynamics, one need to solve these two differential equations simultaneously, with suitable initial conditions.
Results and discussion
======================
The ODE (\[corrugate\_34\_3\]) and PDE (\[corrugate\_34\_5\]) are a set of coupled equations describing the dynamic of liquid flow in the bulk and fingers. The corresponding numerical solution of saturation $s$ with respect to $\tilde{z'}$ for the fingers changing with time $\tilde{\tau}$ is shown in Fig. \[fig:finger\]. As time goes on, the saturation $s$ and the length of meniscus front both increase with $\tilde{\tau}$, while the imbibition velocity of the meniscus front reduces qualitatively with $\tilde{\tau}$.
[![ The distributions of saturation $s$ with respect to $\tilde{z'}$ for liquid in the fingers. Each curve corresponds to a different time $\tilde{\tau}$.[]{data-label="fig:finger"}](fig3.eps "fig:")]{}
The length of finger, or the position of the tip of the finger with respect to the bulk fluid, $\tilde{h}_1$, is displayed in Fig. \[fig:h1\]. The black line is the numerical result of $\tilde{h}_1$ based on Eqs. (\[corrugate\_34\_3\]) and (\[corrugate\_34\_5\]). The solution can be nicely fitted with the power function $$\label{corrugate_36}
\tilde{h}_1=k_1 \tilde{\tau}^{1/2} \, ,$$ with a spreading factor $k_1=0.015$. The red line in Fig. \[fig:h1\] is the analytic solution from Ref. [@dong1995imbibition], which considered only the evolution of liquid in the fingers while the bulk liquid does not move. In this finger-only imbibition, the finger front follows Lucas-Washburn’s $\tilde{\tau}^{1/2}$ scaling with a spreading factor $k_1=0.1278$, which is about ten times larger than our case. Through the comparison above, we know in practice the liquid flow in the bulk has a significant impact on meniscus evolution in the fingers and dramatically reduces the spreading factor of meniscus front of the fingers.
[![ The length of the fingers, $\tilde{h}_1$, is plotted against time, $\tilde{\tau}$. The black line is the numerical result based on Eq. (\[corrugate\_34\_3\]) and Eq. (\[corrugate\_34\_5\]), and the red line is the corresponding result from Ref. [@dong1995imbibition] where the movement of bulk flow is not considered. []{data-label="fig:h1"}](fig4.eps "fig:")]{}
The evolution of liquid length in the bulk $\tilde{h}_0$ can be numerically calculated based on Eq. (\[corrugate\_34\_3\]) and (\[corrugate\_34\_5\]), taking into consideration of the coupling between the bulk and the fingers. The solution can also well fitted by the power function $$\label{corrugate_37}
\tilde{h}_0=k_0\tilde{\tau}^{1/2} \, ,$$ with a spreading factor $k_0=0.728$. Equation (\[corrugate\_37\]) indicates the time evolution of liquid in the bulk also follows the Lucas-Washburn’s law with a reduced spreading factor compared with that in Eq. (\[corrugate\_19\]), $k_0=0.75$, which ignores the effect of the fingers. Hence, for liquid flow and imbibition in the horizontal square tube, the coupling between the bulk and the fingers decreases the spreading factor of each other, which is intuitively embodied in the second terms on the right-hand of Eq. (\[corrugate\_34\_3\]) and Eq. (\[corrugate\_34\_5\]), respectively. A similar result has been presented in a vertical square tube by Bico and Qu[é]{}r[é]{} [@bico2002rise], who found the measured equilibrium rise height values of liquid in the bulk are around 6% smaller than theoretical predictions and attributed this reduction to the wetting fingers by Princen Model [@princen1969capillary_1; @princen1969capillary_2].
Since both the bulk and the fingers follow Lucas-Washburn’s $t^{1/2}$ scaling law, the ratio between the finger length and the bulk length remains constant $$\frac{\tilde{h}_1}{\tilde{h}_0} = \frac{k_1}{k_2} \simeq 0.0206.$$ This ratio is smaller than the value 0.02959 predicted by the Laplacian scaling method [@Weislogel2012].
Conclusions
===========
In this paper, we have studied the capillary imbibition and flow of a liquid along the corners of a horizontal square tube. The spontaneous filling is composed of two parts: the liquid in the bulk and the leading meniscus of the fingers. We first presented the dynamics of liquid in the bulk ignoring the effect of the fingers, which is the standard Lucas-Washburn result. Then we proposed a set of coupled differential equations to describe the evolution of liquid in the bulk and in the fingers. We solved the equations numerically. The main results of our study are
1. The time evolution of both the bulk ($\tilde{h}_0$) and the fingers ($\tilde{h}_1$) follow the Lucas-Washburn’s classical $t^{1/2}$ scaling law.
2. The spreading factors $k_0=0.728$ and $k_1=0.015$ of the bulk and fingers based on coupling effect are lower than that those predicted by models considered only one of them in isolation, especially for $k_1$, the value of which will be reduced to an order of magnitude compared with Ref. [@dong1995imbibition].
Our numerical results indicate that Lucas-Washburn’s $t^{1/2}$ scaling is robust to predict the evolution of liquid in a square tube in the viscous regime, and the coupling effect plays an important role in determining the spreading factors.
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) through the Grant Nos. 21504004 and 21774004. M.D. acknowledges the financial support of the Chinese Central Government in the Thousand Talents Program.
Calculation of $s^*$ {#app:freeE}
====================
The free energy density at fully saturation is given by Eq. (\[eq:fsO\]) $$f(1)=-8 \cos\theta a \gamma .$$
The free energy density at small saturation is given by Eq. (\[eq:fs1\]) $$\begin{aligned}
f(s) &=& g(\theta) \sqrt{s} a \gamma, \\
g(\theta) &=& \frac{ - 8 (\cos\theta - \sin\theta) \cos\theta + 2\pi - 8\theta }
{ [ \cos^2 \theta - \sin\theta \cos\theta - (\pi/4-\theta) ]^{1/2}} .\end{aligned}$$
The equilibrium between the fully saturation case and partial saturation case is given by the condition $$\frac{ {\mathrm{d}}f(s)}{{\mathrm{d}}s} \Big|_{s=s^*} = \frac{ f(1)-f(s^*)}{1-s^*}.$$ This corresponds to a straight line passing through $s=s^*$ and $s=1$ points, while also tangential to the free energy curve at $s=s^*$ (see Fig. \[fig:freeE\]).
For the fully wetting case $\theta=0$, this condition becomes $$\frac{ - 8 + 8 \alpha \sqrt{s^*} }{1-s^*} = - 4 \alpha \frac{1}{\sqrt{s^*}},$$ where $\alpha=\sqrt{1-\pi/4}$. Solving for $s^*$ and one gets $$s^* = \left[ \frac{1-\sqrt{1-\alpha^2}}{\alpha} \right]^2 \simeq 0.0603.$$
Effect of initial conditions {#app:ic}
=============================
\(a) [![ The evolution of the saturation $s$ of the fingers part for different initial conditions. The solid lines are the evolution results based on the initial condition (I) $s=-(0.06/0.2) \tilde{z'}+0.06$, and the dot lines are the evolution results based on (II) $s=-(0.06/1.2) \tilde{z'}+0.06$. Both of the calculations are based the same parameter values: $\tilde{h}_{0}(\tilde{\tau}=0)=0.2$. []{data-label="fig:ic"}](fig5a.eps "fig:")]{}\
(b) [![ The evolution of the saturation $s$ of the fingers part for different initial conditions. The solid lines are the evolution results based on the initial condition (I) $s=-(0.06/0.2) \tilde{z'}+0.06$, and the dot lines are the evolution results based on (II) $s=-(0.06/1.2) \tilde{z'}+0.06$. Both of the calculations are based the same parameter values: $\tilde{h}_{0}(\tilde{\tau}=0)=0.2$. []{data-label="fig:ic"}](fig5b.eps "fig:")]{}
Here we analyze the effect of initial conditions on the numerical results of Eq. (\[corrugate\_34\_3\]) and Eq. (\[corrugate\_34\_5\]). For the bulk part, the initial length of the bulk is $\tilde{h}_{0}(\tilde{\tau}=0)=0.2$. For the fingers part, we give two different initial profiles of the saturation $s$ for comparison, and both of them are linear forms:
- $s=-(0.06/0.2) \tilde{z'}+0.06$. The corresponding initial values for $\tilde{h}_1$ and $\tilde{Q}_1^*$ are $\tilde{h}_{1}(\tilde{\tau}=0)=0.2$, $\tilde{Q}_{1}^*(\tilde{\tau}=0)=0.0034$.
- $s=-(0.06/1.2) \tilde{z'}+0.06$. The corresponding initial values for $\tilde{h}_1$ and $\tilde{Q}_1^*$ are $\tilde{h}_{1}(\tilde{\tau}=0)=1.2$, $\tilde{Q}_{1}^*(\tilde{\tau}=0)=0.00057$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper is an expository contribution reporting on published work. It focuses on an approach followed in the rewriting community to formalize the concept of strategy. Based on rewriting concepts, several definitions of strategy are reviewed and connected: in order to catch the higher-order nature of strategies, a strategy is defined as a proof term expressed in the rewriting logic or in the rewriting calculus; to address in a coherent way deduction and computation, a strategy is seen as a subset of derivations; and to recover the definition of strategy in sequential path-building games or in functional programs, a strategy is considered as a partial function that associates to a reduction-in-progress, the possible next steps in the reduction sequence.'
author:
- |
Hélène Kirchner\
Inria\
Domaine de Voluceau - Rocquencourt\
BP 105 - 78153 Le Chesnay Cedex France\
[e-mail: [email protected]](e-mail: [email protected])\
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: A rewriting point of view on strategies
---
Introduction
============
Strategies frequently occur in automated deduction and reasoning systems and more generally are used to express complex designs for control in modeling, proof search, program transformation, SAT solving or security policies. In these domains, deterministic rule-based computations or deductions are often not sufficient to capture complex computations or proof developments. A formal mechanism is needed, for instance, to sequentialize the search for different solutions, to check context conditions, to request user input to instantiate variables, to process subgoals in a particular order, etc. This is the place where the notion of strategy comes in.
This paper deliberately focuses on an approach followed in the rewriting community to formalize a notion of strategy relying on rewriting logic [@marti-oliet00] and rewriting calculus [@rhoCalIGLP-I+II-2001] that are powerful formalisms to express and study uniformly computations and deductions in automated deduction and reasoning systems. Briefly speaking, rules describe local transformations and strategies describe the control of rule application. Most often, it is useful to distinguish between rules for computations, where a unique normal form is required and where the strategy is fixed, and rules for deductions, in which case no confluence nor termination is required but an application strategy is necessary. Regarding rewriting as a relation and considering abstract rewrite systems leads to consider derivation tree exploration: derivations are computations and strategies describe selected computations.
Based on rewriting concepts, that are briefly recalled in Section \[rewriting\], several definitions of strategy are reviewed and connected. In order to catch the higher-order nature of strategies, a strategy is first defined as a proof term expressed in rewriting logic in Section \[RewritingLogic\] then in rewriting calculus in Section \[RewritingCalculus\]. In Section \[ARS\], a strategy is seen as a set of paths in a derivation tree; then to recover the definition of strategy in sequential path-building games or in functional programs, a strategy is considered as a partial function that associates to a reduction-in-progress, the possible next steps in the reduction sequence. In this paper, the goal is to show the progression of ideas and definitions of the concept, as well as their correlations.
Rewriting
=========
Since the 80s, many aspects of rewriting have been studied in automated deduction, programming languages, equational theory decidability, program or proof transformation, but also in various domains such as chemical or biological computing, plant growth modeling, etc. In all these applications, rewriting definitions have the same basic ingredients. Rewriting transforms syntactic structures that may be words, terms, propositions, dags, graphs, geometric objects like segments, and in general any kind of structured objects. Transformations are expressed with patterns or rules. Rules are built on the same syntax but with an additional set of variables, say ${\cal X}$, and with a binder $\Rightarrow$, relating the left-hand side and the right-hand side of the rule, and optionally with a condition or constraint that restricts the set of values allowed for the variables. Performing the transformation of a syntactic structure $t$ is applying the rule labeled $\ell$ on $t$, which is basically done in three steps: (1) match to select a redex of $t$ at position $p$ denoted $t_{|p}$ (possibly modulo some axioms, constraints,...); (2) instantiate the rule variables by the result(s) of the matching substitution $\sigma$; (3) replace the redex by the instantiated right-hand side. Formally: $t$ rewrites to $t'$ using the rule $\ell : l \rewrite r$ if $t_{|p} = \sigma(l)$ and $t' = t[\sigma(r)]_p$. This is denoted $t \rew{}{}{p,\ell,\sigma} t'$.
In this process, there are many possible choices: the rule itself, the position(s) in the structure, the matching substitution(s). For instance, one may choose to apply a rule concurrently at all disjoint positions where it matches, or using matching modulo an equational theory like associativity-commutativity, or also according to some probability.
Rewriting logic {#RewritingLogic}
===============
The Rewriting Logic is due to J. Meseguer and N. Mart[í]{}-Oliet [@marti-oliet00].\
As claimed on <http://wrla2012.lcc.uma.es/>:
[*Rewriting logic (RL) is a natural model of computation and an expressive semantic framework for concurrency, parallelism, communication, and interaction. It can be used for specifying a wide range of systems and languages in various application fields. It also has good properties as a metalogical framework for representing logics. In recent years, several languages based on RL (ASF+SDF, CafeOBJ, ELAN, Maude) have been designed and implemented.* ]{}
In Rewriting Logic, the syntax is based on a set of terms $\TF$ built with an alphabet ${\cal F}$ of function symbols with arities, a theory is given by a set ${\cal R}$ of labeled rewrite rules denoted $\ell(x_1,\ldots,x_n) : l \rewrite r$, where labels $\ell (x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ record the set of variables occurring in the rewrite rule. Formulas are sequents of the form $\pi : \Ecl{t} \ra \Ecl{t'}$, where $\pi$ is a [*proof term*]{} recording the proof of the sequent: ${\cal R} ~\vdash~ \pi : \Ecl{t} \ra \Ecl{t'}$ if $\pi : \Ecl{t} \ra \Ecl{t'}$ can be obtained by finite application of equational deduction rules given below. In this context, a proof term $\pi$ encodes a sequence of rewriting steps called a derivation.
Reflexivity
: For any $t\in\TF$: [$${\bf t}:\Ecl{t}\ra \Ecl{t}$$]{}
Congruence
: For any $f\in {\cal F}$ with $arity(f)=n$: [$$\frac{{\bf \pi_1} : \Ecl{t_1}\ra \Ecl{t'_1}\;\;\;\ldots\;\;\;
{\bf \pi_n} : \Ecl{t_n}\ra \Ecl{t'_n}}
{ {\bf f(\pi_1,\ldots,\pi_n)} : \Ecl{f(t_1,\ldots,t_n)} \ra \Ecl{f(t'_1,\ldots,t'_n)}}$$]{}
Transitivity
: [$$\frac{{\bf \pi_1}:\Ecl{t_1}\ra
\Ecl{t_2}\;\;\;\;\;\;{\bf \pi_2}:\Ecl{t_2}\ra \Ecl{t_3}}
{{\bf \pi_1;\pi_2}\;:\;\Ecl{t_1}\ra \Ecl{t_3}}$$]{}
Replacement
: For any $\ell (x_1,\ldots,x_n) : l \rewrite r \in {\cal R}$, [$$\frac{{\bf \pi_1} :
\Ecl{t_1}\ra\Ecl{t'_1}\;\;\;\ldots\;\;\;{\bf \pi_n}:\Ecl{t_n}\ra\Ecl{t'_n}}
{{\bf \ell(\pi_1,\ldots,\pi_n)} : \Ecl{l(t_1,\ldots,t_n)} \ra \Ecl{r(t'_1,\ldots,t'_n)}}$$]{}
The language, designed in 1997, introduced the concept of strategy by giving explicit constructs for expressing control on the rule application [@borovansky02a]. Beyond labeled rules and concatenation denoted “$;$”, other constructs for deterministic or non-deterministic choice, failure, iteration, were also defined in . A strategy is there defined as a set of proof terms in rewriting logic and can be seen as a higher-order function : if the strategy $\zeta$ is a set of proof terms $\pi$, applying $\zeta$ to the term $t$ means finding all terms $t'$ such that $\pi:\Ecl{t} \ra \Ecl{t'}$ with $\pi \in \zeta$. Since rewriting logic is reflective, strategy semantics can be defined inside the rewriting logic by rewrite rules at the meta-level. This is the approach followed by in [@Maude07; @Marti-OlietN:WRLA08].
Rewriting Calculus {#RewritingCalculus}
==================
The rewriting calculus, also called $\rho$-calculus, has been introduced in 1998 by Horatiu Cirstea and Claude Kirchner [@rhoCalIGLP-I+II-2001]. As claimed on <http://rho.loria.fr/index.html>:
*The rho-calculus has been introduced as a general means to uniformly integrate rewriting and $\lambda$-calculus. This calculus makes explicit and first-class all of its components: matching (possibly modulo given theories), abstraction, application and substitutions.*
The rho-calculus is designed and used for logical and semantical purposes. It could be used with powerful type systems and for expressing the semantics of rule based as well as object oriented paradigms. It allows one to naturally express exceptions and imperative features as well as expressing elaborated rewriting strategies.
Some features of the rewriting calculus are worth emphasizing here: first-order terms and $\lambda$-terms are $\rho$-terms ($\lambda x.t$ is $(x \rewrite t)$); a rule is a $\rho$-term as well as a strategy, so rules and strategies are abstractions of the same nature and “first-class concepts”; application generalizes $\beta-$reduction; composition of strategies is like function composition; recursion is expressed as in $\lambda$ calculus with a recursion operator $\mu$.
In order to illustrate the use of $\rho$-calculus, let us consider the Abstract Biochemical Calculus (or $\rho_{Bio}$-calculus) [@AndreiK-Termgraph09]. This rewriting calculus models autonomous systems as [*biochemical programs*]{} which consist of the following components: collections of molecules (objects and rewrite rules), higher-order rewrite rules over molecules (that may introduce new rewrite rules in the behaviour of the system) and strategies for modeling the system’s evolution. A visual representation via [*port graphs*]{} and an implementation are provided by the PORGY environment described in [@AndreiO:PORGY]. In this calculus, strategies are abstract molecules, expressed with an arrow constructor ($\Ra$ for rule abstraction), an application operator $\appop{}{}$ and a constant operator $\stk$ for explicit failure.
Below are examples of useful strategies in $\rho_{Bio}$-calculus: $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\id & \triangleq & X\Ra X \\
\fail & \triangleq & X\Ra \stk \\
\seq(S_1,S_2) & \triangleq & X\Ra {S_2} \appop (S_1 \appop X) \\
\first(S_1,S_2) & \triangleq & X\Ra ({S_1} \appop {X})\ \
{(\stk\Ra ({S_2} \appop {X}))} \appop {(S_1 \appop X)} \\
\try(S) & \triangleq & \first(S,\id) \\
\nots(S) & \triangleq & X\Ra \first(\stk\Ra X, X'\Ra\stk) \appop ({S}\appop {X}) \\
\ifs(S_1,S_2,S_3) & \triangleq & X\Ra {\first(\stk\Ra
S_3\appop X,
X'\Ra S_2 \appop X)} \appop {(S_1\appop {X})}\\
\repeats(S) & \triangleq &\mu X. \try(\seq(S,X))
\end{array}$$
Based on such constructions, the $\rho_{Bio}$-calculus allows failure handling, repair instructions, persistent application of rules or strategies, and more generally strategies for autonomic computing, as described in [@AndreiK08c]. In [@AndreiK-Termgraph09], it is shown how to do invariant verification in biochemical programs. Thanks to $\rho_{Bio}$-calculus, an invariant property can in many cases, be encoded as a special rule in the biochemical program modeling the system and this rule is dynamically checked at each execution step. For instance, an invariant of the system is encoded by a rule $G\Ra G$ and the strategy verifying such an invariant is encoded with a persistent strategy $\first(G\Ra G, X\Ra {\stk})$. In a similar way, an unwanted occurrence of a concrete molecule $G$ in the system can be modeled with the rule $(G\Ra {\sf stk})$. And instead of yielding failure ${\stk}$, the problem can be “repaired” by associating to each property the necessary rules or strategies to be inserted in the system in case of failure.
Abstract Reduction Systems {#ARS}
==========================
Another view of rewriting is to consider it as an abstract relation on structural objects. An *Abstract Reduction System (ARS)* [@TereseStrategies2003; @KKK08; @BCDK-WRS09] is a labeled oriented graph $(\cal O,
\cal S)$ with a set of labels ${\cal L}$. The nodes in $\cal O$ are called *objects*. The oriented labeled edges in $\cal S$ are called *steps*: $a \flechup{\phi} b$ or $(a,\phi,b)$, with *source* $a$, *target* $b$ and *label* $\phi$. Derivations are composition of steps.
For a given ARS $\cal A$, an *$\cal A$-derivation* is denoted $\pi : a_0 \flechup{\phi_0} a_1
\flechup{\phi_1} a_2 \ldots \flechup{\phi_{n-1}} a_n$ or $a_0 \flechup{\pi} a_n$, where $n \in \Nat$. The *source* of $\pi$ is $a_0$ and its domain $Dom({\pi})=\{a_0\}$. The *target* of $\pi$ is $a_n$ and applying $\pi$ to $a_0$ gives the singleton set $\{a_n\}$, which is denoted $\pare{\pi} a_0=\{a_n\}$.
Abstract strategies are defined in [@KKK08] and in [@BCDK-WRS09] as follows: for a given ARS $\cal A$, an *abstract strategy* $\zeta$ is a subset of the set of all derivations (finite or not) of $\cal A$. The notions of domain and application are generalized as follows: $Dom(\zeta) = \bigcup_{\pi \in \zeta} Dom(\pi)$ and $\pare{\zeta} a
= \{b ~|~ \exists \pi \in \zeta \mbox{ such that } a \flechup{\pi}
b\} = \{\pare{\pi} a ~|~ \pi \in \zeta\}$. Playing with these definitions, [@BCDK-WRS09] explored adequate definitions of termination, normal form and confluence under strategy.
Since abstract reduction systems may involve infinite sets of objects, of reduction steps and of derivations, we can schematize them with constraints at different levels: (i) to describe the objects occurring in a derivation (ii) to describe, via the labels, requirements on the steps of reductions (iii) to describe the structure of the derivation itself (iv) to express requirements on the histories. The framework developed in [@KKK-wfpl09] defines a strategy $\zeta$ as all instances $\sigma(D)$ of a derivation schema $D$ such that $\sigma$ is solution of a constraint $C$ involving derivation variables, object variables and label variables. As a simple example, the infinite set of derivations of length one that transform $a$ into $f(a^n)$ for all $n \in \Nat$, where $a^n=a*\ldots*a$ ($n$ times), is simply described by: $(a \ra f(X) \mid X * a =_{A} a * X) $, where $=_{A}$ indicates that the constraint is solved modulo associativity of the operator $*$. This very general definition of abstract strategies is called [*extensional*]{} in [@BCDK-WRS09] in the sense that a strategy is defined explicitly as a set of derivations of an abstract reduction system. The concept is useful to understand and unify reduction systems and deduction systems as explored in [@KKK08].
But abstract strategies do not capture another point of view, also frequently adopted in rewriting: a strategy is a partial function that associates to a reduction-in-progress, the possible next steps in the reduction sequence. Here, the strategy as a function depends only on the object and the derivation so far. This notion of strategy coincides with the definition of strategy in sequential path-building games, with applications to planning, verification and synthesis of concurrent systems [@Dougherty08]. This remark leads to the following *intensional* definition given in [@BCDK-WRS09]. The essence of the idea is that strategies are considered as a way of constraining and guiding the steps of a reduction. So at any step in a derivation, it should be possible to say whether a contemplated next step obeys the strategy $\zeta$. In order to take into account the past derivation steps to decide the next possible ones, the history of a derivation has to be memorized and available at each step. Through the notion of traced-object $\cx{\alpha}a = \cx{(a_0,\phi_0),\ldots,(a_n,\phi_n)} a$ in $\cobj$, each object $a$ memorizes how it has been reached with the trace $\alpha$.
An *intensional strategy* for ${\cal A = (O,S)}$ is a partial function $\nzeta$ from $\cobj$ to $2^{\cal S}$ such that for every traced object $\cx{\alpha}a$, $\nzeta(\cx{\alpha}a) \subseteq
\{\pi\in {\cal S} \mid Dom(\pi)=a \}$. If $\nzeta(\cx{\alpha} a)$ is a singleton, then the reduction step under $\nzeta$ is deterministic.
As described in [@BCDK-WRS09], an intensional strategy $\nzeta$ naturally generates an abstract strategy, called its *extension*: this is the abstract strategy $\ezeta$ consisting of the following set of derivations:\
$\forall n \in \Nat$, $\pi : a_0 \flechup{\phi_0} a_1
\flechup{\phi_1} a_2 \ldots \flechup{\phi_{n-1}} a_n \; \in \ezeta
\qquad \text{ iff } \qquad \forall j\in [0,n], \quad
(a_j \flechup{\phi_{j}} a_{j+1}) \in \nzeta(\cx{\alpha}a_{j})
$.\
This extension may obviously contain infinite derivations; in such a case it also contains all the finite derivations that are prefixes of the infinite ones, and so is closed under taking prefixes.
A special case are memoryless strategies, where the function $\nzeta$ does not depend on the history of the objects. This is the case of many strategies used in rewriting systems, as shown in the next example. Let us consider an ${\cal A}$ where objects are terms, reduction is term rewriting with a rewrite rule in the rewrite system, and labels are positions where the rewrite rules are applied. Let us consider an order $<$ on the labels which is the prefix order on positions. Then the intensional strategy that corresponds to innermost rewriting is $\nzeta_{inn}(t) = \{\pi: t \flechup{p} t' \mid p=max(\{p'
\mid t \flechup{p'} t' \in {\cal S} \})\}$. When a lexicographic order is used, the classical *rightmost-innermost* strategy is obtained.
Another example, to illustrate the interest of traced objects, is the intensional strategy that restricts the derivations to be of bounded length $k$. Its definition makes use of the size of the trace $\alpha$, denoted $|\alpha|$: $\nzeta_{ltk}(\cx{\alpha}a) = \{\pi \mid \pi\in {\cal S}, \;
Dom(\pi)=a, \;|\alpha| < k-1\}$. However, as noticed in [@BCDK-WRS09], the fact that intensional strategies generate only prefix closed abstract strategies prevents us from computing abstract strategies that look straightforward: there is no intensional strategy that can generate a set of derivations of length exactly $k$. Other solutions are provided in [@BCDK-WRS09].
Conclusion
==========
A lot of interesting questions about strategies are yet open, going from the definition of this concept and the interesting properties we may expect to prove, up to the definition of domain specific strategy languages. As further research topics, two directions seem really interesting to explore:\
- The connection with Game theory strategies. In the fields of system design and verification, *games* have emerged as a key tool. Such games have been studied since the first half of 20th century in descriptive set theory [@Kechris95], and they have been adapted and generalized for applications in formal verification; introductions can be found in [@dagstuhl2001; @Walukiewicz04]. It is worth wondering whether the coincidence of the term “strategy” in the domains of rewriting and games is more than a pun. It should be fruitful to explore the connection and to be guided in the study of the foundations of strategies by some of the insights in the literature of games.\
- Proving properties of strategies and strategic reductions. A lot of work has already begun in the rewriting community and have been presented in journals, workshops or conferences of this domain. For instance, properties of confluence, termination, or completeness for rewriting under strategies have been addressed, either based on schematization of derivation trees, as in [@GK-TOCL09], or by tuning proof methods to handle specific strategies (innermost, outermost, lazy strategies) as in [@Giesl-Mid-inn-context-sens-2003; @Giesl2011]. Other approaches as [@Balland2012] use strategies transformation to equivalent rewrite systems to be able to reuse well-known methods. Finally, properties of strategies such as fairness or loop-freeness could be worthfully explored by making connections between different communities (functional programming, proof theory, verification, game theory,...).
#### Acknowledgements
The results presented here are based on pioneer work in the language designed in the Protheo team from 1997 to 2002. They rely on joint work with many people, in particular Marian Vittek and Peter Borovansk[ý]{}, Claude Kirchner and Florent Kirchner, Dan Dougherty, Horatiu Cirstea and Tony Bourdier, Oana Andrei, Maribel Fernandez and Olivier Namet. I am grateful to José Meseguer and to the members of the PROTHEO and the PORGY teams, for many inspiring discussions on the topics of this talk.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We have developed a universal method to form the reference signal for the stabilization of arbitrary atomic clocks based on Ramsey spectroscopy. Our approach uses an interrogation scheme of the atomic system with two different Ramsey periods and a specially constructed combined error signal (CES) computed by subtracting two error signals with the appropriate calibration factor. CES spectroscopy allows for perfect elimination of probe-induced light shifts and does not suffer from the effects of relaxation, time-dependent pulse fluctuations and phase-jump modulation errors and other imperfections of the interrogation procedure. The method is simpler than recently developed auto-balanced Ramsey spectroscopy techniques \[Ch. Sanner, [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. Lett. **120**, 053602 (2018); V. I. Yudin, [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. Appl. **9**, 054034 (2018)\], because it uses a single error signal that feeds back on the clock frequency. CES universal technique can be applied to many applications of precision spectroscopy.'
author:
- 'V. I. Yudin'
- 'A. V. Taichenachev'
- 'M. Yu. Basalaev'
- 'T. Zanon-Willette'
- 'T. E. Mehlst$\ddot{{\rm a}}$ubler'
- 'J. W. Pollock'
- 'M. Shuker'
- 'E. A. Donley'
- 'J. Kitching'
title: Combined error signal in Ramsey spectroscopy of clock transitions
---
I. Introduction {#i.-introduction .unnumbered}
---------------
Atomic clocks based on high-precision spectroscopy of isolated quantum systems are currently the most precise scientific instruments, with fractional frequency instabilities and accuracies at the 10$^{-18}$ level [@Schioppo_2017; @Ludlow_2015; @Marti_2018; @McGrew_2018; @huntemann2016]. Frequency measurements at this level enable improved tests of fundamental physics, as well as new applications like chronometric geodesy [@Grotti_2018; @Mehlstaubler_2018].
For many promising clock systems, probe-field-induced frequency shifts can limit the clock frequency instabilities and accuracies. In the case of magnetically induced spectroscopy [@yudin06; @bar06], ac-Stark shifts can limit the achievable clock stability, and for ultranarrow electric octupole [@hos09] and two-photon transitions [@fis04; @badr06], the large off-resonant ac-Stark shift can completely prevent high-accuracy clock performance. Similarly, the large number of off-resonant laser modes present in clocks based on direct frequency comb spectroscopy [@fortier06; @stowe08] induce large ac-Stark shifts. Probe-field-induced shifts also cause instability for microwave atomic clocks based on coherent population trapping (CPT) [@Hemmer_JOSAB_1989; @Shahriar_1997; @Zanon_2005; @Pati_2015; @Hafiz_2017; @Liu_2017]. Compact microwave cold-atom clocks [@Esnault_2010; @Peng_2015] and hot-cell devices like the POP clock [@Micalizio_2012; @Godone_2015] that are based on direct microwave interrogation can also be affected by probe-induced frequency shifts.
Probe-induced shifts can be suppressed through the use of Ramsey spectroscopy [@rams1950] in combination with cleverly devised modifications. In contrast to continuous-wave spectroscopy, Ramsey spectroscopy has a large number of extra degrees of freedom associated with many parameters that can be precisely controlled: the durations of Ramsey pulses $\tau^{}_1$ and $\tau^{}_2$, the dark time $T$, the phase composition of composite Ramsey pulses [@Levitt_1996], variations in Ramsey sequences including the use of three or more Ramsey pulses, different error signal variants, and so on. Some modified Ramsey schemes for the suppression of the probe-field-induced shifts in atomic clocks were theoretically described in Ref. [@yudin2010], which proposed the use of pulses of differing durations ($\tau^{}_1\neq\tau^{}_2$) and the use of composite pulses instead of the standard Ramsey sequence with two equal $\pi/2$-pulses. This “hyper-Ramsey” scheme has been successfully realised in an ion clock based on an octupole transition in Yb$^{+}$ [@hunt12; @huntemann2016], where a suppression of the light shift by four orders of magnitude and an immunity against its fluctuations were demonstrated. Further developments in Ramsey spectroscopy resulted in additional suppression of probe-field induced frequency shifts. For example, the hyper-Ramsey approach uses new phase variants to construct error signals [@NPL_2015; @Zanon_2014; @Zanon_2016] to significantly suppress the probe-field-induced shifts in atomic clocks. However, as was shown in Ref. [@Yudin_2016], all previous hyper-Ramsey methods [@yudin2010; @hunt12; @huntemann2016; @NPL_2015; @Zanon_2016; @Zanon_2015] are sensitive to decoherence and spontaneous relaxation, which can prevent the achievement of state-of-the-art performance in some systems. To overcome the effect of decoherence, a more complicated construction of the error signal was recently proposed in Ref. [@Zanon_2017], which requires four measurements for each frequency point (instead of two) combined with the use of the generalized hyper-Ramsey sequences presented in Ref. [@Zanon_2016]. Nevertheless the method in Ref. [@Zanon_2017] is not free from other disadvantages related to technical issues such as time dependent pulse area fluctuations and/or phase-jump modulation errors during the measurements.
The above approaches [@yudin2010; @hunt12; @huntemann2016; @NPL_2015; @Zanon_2016; @Zanon_2015; @Zanon_2017] are all one-loop methods, since they use one feedback loop and one error signal. However, frequency stabilization can also be realized with two feedback loops combined with Ramsey sequences with different dark periods $T_1$ and $T_2$ [@Yudin_2016; @Morgenweg_2014; @Sanner_2017]. For example, the synthetic frequency protocol [@Yudin_2016] in combination with the original hyper-Ramsey sequence [@yudin2010] allows for substantial reduction in the sensitivity to decoherence and imperfections of the interrogation procedure. Auto-balaced Ramsey spectroscopy (ABRS) is another effective approach that was first experimentally demonstrated in a $^{171}$Yb$^+$ ion clock [@Sanner_2017], further substantiated and generalized theoretically in Ref. [@Yudin_2018], and also recently realized in a CPT atomic clock [@Boudot_2018]. For ABRS, in addition to the stabilization of the clock frequency $\omega$, a second loop controls a variable second (concomitant) parameter $\xi$, which is an adjustable property of the first and/or second Ramsey pulses. While both of these two-loop methods [@Yudin_2016; @Sanner_2017; @Yudin_2018] are robust and can perfectly suppress probe-induced shifts of the measurement of the clock frequency, their implementation can be complex due to the two-loop architecture.
A principal question remains: does a one-loop method exist that has comparable (or better) efficiency to ABRS? In this paper, we present a positive answer to this question. We have found a universal protocol to construct a combined error signal (CES), which allows for perfect suppression of probe-induced shifts with the use of only one feedback loop. The CES technique has exceptional robustness, in that it is independent of arbitrary relaxation processes and different non-idealities of the measurement procedure. This method can be considered as a preferred alternative to ABRS spectroscopy. Indeed, CES is technically simpler (because of one feedback loop) and can be more efficient when a hyper-Ramsey pulse sequence [@yudin2010] is used. The CES protocol is applicable to optical atomic clocks as well as to microwave atomic clock based on CPT Ramsey spectroscopy and POP clocks.
II. Theoretical model {#ii.-theoretical-model .unnumbered}
---------------------
We consider a two-level atom with unperturbed frequency $\omega_0$ of the clock transition $|g\rangle\leftrightarrow |e\rangle$ (see Fig. \[Fig1\]), which interacts with a Ramsey sequence of two completely arbitrary pulses (with durations $\tau^{}_1$ and $\tau^{}_2$) of the resonant probe field with frequency $\omega$: $$\label{E}
E(t)={\rm Re}\{{\cal E}(t)e^{-i\varphi (t)}e^{-i\omega t}\}\,.$$ The pulses are separated by a free evolution interval (dark time) $T$, during which the atom-field interaction is absent (see Fig. \[Fig1\]). We emphasise that the Ramsey pulses with arbitrary durations $\tau^{}_1$ and $\tau^{}_2$ can have an arbitrary shape and amplitude (i.e., during $\tau^{}_1$ and $\tau^{}_2$ an amplitude ${\cal E}(t)$ can be an arbitrary real function), and an arbitrary phase function $\varphi(t)$ (e.g., the Ramsey pulses can be composite pulses). In a given sequence of Ramsey measurements, the pulse shape and amplitude must be consistent from one measurement to another. We assume only one restriction: aside from a phase modulation applied to generate the error signal (discussed below), the phase function $\varphi (t)$ should be constant during the dark time $T$, as is typical for Ramsey spectroscopy.
Our main goal is to develop a universal one-loop method, which allows us to stabilize the probe field frequency $\omega$ at the unperturbed frequency of the clock transition, $\omega=\omega_0$, in the presence of decoherence, arbitrary relaxation and light shifts. For this purpose, we will use the formalism of the density matrix $\hat{\rho}$, which has the following form $$\label{rho_din}
\hat{\rho}(t)=\sum_{j,k=g,e}|j\rangle \rho_{jk}^{}(t)\langle k|\,,$$ in the basis of states $|g\rangle$ and $|e\rangle$. In the resonance approximation, the density matrix components $\rho_{jk}^{}(t)$ satisfy the following differential equations: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2_level}
&&[\partial^{}_t+\Gamma-i\tilde{\delta}(t)]\rho^{}_{eg}=i\Omega(t)[\rho^{}_{gg}-\rho^{}_{ee}]/2\,;\quad \rho^{}_{ge}=\rho^{\ast}_{eg};\nonumber \\
&&[\partial^{}_t+\gamma^{}_{e} ] \rho^{}_{ee}-\gamma^{}_{g\to e} \rho^{}_{gg}=i[\Omega(t)\rho_{ge}-\rho_{eg}\Omega^{\ast}(t)]/2\,,\\
&&[\partial^{}_t+\gamma^{}_{g}]\rho^{}_{gg}-\gamma^{}_{e\to g} \rho^{}_{ee}=-i[\Omega(t)\rho_{ge}-\rho_{eg}\Omega^{\ast}(t)]/2\,.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Here the time dependencies $\Omega(t)$ and $\tilde{\delta}(t)$ are determined by the following: $\Omega(t)=\langle d\,\rangle {\cal E}(t)e^{-i\varphi (t)}$ and $\tilde{\delta}(t)=\delta-\Delta_{\rm sh}(t)$ during the action of the Ramsey pulses $\tau^{}_1$ and $\tau^{}_2$, but $\Omega(t)=0$ and $\tilde{\delta}(t)=\delta$ during the dark time $T$. $\langle d\,\rangle$ is a matrix element of the atomic dipole moment, $\delta=\omega-\omega_0$ is the detuning of the probe field from the unperturbed atomic frequency $\omega_0$, and $\Delta_{\rm sh}(t)$ is an actual probe-field-induced shift (see Fig. \[Fig1\]) of the clock transition during the Ramsey pulses (e.g., it can be the ac-Stark shift). Also Eq. (\[2\_level\]) contains five relaxation constants, {$\gamma^{}_{e}$, $\gamma^{}_{e\rightarrow g}$, $\gamma^{}_{g}$, $\gamma^{}_{g\rightarrow e}$, $\Gamma$}: $\gamma^{}_{e}$ is a decay rate (e.g., spontaneous) of the exited state $|e\rangle$; $\gamma^{}_{e\rightarrow g}$ is a transition rate (e.g., spontaneous) to the ground state $|g\rangle$; $\gamma^{}_{g}$ is a decay rate of the ground state $|g\rangle$ (e.g., due to black-body radiation and/or collisions); $\gamma^{}_{g\rightarrow e}$ is a transition rate from the ground state $|g\rangle$ to the exited state $|e\rangle$. Note that $\gamma^{}_{e\rightarrow g}=\gamma^{}_{e}$ and $\gamma^{}_{g\rightarrow e}=\gamma^{}_{g}$ in the case of closed two-level system, while $\gamma^{}_{e\rightarrow g}<\gamma^{}_{e}$ and/or $\gamma^{}_{g\rightarrow e}<\gamma^{}_{g}$ in the case of open system. The constant $\Gamma=(\gamma^{}_{e}+\gamma^{}_{g})/2+\widetilde{\Gamma}$ describes the total rate of decoherence: spontaneous as well as all other processes, which are included in the parameter $\widetilde{\Gamma}$ (e.g., an influence of the nonzero spectral width of the probe field).
Equations (\[2\_level\]) can be rewritten in the vector form $$\label{vect_form}
\partial^{}_t \vec{\rho}(t)=\hat{L}(t)\vec{\rho}(t)\,,$$ where $\vec{\rho}(t)$ is a vector formed by the matrix components $\rho_{jk}(t)$, $$\label{rho_vect}
\vec{\rho}(t)=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\rho_{ee}(t) \\
\rho_{eg}(t) \\
\rho_{ge}(t) \\
\rho_{gg}(t) \\
\end{array}
\right),$$ and operator (Liouvillian) $\hat{L}(t)$ is $4\times 4$ matrix determined by the coefficients of Eq. (\[2\_level\]): $$\label{L}
\hat{L}(t)=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
-\gamma^{}_{e} & -i\Omega^{\ast}(t)/2 & i\Omega (t)/2 & \gamma^{}_{g\to e} \\
-i\Omega (t)/2 & -\Gamma+i\tilde{\delta}(t) & 0 & i\Omega (t)/2 \\
i\Omega^{\ast}(t)/2 & 0 & -\Gamma-i\tilde{\delta}(t) & -i\Omega^{\ast}(t)/2 \\
\gamma^{}_{e\to g} & i\Omega^{\ast}(t)/2 & -i\Omega (t)/2 & -\gamma^{}_{g} \\
\end{array}
\right).$$ In this case, a spectroscopic Ramsey signal can be presented in the following general form, which describes Ramsey fringes (as a function of $\delta$), $$\label{A_Rams}
A_{T}(\delta)=(\vec{\rho}_{\rm obs}^{},\hat{W}^{}_{\tau^{}_2}\hat{G}^{}_T \hat{W}^{}_{\tau^{}_1}\vec{\rho}_{\rm in}^{})\,,$$ where the scalar product is determined in the ordinary way: $(\vec{x},\vec{y})=\sum_{m}x^{*}_{m}y^{}_{m}$. Operators $\hat{W}^{}_{\tau^{}_1}$ and $\hat{W}^{}_{\tau^{}_2}$ describe the evolution of an atom during the first ($\tau^{}_1$) and second ($\tau^{}_2$) Ramsey pulses, respectively, and the operator $\hat{G}^{}_T$ describes free evolution during the dark time $T$. Vectors $\vec{\rho}_{\rm in}^{}$ and $\vec{\rho}_{\rm obs}^{}$ are initial and observed states, respectively. For example, if an atom before the Ramsey sequence was in the ground state $|g\rangle$, and after the Ramsey sequence we detect the atom in the exited state $|e\rangle$, then vectors $\vec{\rho}_{\rm in}^{}$ and $\vec{\rho}_{\rm obs}^{}$ are determined, in accordance with definition (\[rho\_vect\]), as $$\label{in_obs}
\vec{\rho}_{\rm in}^{}=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
0 \\
0 \\
1 \\
\end{array}
\right),\quad
\vec{\rho}_{\rm obs}^{}=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
1 \\
0 \\
0 \\
0 \\
\end{array}
\right).$$ For stabilization of the frequency $\omega$ we need to form an error signal. In our approach, we use phase jumps $\alpha^{}_{+}$ and $\alpha^{}_{-}$ of the probe field in between the first and second Ramsey pulse (see Fig. \[Fig1\]), as was proposed in Ref. [@mor89]. These jumps are described by the operators $\hat{\Phi}^{}_{\alpha^{}_+}$ and $\hat{\Phi}^{}_{\alpha^{}_-}$, respectively. In this case, let us introduce the expression of the Ramsey signal in the presence of the pase jump $\alpha$, described by the operator $\hat{\Phi}^{}_{\alpha}$, $$\label{A_Phi}
A_{T}(\delta,\alpha)=(\vec{\rho}_{\rm obs}^{},\hat{W}^{}_{\tau^{}_2}\hat{\Phi}^{}_{\alpha}\hat{G}^{}_T \hat{W}^{}_{\tau^{}_1}\vec{\rho}_{\rm in}^{})\,.$$ As a result, the error signal can be presented as a difference, $$\label{err_gen}
S^{\rm (err)}_T = A_{T}(\delta,\alpha^{}_+)-A_{T}(\delta,\alpha^{}_-) = (\vec{\rho}_{\rm obs}^{},\hat{W}^{}_{\tau^{}_2}\hat{D}^{}_{\Phi}\hat{G}^{}_T \hat{W}^{}_{\tau^{}_1}\vec{\rho}_{\rm in}^{})\,,$$ with $\hat{D}^{}_{\Phi} = \hat{\Phi}^{}_{\alpha^{}_+}-\hat{\Phi}^{}_{\alpha^{}_-}$. To maximise the error signal, ${\alpha}_{\pm}=\pm \pi/2$ is typically used. However, in real experiments, we can have $|{\alpha}^{}_{+}|\neq |{\alpha}^{}_{-}|$ due to various technical reasons (e.g., electronics) which will lead to a shift of the stabilised frequency $\omega$ in the case of standard Ramsey spectroscopy. Therefore, here we will consider the general case of arbitrary ${\alpha}^{}_{+}$ and ${\alpha}^{}_{-}$ to demonstrate the robustness of CES technique, where the condition $|{\alpha}^{}_{+}|\neq |{\alpha}^{}_{-}|$ does not lead to a frequency shift.
Next we consider the structure of the following operators: $\hat{G}^{}_T$, $\hat{\Phi}^{}_{\alpha^{}_+}$, $\hat{\Phi}^{}_{\alpha^{}_-}$, and $\hat{D}^{}_{\Phi}$. The operator for the free evolution, $\hat{G}^{}_T$, has the following general matrix form $$\label{GT_gen}
\hat{G}^{}_T=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
G_{11}(T) & 0 & 0 & G_{14}(T) \\
0 & e^{-(\Gamma -i\delta )T} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & e^{-(\Gamma +i\delta) T} & 0 \\
G_{41}(T) & 0 & 0 & G_{44}(T) \\
\end{array}
\right),$$ which corresponds to Eq. (\[vect\_form\]), if $\Omega(t)=0$ and $\tilde{\delta}(t)=\delta$ in the Liouvillian (\[L\]). The matrix elements $G_{11}(T)$, $G_{14}(T)$, $G_{41}(T)$, and $G_{44}(T)$ depend on four relaxation rates: {$\gamma^{}_{e}$, $\gamma^{}_{e\rightarrow g}$, $\gamma^{}_{g}$, $\gamma^{}_{g\rightarrow e}$}. In particular, for purely spontaneous relaxation of the exited state $|e\rangle$, when $\gamma^{}_{g}=\gamma^{}_{g\rightarrow e}=0$, we obtain $$\label{GT_sp}
\hat{G}^{}_T=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
e^{-\gamma^{}_{e}T} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & e^{-(\Gamma -i\delta )T} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & e^{-(\Gamma +i\delta) T} & 0 \\
\frac{\gamma^{}_{e\rightarrow g}}{\gamma^{}_{e}}(1-e^{-\gamma^{}_{e}T}) & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right).$$ Operators for the phase jumps $\hat{\Phi}^{}_{\alpha^{}_+}$ and $\hat{\Phi}^{}_{\alpha^{}_-}$ have the forms $$\label{Phi_pm}
\hat{\Phi}^{}_{\alpha_{\pm}}=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & e^{i\alpha^{}_{\pm}} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & e^{-i\alpha^{}_{\pm}} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right),$$ which lead to the following expression for $\hat{D}^{}_{\Phi}$, $$\label{DPhi}
\hat{D}^{}_{\Phi}=\hat{\Phi}^{}_{\alpha^{}_+}-\hat{\Phi}^{}_{\alpha^{}_-}=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & (e^{i\alpha^{}_{+}}-e^{i\alpha^{}_{-}}) & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & (e^{-i\alpha^{}_{+}}-e^{-i\alpha^{}_{-}}) & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right).$$ As a result, taking into account Eq. (\[GT\_gen\]), we obtain a formula for the matrix product $(\hat{D}^{}_{\Phi}\hat{G}^{}_T)$, $$\label{DV}
\hat{D}^{}_{\Phi}\hat{G}^{}_T=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & e^{-(\Gamma -i\delta )T}(e^{i\alpha^{}_{+}}-e^{i\alpha^{}_{-}}) & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & e^{-(\Gamma +i\delta )T}(e^{-i\alpha^{}_{+}}-e^{-i\alpha^{}_{-}}) & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right)=e^{-\Gamma T}\hat{\Upsilon}^{}_{\delta T}\,,$$ where the matrix $\hat{\Upsilon}^{}_{\delta T}$ is defined as $$\hat{\Upsilon}^{}_{\delta T}=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & e^{i\delta T}(e^{i\alpha^{}_{+}}-e^{i\alpha^{}_{-}}) & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & e^{-i\delta T}(e^{-i\alpha^{}_{+}}-e^{-i\alpha^{}_{-}}) & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right).$$ Note that $$\label{Ups}
\hat{\Upsilon}^{}_{\delta T =0}=\hat{D}^{}_{\Phi}.$$ Thus, the error signal (\[err\_gen\]) can be rewritten in the following form: $$\label{err_new}
S^{\rm (err)}_T(\delta)= e^{-\Gamma T}(\vec{\rho}_{\rm obs}^{},\hat{W}^{}_{\tau^{}_2}\hat{\Upsilon}^{}_{\delta T} \hat{W}^{}_{\tau^{}_1}\vec{\rho}_{\rm in}^{}).$$ Note that this result is the same if we apply phase jumps $\alpha_{\pm}$ at any arbitrary point during the dark interval $T$. It is interesting to note that the expression of the error signal in the presence of relaxation is formally different from the the error signal in the absence of relaxation only due to the scalar multiplier $e^{-\Gamma T}$, which primarily affects the amplitude, but not the overall shape of the error signal. This is one of the main specific properties of the phase jump technique for Ramsey spectroscopy that makes it robust against relaxation. Indeed, for other well-known methods of frequency stabilization, which use a frequency jump technique between alternating total periods of Ramsey interrogation $(\tau^{}_1+T+\tau^{}_2)$, relationship (\[err\_gen\]) does not exist. Thus, the phase jump technique has a fundamental advantage over the frequency jump technique in that it is less sensitive to relaxation. In addition, in the ideal case of $\alpha^{}_{+}=-\alpha^{}_{-}=\alpha$, the error signal (\[err\_gen\]) can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{err_alpha}
&& S^{\rm (err)}_T(\delta)=2\,{\rm sin}(\alpha) e^{-\Gamma T}(\vec{\rho}_{\rm obs}^{},\hat{W}^{}_{\tau^{}_2}\hat{\Theta}^{}_{\delta T} \hat{W}^{}_{\tau^{}_1}\vec{\rho}_{\rm in}^{}),\end{aligned}$$ where the matrix $\hat{\Theta}^{}_{\delta T}$, $$\hat{\Theta}^{}_{\delta T}=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & ie^{i\delta T} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -ie^{-i\delta T} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right),$$ depends only on $\delta T$.
III. CES protocol {#iii.-ces-protocol .unnumbered}
=================
In this section we demonstrate the universality and robustness of the the CES technique. We use the Ramsey interrogation of the clock transition for two different, fixed intervals of free evolution $T_1$ and $T_2$, where we have two error signals $S^{\rm (err)}_{T_1}(\delta)$ and $S^{\rm (err)}_{T_2}(\delta)$ described by Eq. (\[err\_new\]). However, for frequency stabilization we introduce the combined error signal (CES) as the following superposition, $$\label{CES_gen}
S^{\rm (err)}_{\rm CES}(\delta)=S^{\rm (err)}_{T_1}(\delta)-\beta^{}_{\rm cal} S^{\rm (err)}_{T_2}(\delta)\,,$$ where a calibration coefficient $\beta^{}_{\rm cal}$ is to account for decay of the Ramsey fringe amplitude and will be defined below. Thus, the shift of the stabilized frequency $\bar{\delta}_{\rm clock}$ is determined as a solution of the equation $S^{\rm (err)}_{\rm CES}(\delta)=0$ in relation to the unknown $\delta$.
In accordance with Eq. (\[err\_new\]), the expression (\[CES\_gen\]) can be written in the form $$\label{CES_1}
S^{\rm (err)}_{\rm CES}(\delta)=e^{-\Gamma T_1}\left[(\vec{\rho}_{\rm obs}^{},\hat{W}^{}_{\tau^{}_2}\hat{\Upsilon}^{}_{\delta T_1} \hat{W}^{}_{\tau^{}_1}\vec{\rho}_{\rm in}^{})-
\beta^{}_{\rm cal} e^{\Gamma (T_1-T_2)}(\vec{\rho}_{\rm obs}^{},\hat{W}^{}_{\tau^{}_2}\hat{\Upsilon}^{}_{\delta T_2} \hat{W}^{}_{\tau^{}_1}\vec{\rho}_{\rm in}^{})\right].$$ If we assume that $$\label{beta}
\beta^{}_{\rm cal} =e^{-\Gamma (T_1-T_2)}\,,$$ then we obtain $$\label{CES_2}
S^{\rm (err)}_{\rm CES}(\delta)=e^{-\Gamma T_1}\left[(\vec{\rho}_{\rm obs}^{},\hat{W}^{}_{\tau^{}_2}\hat{\Upsilon}^{}_{\delta T_1} \hat{W}^{}_{\tau^{}_1}\vec{\rho}_{\rm in}^{})-
(\vec{\rho}_{\rm obs}^{},\hat{W}^{}_{\tau^{}_2}\hat{\Upsilon}^{}_{\delta T_2} \hat{W}^{}_{\tau^{}_1}\vec{\rho}_{\rm in}^{})\right].$$ In this case, if we apply $\delta=0$ for operators $\hat{\Upsilon}^{}_{\delta T_1}$ and $\hat{\Upsilon}^{}_{\delta T_2}$, then due to Eq. (\[Ups\]) we see that $$\label{delta}
S^{\rm (err)}_{\rm CES}(0)=0\,.$$ Thus, we have analytically shown that the CES method always leads to zero field-induced shift of the stabilized frequency $\omega$ in an atomic clock, $\bar{\delta}_{\rm clock}=0$.
From a practical viewpoint, it is most important that the calibration coefficient $\beta^{}_{\rm cal}$ \[Eq. (\[beta\])\] does not depend on the values of the phase jumps $\alpha^{}_{\pm}$ used for error signals, or other parameters (such as: amplitude, shape, duration, phase structure $\varphi (t)$, shift $\Delta_{\rm sh}(t)$, etc.) of the two Ramsey pulses $\tau^{}_1$ and $\tau^{}_2$. Thus, $\beta^{}_{\rm cal}$ can be considered as a phenomenological parameter, which is fixed for given setup (via the relaxation constant $\Gamma$) and for given $T_{1,2}$ (via the difference $T_1-T_2$). In the ideal case with no relaxation ($\Gamma =0$), we obtain $\beta^{}_{\rm cal} =1$ for arbitrary $T_{1,2}$. However, in the general case, the value of $\beta^{}_{\rm cal}$ should be empirically determined before long-term frequency stabilization.
As we see from Eq. (\[CES\_2\]), to maximize the slope of $S^{\rm (err)}_{\rm CES}(\delta)$ it is necessary to use the condition $T_2\ll T_1$. Formally we can even use $T_2=0$ (with the phase jumps $\alpha_{\pm}$ in the virtual point between pulses $\tau^{}_1$ and $\tau^{}_2$). However, due to technical transient regimes (i.e., in acousto-optic modulators) under switching-off/on of Ramsey pulses in real experiments, we believe that it is necessary to keep some nonzero dark time, $T_2 \neq 0$, which significantly exceeds any various transient times. For example, in the case of magnetically-induced spectroscopy [@yudin06; @bar06], the transient processes, associated with switching-off/on of magnetic field, can be relatively slow.
Because of the use of two different dark times $T_1$ and $T_2$, CES has some formal similarity to the two-loop methods in Refs. [@Yudin_2016; @Sanner_2017; @Yudin_2018]. However, the CES technique requires only one feed-back loop for frequency stabilization.
IV. CES for different Ramsey sequences {#iv.-ces-for-different-ramsey-sequences .unnumbered}
--------------------------------------
We assume that the main reason for the shift of stabilized frequency $\omega$ arises from probe-induced shift $\Delta_{\rm sh}$ during Ramsey pulses. All calculations are done for ideal case of the phase jumps: $\alpha_+=-\alpha_-=\pi/2$, to maximize the error signal. Also for simplicity, we take into account (for presented calculations) only one relaxation constant $\Gamma$ (rate of decoherence), while all other relaxation constants are negligible: $\gamma^{}_{e}=\gamma^{}_{e\rightarrow g}=\gamma^{}_{g}=\gamma^{}_{g\rightarrow e}=0$, as is typically for high-precision modern atomic clocks based on strongly forbidden optical transition $^1$S$_0$$\rightarrow $$^3$P$_0$ in neutral atoms (such as Mg, Ca, Sr, Yb, Hg) and ions (e.g., Al$^+$, In$^+$), or for octupole transition in the ion Yb$^+$.
In this section, we compare CES spectroscopy for two different pulse sequences: the usual Ramsey sequence with two equal rectangular $\pi/2$-pulses (see Fig. \[R\_schemes\]a), and the hyper-Ramsey sequence proposed in Ref. [@yudin2010] (see Fig. \[R\_schemes\]b). If we use the exact calibration coefficient (\[beta\]), then both sequences have the identical ideal result, $\bar{\delta}_{\rm clock}= 0$. However, in real experiments, we can know the value of $\beta^{}_{\rm cal}$ with only limited accuracy. In this case, any deviation from the ideal value (\[beta\]) will lead to the some residual shift of the stabilized frequency, $\bar{\delta}_{\rm clock}\neq 0$, which depends on the type of Ramsey sequence. Thus, there is a problem for the optimal Ramsey sequence with minimal sensitivity to the deviations of $\beta^{}_{\rm cal}$ in Eq. (\[CES\_gen\]) from the ideal value (\[beta\]).
Therefore, in our calculations we will use the following expression for calibration coefficient, $$\label{beta_exp}
\beta^{}_{\rm cal} =\chi e^{-\Gamma (T_1-T_2)},$$ where the parameter $\chi$ determines the deviation of $\beta^{}_{\rm cal}$ from the ideal value (\[beta\]). In this case, instead of Eq. (\[CES\_2\]) we obtain another formula for the CES, $$\label{CES_exp}
S^{\rm (err)}_{\rm CES}(\delta)=e^{-\Gamma T_1}\left[(\vec{\rho}_{\rm obs}^{},\hat{W}^{}_{\tau^{}_2}\hat{\Upsilon}^{}_{\delta T_1} \hat{W}^{}_{\tau^{}_1}\vec{\rho}_{\rm in}^{})-\chi
(\vec{\rho}_{\rm obs}^{},\hat{W}^{}_{\tau^{}_2}\hat{\Upsilon}^{}_{\delta T_2} \hat{W}^{}_{\tau^{}_1}\vec{\rho}_{\rm in}^{})\right],$$ where the solution of the equation $S^{\rm (err)}_{\rm CES}(\delta)=0$ (in relation to the unknown $\delta$) determines the residual shift $\bar{\delta}_{\rm clock}$ for the stabilized frequency $\omega$.
In Fig. \[compar\] we present a comparison of the CES method for two different pulse sequences: a standard Ramsey sequence with two equal pulses (see Fig. \[R\_schemes\]a) and the original hyper-Ramsey sequence [@yudin2010] using a composite pulse (see Fig. \[R\_schemes\]b). In calculations, we have assumed five-percent deviation of $\beta^{}_{\rm cal}$ from the ideal value (\[beta\]), i.e., $0.95\leqslant\chi\leqslant 1.05$ in Eq. (\[CES\_exp\]). As we see, the hyper-Ramsey sequence is more robust and persistent, because the use of this scheme leads to a significant reduction of the residual shift $\bar{\delta}_{\rm clock}$ in comparison with the usual Ramsey scheme. In addition, Fig. \[compar\_HR\] shows that the combination of the CES technique with a hyper-Ramsey sequence significantly exceeds the possibilities of standard hyper-Ramsey spectroscopy [@yudin2010], even for imperfect determination of the calibration coefficient $\beta^{}_{\rm cal}$.
V. Generalized CES and the procedure for frequency stabilization {#v.-generalized-ces-and-the-procedure-for-frequency-stabilization .unnumbered}
----------------------------------------------------------------
The calibration coefficient $\beta^{}_{\rm cal}$ can be estimated as a ratio of the amplitudes of the central Ramsey fringes related to the interrogation procedures with $T_1$ and $T_2$ dark times. However, in this section we describe a more precise method to determine $\beta^{}_{\rm cal}$. For this purpose, we will consider a generalized combined error signal (GCES) $$\label{GCES}
S^{\rm (err)}_{\rm GCES}(\delta)=S^{\rm (err)}_{T_1}(\delta)-\tilde{\beta}(\delta) S^{\rm (err)}_{T_2}(\delta)\,,$$ where generalized calibration coefficient $\tilde{\beta}(\delta)$ is a function of $\delta$, which satisfies the following condition, $$\label{beta_GCES}
\tilde{\beta}(0)=\beta^{}_{\rm cal}=e^{-\Gamma (T_1-T_2)}.$$ In this case, the stabilized frequency \[with the use of GCES (\[GCES\])\] will also always be unshifted, $\bar{\delta}_{\rm clock}=0$.
There are many different variants of the function $\tilde{\beta}(\delta)$. For example, the function $\tilde{\beta}(\delta)$ can be constructed as $$\label{beta12}
\tilde{\beta}(\delta)=\frac{A_{T_1}(\delta,\alpha_+)-A_{T_1}(\delta,\alpha =0)}{A_{T_2}(\delta,\alpha_+)-A_{T_2}(\delta,\alpha =0)}\,;\quad \tilde{\beta}(\delta)=\frac{A_{T_1}(\delta,\alpha_-)-A_{T_1}(\delta,\alpha =0)}{A_{T_2}(\delta,\alpha_-)-A_{T_2}(\delta,\alpha =0)}\,,$$ where we use an additional measurement in the absence of phase jump ($\alpha=0$) before the second Ramsey pulse, $A_{T}(\delta,\alpha =0)=(\vec{\rho}_{\rm obs}^{},\hat{W}^{}_{\tau^{}_2}\hat{G}^{}_T \hat{W}^{}_{\tau^{}_1}\vec{\rho}_{\rm in}^{})$. However, another definition, $$\label{beta_symm}
\tilde{\beta}(\delta)=\frac{A_{T_1}(\delta,\alpha_+)+A_{T_1}(\delta,\alpha_-)-2A_{T_1}(\delta,\alpha =0)}{A_{T_2}(\delta,\alpha_+)+A_{T_2}(\delta,\alpha_-)-2A_{T_2}(\delta,\alpha =0)}\,,$$ is preferable because of “symmetry” in relation to the phase jumps $\alpha^{}_{\pm}$.
In Fig. \[err\_signals\], we compare signals of CES (\[CES\_gen\]) and GCES (\[GCES\]) for two different pulse sequences (see Fig. \[R\_schemes\]) in the presence of the field-induced shift $\Delta_{\rm sh}$ (during Ramsey pulses). As we see from Fig. \[err\_signals\]a, as $\Delta_{\rm sh}$ increases the lineshape $S^{\rm (err)}_{\rm CES}(\delta)$ becomes significantly non-antisymmetrical, while the lineshape $S^{\rm (err)}_{\rm GCES}(\delta)$ (see Fig. \[err\_signals\]b) maintains its antisymmetry (especially for the hyper-Ramsey scheme, see the right panel in Fig. \[err\_signals\]b). Fig. \[err\_signals\]c shows the dependencies of $\tilde{\beta}(\delta)$ calculated by the use of Eq. (\[beta\_symm\]).
The procedure of frequency stabilization can be organized in conformity with several scenarios. First, we can continually apply GCES (\[GCES\]) together with Eq. (\[beta\_symm\]) using six measurements for each frequency point (three different phase jumps, $\alpha =\pm\pi/2,0$, and two different dark times, $T^{}_{1,2}$). However, the use of six measurements can reduce the efficiency of the frequency stabilization, because it increases the length of the interrogation procedure. From our viewpoint, more optimal scenario is the following. In the initial period of frequency stabilization, we use GCES with Eq. (\[beta\_symm\]). It allows us to determine the calibration coefficient $\beta^{}_{\rm cal}$ \[see Eq. (\[beta\_GCES\])\] with satisfactory accuracy, because during measurements we will have the information about the value $\tilde{\beta}(\delta)$ under $\delta\approx 0$. Then the procedure of long-term frequency stabilization can be done with the CES technique (\[CES\_gen\]), using only four measurements for each frequency point (two phase jumps, $\alpha =\pm\pi/2$, and two dark times, $T^{}_{1,2}$). Moreover, we can regularly (but rarely) use GCES again. Indeed, on the one hand, it allows us to do a regular adjustment of the coefficient $\beta^{}_{\rm cal}$ \[to eliminate, for example, an influence of possible slow variations of the parameter $\Gamma$ in Eq. (\[beta\])\]. On the other hand, such intermittent application of GCES will not lead to the significant slowing-down of the process of long-term frequency stabilization.
In addition, as we see from Figs. \[compar\]-\[err\_signals\], the CES or GCES technique works better if the ratio $|\Delta_{\rm sh}/\Omega_0 |$ becomes smaller. Distortions in the error signals arising from this problem can be largely reduced by the use of an additional and well-controllable frequency step $\Delta_{\rm step}$ only during the Ramsey pulses $\tau^{}_1$ and $\tau^{}_2$ [@tai09; @yudin2010]. In this case, all dependencies presented in Figs. \[err\_signals\]-\[compar\_HR\] will be the same if we will replace $\Delta_{\rm sh}\rightarrow \Delta_{\rm eff}=(\Delta_{\rm sh}-\Delta_{\rm step})$. Thus, we can always apply a frequency step $\Delta_{\rm step}$ (e.g., with an acousto-optic modulator) during excitation to achieve the condition $|\Delta_{\rm eff}/\Omega_0 | \ll 1$ for an effective shift $\Delta_{\rm eff}$, as it was used in experiments [@hunt12; @huntemann2016; @NPL_2015; @Sanner_2017].
VI. CES technique for CPT Ramsey spectroscopy {#vi.-ces-technique-for-cpt-ramsey-spectroscopy .unnumbered}
---------------------------------------------
In this section, we describe the CES technique for Ramsey spectroscopy of the resonances based on coherent population trapping (CPT). As a model, we consider rf CPT resonances that are formed in a three-level $\Lambda$ system under interaction with a resonant bichromatic field, $$\label{bichromatic field}
E(t) = E^{}_{1} e^{-i\omega^{}_{1} t}+E^{}_{2} e^{-i\omega^{}_{2} t}+c.c.\,.$$ The CPT resonance is formed when the difference between optical frequencies ($\omega^{}_{1}-\omega^{}_{2}$) is varied near the low-frequency rf transition between lower energy levels $|1\rangle$ and $|2\rangle$: $\omega^{}_{2}-\omega^{}_{1}\approx\Delta_{\text{hfs}}$ \[Fig. \[Lambda-scheme\](a)\]. In this case, the stabilized rf frequency difference $(\omega^{}_{2}-\omega^{}_{1})$ is the operating frequency for CPT based clocks.
The dynamics of the $\Lambda$ system in the rotating wave approximation are described by the differential equation system for the density matrix components, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rho_eqs}
&[\partial_t+\gamma_\text{opt}-i\delta_\text{1-ph}]\rho^{}_{31}=i\Omega^{}_1(\rho^{}_{11}-\rho^{}_{33})+i\Omega^{}_2\rho^{}_{21}\nonumber \\
&[\partial_t+\gamma_\text{opt}-i\delta_\text{1-ph}]\rho^{}_{32}=i\Omega^{}_2(\rho^{}_{22}-\rho^{}_{33})+i\Omega^{}_1\rho^{}_{12}\nonumber\\
&[\partial_t+\Gamma^{}_{12} -i\delta^{}_R]\rho^{}_{12}=i(\Omega^{\ast}_1\rho^{}_{32}-\rho^{}_{13}\Omega^{}_{2})\\
&[\partial_t+\Gamma^{}_{12} ] \rho^{}_{11}=\gamma^{}_1\rho^{}_{33}+\Gamma^{}_{12} \text{Tr}\{\hat{\rho}\}/2+i(\Omega^{\ast}_1\rho^{}_{31}-\rho^{}_{13}\Omega^{}_{1})\nonumber\\
&[\partial_t+\Gamma^{}_{12} ] \rho^{}_{22}=\gamma^{}_2\rho^{}_{33}+\Gamma^{}_{12} \text{Tr}\{\hat{\rho}\}/2+i(\Omega^{\ast}_2\rho^{}_{32}-\rho^{}_{23}\Omega^{}_{2})\nonumber\\
&[\partial_t+\Gamma^{}_{12} +\gamma] \rho^{}_{33}= i(\Omega^{}_1\rho^{}_{13}-\rho^{}_{31}\Omega^{\ast}_{1})+i(\Omega^{}_2\rho^{}_{23}-\rho^{}_{32}\Omega^{\ast}_{2})\nonumber\\
&\rho^{}_{jk}=\rho^{\ast}_{kj}\;(j,k=1,2,3);\;\; \text{Tr}\{\hat{\rho}\}=\rho^{}_{11}+\rho^{}_{22}+\rho^{}_{33}=1.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Here $\delta_\text{1-ph}$ is the one-photon detuning of frequency components $\omega^{}_{1}$ and $\omega^{}_{2}$ from the optical transitions (see Fig. \[Lambda-scheme\]); $\delta^{}_R = \omega^{}_{2}-\omega^{}_{1}-\Delta_{\text{hfs}}-\Delta_{\rm sh}(t)$ is the two-photon (Raman) detuning; $\Omega_{1}(t)$$=$$d_{31}E_{1}(t)/$$\hbar$ and $\Omega_{2}(t)$$=$$d_{32}E_{2}(t)/$$\hbar$ are the Rabi frequencies for the transitions $|1\rangle$$\leftrightarrow$$|3\rangle$ and $|2\rangle$$\leftrightarrow$$|3\rangle$ ($d_{31}$ and $d_{32}$ are reduced matrix elements of dipole moment for these transitions); $\gamma$ is the spontaneous decay rate of upper level $|3\rangle$; $\gamma_\text{opt}$ is rate of decoherence (spontaneous, collisional, etc.) of the optical transitions $|1\rangle$$\leftrightarrow$$|3\rangle$ and $|2\rangle$$ \leftrightarrow$$|3\rangle$ (in the case of pure spontaneous relaxation $\gamma_\text{opt}=\gamma/2$); $\gamma^{}_1$ and $\gamma^{}_2$ are corresponding spontaneous decay rates for different channels ($\gamma^{}_1+\gamma^{}_2=\gamma$ in the case of closed $\Lambda$ system); $\Gamma^{}_{12}$ is the relatively slow ($\Gamma^{}_{12}\ll \gamma,\gamma^{}_\text{opt}$) rate of relaxation to the equilibrium isotropic ground state: $\hat{\rho}^{}_0=(|1\rangle\langle 1|+|2\rangle\langle 2|)/2$. Note that $\Delta_\text{sh}(t)$ is an additional actual shift (AC Stark shift) between levels $|1\rangle$ and $|2\rangle$ during the pulses, which results from off-resonant interactions of components of the laser field with different hyperfine states (e.g., Ref. [@Pollock_2018]).
In the case of Ramsey excitation, the scheme of the time dependencies $\Omega_{1}(t)$ and $\Omega_{2}(t)$ is shown in Fig. \[Lambda-scheme\](b), where the first pulse (with duration $\tau^{}_{1}$) prepares an atomic coherence between lower levels $|1\rangle$ and $|2\rangle$, $T$ is the free evolution interval, and the second pulse (with duration $\tau^{}_{2}$) is the detecting pulse, which forms a spectroscopic Ramsey signal. The time dependence $\Delta_{\text{sh}}(t)$ is also shown. If $\tau_{1}$ is much longer than the time for the atoms to enter the dark state, then at the end of first pulse (before the free evolution interval) we have a steady-state condition. In this case, the transient frequency shift, described in [@Hemmer_JOSAB_1989], becomes equal to zero. As a result, the residual shift of the central Ramsey fringe $\bar{\delta}_{\rm clock}=\omega^{}_{2}-\omega^{}_{1}-\Delta_{\text{hfs}}$ results from the off-resonant shift $\Delta_{\text{sh}}$, which is present only during Ramsey pulses ($\tau^{}_{1}$ and $\tau^{}_{2}$) \[Fig. \[Lambda-scheme\](b)\]. $\Delta_{\text{sh}}$ is the well known AC Stark shift, which is proportional to the total light field intensity $I$.
Instead of Eq. (\[A\_Phi\]), for calculations of the CPT spectroscopic signal we use the absorption (spontaneous scattering), which is proportional to the integral value during the second pulse $\tau_2$ starting at time $t^{}_{d}$ \[Fig. \[Lambda-scheme\](b)\], $$\label{A_CPT}
A^{\rm (CPT)}_{T}(\delta,\alpha)=\int_{t^{}_{d}}^{t^{}_{d}+\tau^{}_2}\rho^{}_{33}(t')dt',$$ where we have introduced the phase jump $\alpha$ during the dark time $T$ (e.g., Ref. [@Guerandel_2007]). This phase jump describes a phase difference of the product $(E^{}_1E^{\ast}_2)_{\tau^{}_1}$ during the first Ramsey pulse $\tau^{}_1$ and the product $(E^{}_1E^{\ast}_2)_{\tau^{}_2}$ during the second pulse $\tau^{}_2$, $$\label{CPT_phase}
(E^{}_1E^{\ast}_2)_{\tau^{}_2}=e^{-i\alpha}(E^{}_1E^{\ast}_2)_{\tau^{}_1}.$$ Using the determination of the signal (\[A\_CPT\]) in formulas (\[err\_gen\]) and ([\[CES\_gen\]]{})-(\[beta\_symm\]) from the previous sections, we describe a realization of the CES/GCES techniques for CPT Ramsey spectroscopy. In this case, it is necessary to use $\Gamma^{}_{12}$ instead of $\Gamma$.
Conclusion {#conclusion .unnumbered}
----------
We have developed a universal one-loop method to form the reference signal for stabilization of arbitrary atomic clocks based on Ramsey spectroscopy. This method uses the interrogation of an atomic system for two different Ramsey periods and a specially constructed combined error signal (CES) \[see Eq. (\[CES\_gen\])\]. The CES technique requires four measurements for each frequency point as well as a preliminary measurement (or estimation) of the calibration coefficient $\beta^{}_{\rm cal}$. It was shown that the most robustness is achieved with the combination of the CES protocol and a hyper-Ramsey pulse sequence (see in Ref. [@yudin2010]). Also a method of generalized combined error signal (GCES) was developed \[see Eq. (\[GCES\])\], which requires six measurements for each frequency point and has an exceptional robustness. The CES/GCES spectroscopy allows for perfect elimination of probe-induced light shifts and does not suffer from the effects of relaxation, time-dependent pulse fluctuations and phase-jump modulation errors and other non-idealities of the interrogation procedure. A variant of the frequency stabilization using CES with intermittent GCES protocols has been proposed. In addition, the applicability of CES/GCES techniques for CPT atomic clocks has been described. The implementation of this approach can lead to significant improvement of the accuracy and long-term stability for a variety of types of atomic clocks.
Also, it will be interesting to experimentally compare the one-loop CES/GCES method with the two-loop auto-balanced Ramsey spectroscopy (ABRS) [@Sanner_2017; @Yudin_2018; @Boudot_2018]. We believe that both methods have comparable efficiency of the frequency stabilization, but CES/GCES is more simple technically due to only one feedback loop. Moreover, in the case of optical transitions, the CES/GCES protocol with the use of hyper-Ramsey pulse sequence (see in Ref. [@yudin2010]) can be even more efficient in comparison with ABRS.
We thank E. Ivanov, J. Elgin, C. Oates, M. Lombardi, Ch. Sanner, Ch. Tamm, E. Peik, and N. Huntemann for useful discussions and comments. This work was supported by the Russian Scientific Foundation (No. 16-12-10147). Contributions to this article by workers at NIST, an agency of the U.S. Government, are not subject to U.S. copyright.
[22]{} M. Schioppo, R. C. Brown, W. F. McGrew, N. Hinkley, R. J. Fasano, K. Beloy, T. H. Yoon, G. Milani, D. Nicolodi, J. A. Sherman, N. B. Phillips, C. W. Oates, and A. D. Ludlow, Ultrastable optical clock with two cold-atom ensembles, Nature Photonics **11**, 48 (2017). A. D. Ludlow, M. M. Boyd, J. Ye, E. Peik, and P. O. Schmidt, Optical atomic clocks, Rev. Mod. Phys. **87**, 637 (2015). G. E. Marti, R. B. Hutson, A. Goban, S. L. Campbell, N. Poli, and J. Ye, Imaging Optical Frequencies with 100 $\mu$Hz Precision and 1.1 $\mu$m Resolution, Phys. Rev. Lett. **120**, 103201-103207 (2018).
W. F. McGrew, X. Zhang, R. J. Fasano, S. A. Schaffer, K. Beloy, D. Nicolodi, R. C. Brown, N. Hinkley, G. Milani, M. Schioppo, T. H. Yoon, and A. D. Ludlow, Atomic clock performance beyond the geodetic limit, Submitted (2018).
N. Huntemann, C. Sanner, B. Lipphardt, Chr. Tamm, and E. Peik, Single-ion atomic clock with $3\times 10^{-18}$ systematic uncertainty, Phys. Rev. Lett. **116**, 063001 (2016).
J. Grotti, S. Koller, S. Vogt, S. Häfner, U. Sterr, C. Lisdat, H. Denker, C. Voigt, L. Timmen, A. Rolland, F. N. Baynes, H. S. Margolis, M. Zampaolo, P. Thoumany, M. Pizzocaro, B. Rauf, F. Bregolin, A. Tampellini, P. Barbieri, M. Zucco, G. A. Costanzo, C. Clivati, F. Levi and D. Calonico, Geodesy and metrology with a transportable optical clock, Nature Physics **14**, 437-441 (2018).
T. E. Mehlst$\ddot{{\rm a}}$ubler, G. Grosche, C. Lisdat, P. O. Schmidt, and H. Denker, Atomic clocks for geodesy, Rep. Prog. Phys. **81**, 064401-064474 (2018).
A. V. Taichenachev, V. I. Yudin, C. W. Oates, C. W. Hoyt, Z. W. Barber, and L. Hollberg, Magnetic field-induced spectroscopy of forbidden optical transitions with application to lattice-based optical atomic clocks, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 083001 (2006).
Z. W. Barber, C. W. Hoyt, C. W. Oates, L. Hollberg, A. V. Taichenachev, and V. I. Yudin, Direct excitation of the forbidden clock transition in neutral $^{174}\mathrm{Yb}$ atoms confined to an optical lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 083002 (2006).
K. Hosaka, S. A. Webster, A. Stannard, B. R. Walton, H. S. Margolis, and P. Gill, Frequency measurement of the ${^{2}S}_{1/2}\text{\ensuremath{-}}{^{2}F}_{7/2}$ electric octupole transition in a single ${^{171}\text{Y}\text{b}}^{+}$ ion, Phys. Rev. A [**79**]{}, 033403 (2009).
M. Fischer, N. Kolachevsky, M. Zimmermann, R. Holzwarth, Th. Udem, T. W. H$\ddot{\rm a}$nsch, M. Abgrall, J. Gr$\ddot{\text{u}}$nert, I. Maksimovic, S. Bize, H. Marion, F. Pereira Dos Santos, P. Lemonde, G. Santarelli, P. Laurent, A. Clairon, C. Salomon, M. Haas, U. D. Jentschura, and C. H. Keitel, New limits on the drift of fundamental constants from laboratory measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 230802 (2004).
T. Badr, M. D. Plimmer, P. Juncar, M. E. Himbert, Y. Louyer, and D. J. E. Knight, Observation by two-photon laser spectroscopy of the $4{d}^{10}5s\phantom{\rule{0.2em}{0ex}}^{2}S_{1/2}\ensuremath{\rightarrow}4{d}^{9}5{s}^{2}\phantom{\rule{0.2em}{0ex}}^{2}D_{5/2}$ clock transition in atomic silver, Phys. Rev. A [**74**]{}, 062509 (2006).
T. M. Fortier, Y. Le Coq, J. E. Stalnaker, D. Ortega, S. A. Diddams, C. W. Oates, and L. Hollberg, Kilohertz-resolution spectroscopy of cold atoms with an optical frequency comb, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 163905 (2006).
M. C. Stowe, M. J. Thorpe, A. Pe’er, J. Ye, J. E. Stalnaker, V. Gerginov, and S. A. Diddams, Direct Frequency Comb Spectroscopy, Adv. At. Mol. Opt. Phys. [**55**]{}, 1 (2008).
P. R. Hemmer, M. S. Shahriar, V. D. Natoli, and S. Ezekiel, Ac Stark shifts in a two-zone Raman interaction, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B **6**, 1519 (1989).
S. M. Shahriar, P. R. Hemmer, D. P. Katz, A. Lee and M. G. Prentiss, Dark-state-based three-element vector model for the stimulated Raman interaction, Phys. Rev. A **55**, 2272 (1997).
T. Zanon, S. Guerandel, E. de Clercq, D. Holleville, N. Dimarcq, and A. Clairon, High contrast Ramsey fringes with coherent-population-trapping pulses in a double lambda atomic system, Phys. Rev. Lett. **94**, 193002 (2005).
G. S. Pati, Z. Warren, N. Yu and M. S. Shahriar, Computational studies of light shift in a Raman – Ramsey interference-based atomic clock, JOSA B **32**, 388 (2015).
M. A. Hafiz, G. Coget, P. Yun, S. Guerandel, E. de Clercq, and R. Boudot, A high-performance raman-ramsey cs vapor cell atomic clock, Journal of Applied Physics **121**, 104903 (2017).
X. Liu, E. Ivanov, V. I. Yudin, J. Kitching, and E. A. Donley, Low-drift coherent population trapping clock based on laser-cooled atoms and high-coherence excitation fields, Phys. Rev. Applied **8**, 054001 (2017).
F.-X. Esnault, D. Holleville, N. Rossetto, S. Guerandel, and N. Dimarcq, High-stability compact atomic clock based on isotropic laser cooling, Phys. Rev. A **82**, 033436 (2010).
Peng Liu, Yanling Meng, Jinyin Wan, Xiumei Wang, Yaning Wang, Ling Xiao, Huadong Cheng, and Liang Liu, Scheme for a compact cold-atom clock based on diffuse laser cooling in a cylindrical cavity, Phys. Rev. A **92**, 062101 (2015).
S. Micalizio, C. E. Calosso, A. Godone, and F. Levi, Metrological characterization of the pulsed Rb clock with optical detection, Metrologia **49**, 425 (2012).
A. Godone, F. Levi, C. E. Calosso, and S. Micalizio, High-performing vapor-cell frequency standards, Nuovo Cimento Rivista Serie, **38**, 133 (2015).
N. F. Ramsey, A molecular beam resonance method with separated oscillating fields, Phys. Rev. **78**, 695 (1950).
M. H. Levitt, in [*Encyclopedia of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance*]{}, edited by D. M. Grant and R. K. Harris (John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 1996), Vol. 2, pp. 1396-1411.
V. I. Yudin, A. V. Taichenachev, C. W. Oates, Z. W. Barber, N. D. Lemke, A. D. Ludlow, U. Sterr, Ch. Lisdat, and F. Riehle, Hyper-Ramsey spectroscopy of optical clock transitions, Phys. Rev. A **82**, 011804(R) (2010).
N. Huntemann, B. Lipphardt, M. Okhapkin, Chr. Tamm, E. Peik, A. V. Taichenachev, and V. I. Yudin, Generalized Ramsey excitation scheme with suppressed light shift, Phys. Rev. Lett. **109**, 213002 (2012).
R. Hobson, W. Bowden, S. A. King, P. E. G. Baird, I. R. Hill, P. Gill, Modified hyper-Ramsey methods for the elimination of probe shifts in optical clocks, Phys. Rev. A **93**, 010501(R) (2016).
T. Zanon-Willette, S. Almonacil, E. de Clercq, A. D. Ludlow and E. Arimondo, Quantum engineering of atomic phase shifts in optical clocks, Phys. Rev. A **90**, 053427 (2014).
T. Zanon-Willette, E. de Clercq, and E. Arimondo, Probe light-shift elimination in generalized hyper-Ramsey quantum clocks, Phys. Rev. A [**93**]{}, 042506 (2016).
V. I. Yudin, A. V. Taichenachev, M. Yu. Basalaev, and T. Zanon-Willette, Synthetic frequency protocol for Ramsey spectroscopy of clock transitions, Phys. Rev. A [**94**]{}, 052505 (2016).
T. Zanon-Willette, V. I. Yudin, and A. V. Taichenachev, Generalized hyper-Ramsey resonance with separated oscillating fields, Phys. Rev. A. **92**, 023416 (2015).
T. Zanon-Willette, R. Lefevre, A. V. Taichenachev, and V. I. Yudin, Universal interrogation protocol with zero probe-field-induced frequency shift for quantum clocks and high-accuracy spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. A [**96**]{}, 023408 (2017).
J. Morgenweg, I. Barmes, and K. S. E. Eikema, Ramsey-comb spectroscopy with intense ultrashort laser pulses, Nat. Phys. **10**, 30 (2014).
Ch. Sanner, N. Huntemann, R. Lange, Ch. Tamm, and E. Peik, Autobalanced Ramsey spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. Lett. **120**, 053602 (2018).
V. I. Yudin, A. V. Taichenachev, M. Yu. Basalaev, T. Zanon-Willette, J. W. Pollock, M. Shuker, E. A. Donley, and J. Kitching, Generalized Autobalanced Ramsey Spectroscopy of Clock Transitions, Phys. Rev. Appl. **9**, 054034 (2018).
M. Abdel Hafiz, G. Coget, M. Petersen, C. E. Calosso, S. Guerandel, E. de Clercq, and R. Boudot, Symmetric autobalanced Ramsey interrogation for high-performance coherent-population-trapping vapor-cell atomic clock, Appl. Phys. Lett. **112**, 244102 (2018).
A. Morinaga, F. Riehle, J. Ishikawa, and J. Helmcke, A Ca optical frequency standard: Frequency stabilization by means of nonlinear Ramsey resonances, Appl. Phys. B **48**, 165 (1989).
A. V. Taichenachev, V. I. Yudin, C. W. Oates, Z. W. Barber, N. D. Lemke, A. D. Ludlow, U. Sterr, Ch. Lisdat, and F. Riehle, Compensation of field-induced frequency shifts in Ramsey spectroscopy of optical clock transitions, JETP Lett. **90**, 713 (2009).
J. W. Pollock, V. I. Yudin, M. Shuker, M. Y. Basalaev, A. V. Taichenachev, X. Liu, J. Kitching, and E. A. Donley, AC Stark Shifts of Dark Resonances Probed with Ramsey Spectroscopy, preprint arXiv:1805.06029 (2018).
S. Guerandel, T. Zanon, N. Castagna, F. Dahes, E. de Clercq, N. Dimarcq, and A. Clairon, Raman-Ramsey Interaction for Coherent Population Trapping Cs Clock, IEEE Transaction on Instrumenation and Measurement **56**, 383 (2007).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This chapter is a short introduction to Sullivan models. In particular, we find the Sullivan model of a free loop space and use it to prove the Vigué-Poirrier-Sullivan theorem on the Betti numbers of a free loop space.'
address: |
Faculte des Sciences\
2 Boulevard Lavoisier, 49045 Angers Cedex 01, France\
email:
author:
- Luc Menichi
bibliography:
- 'Bibliographie.bib'
title: 'Rational homotopy – Sullivan models'
---
In the previous chapter, we have seen the following theorem due to Gromoll and Meyer.
Let $M$ be a compact simply connected manifold. If the sequence of Betti numbers of the free loop space on $M$, $M^{S^1}$, is unbounded then any Riemannian metric on $M$ carries infinitely many non trivial and geometrically distinct closed geodesics.
In this chapter, using Rational homotopy, we will see exactly when the sequence of Betti numbers of $M^{S^1}$ over a field of caracteristic $0$ is bounded (See Theorem \[nombres de betti lacets libres pas bornes\] and its converse Proposition \[monogene donne Betti bornes\]). This was one of the first major applications of rational homotopy.
Rational homotopy associates to any rational simply connected space, a commutative differential graded algebra. If we restrict to almost free commutative differential graded algebras, that is “Sullivan models”, this association is unique.
Graded differential algebra
===========================
Definition and elementary properties
------------------------------------
All the vector spaces are over ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$ (or more generally over a field ${{\mathbf{k}}}$ of characteric $0$). We will denote by $\mathbb{N}$ the set of non-negative integers.
A (non-negatively upper) *graded vector space* $V$ is a family $\{V^n\}_{n\in{{\mathbb{N}}}}$ of vector spaces. An element $v\in V_i$ is an element of $V$ of *degree* $i$. The degree of $v$ is denoted $\vert v\vert$. A [*differential*]{} $d$ in $V$ is a sequence of linear maps $d^n:V^n\rightarrow V^{n+1}$ such that $d^{n+1}\circ d^{n}=0$, for all $n\in{{\mathbb{N}}}$. A differential graded vector space or *complex* is a graded vector space equipped with a differential. A morphism of complexes $f:V\buildrel{\simeq}\over\rightarrow W$ is a *quasi-isomorphism* if the induced map in homology $H(f):H(V)\buildrel{\cong}\over\rightarrow H(W)$ is an isomorphism in all degrees.
A *graded algebra* is a graded vector space $A=\{A^n\}_{n\in{{\mathbb{N}}}}$, equipped with a multiplication $\mu:A^p\otimes A^q\rightarrow A^{p+q}$. The algebra $Â$ is *commutative* if $ab=(-1)^{\vert a\vert\vert b\vert}ba$ for all $a$ and $b\in A$.
A differential graded algebra or *dga* is a graded algebra equipped with a differential $d:A^n\rightarrow A^{n+1}$ which is also a *derivation*: this means that for $a$ and $b\in A$ $$d(ab)=(da)b+(-1)^{\vert a\vert}a(db).$$ A *cdga* is a commutative dga.
\[example cdga\] 1) Let $(B,d_B)$ and $(C,d_C)$ be two cdgas. Then the tensor product $B\otimes C$ equipped with the multiplication $$(b\otimes c)(b'\otimes c'):=(-1)^{\vert c\vert\vert b'\vert} bb'\otimes cc'$$ and the differential $$d(b\otimes c)=(db)\otimes c+(-1)^{\vert b\vert}b\otimes dc.$$ is a cdga. The [*tensor product of cdgas*]{} is the sum (or coproduct) in the category of cdgas.
2\) More generally, let $f:A\rightarrow B$ and $g:A\rightarrow C$ be two morphisms of cdgas. Let $B\otimes_A C$ be the quotient of $B\otimes C$ by the sub graded vector spanned by elements of the form $bf(a)\otimes c-b\otimes g(a)c$, $a\in A$, $b\in B$ and $c\in C$. Then $B\otimes_A C$ is a cgda such that the quotient map $B\otimes C\twoheadrightarrow B\otimes_A C$ is a morphism of cdgas. The cdga $B\otimes_A C$ is the pushout of $f$ and $g$ in the category of cdgas: $$\xymatrix{
A\ar[r]^f\ar[d]_g
& B\ar[d]\ar@/^/[ddr]\\
C\ar[r]\ar@/_/[drr]
&B\otimes_A C\ar@{.>}[dr]|-{\exists!}\\
&&D
}$$
3\) Let $V$ and $W$ be two graded vector spaces. We denote by $\Lambda V$ the free graded commutative algebra on $V$.
If $V={{\mathbb{Q}}}v$, i. e. is of dimension $1$ and generated by a single element $v$, then
-$\Lambda V$ is $E(v)={{\mathbb{Q}}}\oplus {{\mathbb{Q}}}v$, the exterior algebra on $v$ if the degree of $v$ is odd and
-$\Lambda V$ is ${{\mathbb{Q}}}[v]=\oplus_{n\in{{\mathbb{N}}}} {{\mathbb{Q}}}v^n$, the polynomial or symmetric algebra on $v$ if the degree of $v$ is even.
Since $\Lambda$ is left adjoint to the forgetful functor from the category of commutative graded algebras to the category of graded vector spaces, $\Lambda$ preserves sums: there is a natural isomorphism of commutative graded algebras $\Lambda (V\oplus W) \cong\Lambda V\otimes \Lambda W$.
Therefore $\Lambda V$ is the tensor product $E(V^{odd})\otimes S(V^{even})$ of the exterior algebra on the generators of odd degree and of the polynomial algebra on the generators of even degree.
Let $f:A\rightarrow B$ be a morphism of commutative graded algebras. Let $d:A\rightarrow B$ be a linear map of degree $k$. By definition, $d$ is a *$(f,f)$-derivation* if for $a$ and $b\in A$ $$d(ab)=(da)f(b)+(-1)^{k\vert a\vert}f(a)(db).$$
\[proprietes universelles\]
1\) Let $i_B:B\hookrightarrow B\otimes\Lambda V$, $b\mapsto b\otimes 1$ and $i_V:V\hookrightarrow B\otimes\Lambda V$, $v\mapsto 1\otimes v$ be the inclusion maps. Let $\varphi:B\rightarrow C$ be a morphism of commutative graded algebras. Let $f:V\rightarrow C$ be a morphism of graded vector spaces. Then $\varphi$ and $f$ extend uniquely to a morphism $B\otimes \Lambda V\rightarrow C$ of commutative graded algebras such that the following diagram commutes $$\xymatrix{
B\ar[r]^\varphi\ar[dr]_{i_B}
&C
&V\ar[l]_f\ar[dl]^{i_V}\\
& B\otimes \Lambda V\ar@{.>}[u]|-{\exists!}
}$$
2\) Let $d_B:B\rightarrow B$ be a derivation of degree $k$. Let $d_V:V\rightarrow B\otimes\Lambda V$ be a linear map of degree $k$. Then there is a unique derivation $d$ such that the following diagram commutes.
$$\xymatrix{
B\ar[r]^-{i_B}
&B\otimes \Lambda V
&V\ar[l]_{d_V}\ar[dl]^{i_V}\\
B\ar[r]^-{i_B}\ar[u]^{d_B}& B\otimes \Lambda V\ar@{.>}[u]|-{\exists!d}
}$$
3\) Let $f:\Lambda V\rightarrow B$ be a morphism of commutative graded algebras. Let $d_V:V\rightarrow B$ be a linear map of degree $k$. Then there exists a unique $(f,f)$-derivation $d$ extending $d_V$: $$\xymatrix{
V\ar[r]^{d_V}\ar[d]_{i_V}
&B\\
\Lambda V\ar@{.>}[ur]_{\exists!d}
}$$
1\) Since $\Lambda V$ is the free commutative graded algebra on $V$, $f$ can be extended to a morphism of graded algebras $\Lambda V\rightarrow C$. Since the tensor product of commutative graded algebras is the sum in the category of commutative graded algebras, we obtain a morphism of commutative graded algebras from $B\otimes \Lambda V$ to $C$.
2\) Since $b\otimes v_1\dots v_n$ is the product $(b\otimes 1)(1\otimes v_1)
\dots (1\otimes v_n)$, $d(b\otimes v_1\dots v_n)$ is given by $$d_B(b)\otimes v_1\dots v_n
+\sum_{i=1}^n (-1)^{k(\vert b\vert+\vert v_1\vert+\dots+\vert v_{i-1}\vert)} (b\otimes v_1\dots v_{i-1})(d_V v_i) (1\otimes v_{i+1}\dots
v_n)$$
3\) Similarly, $d(v_1\dots v_n)$ is given by $$\sum_{i=1}^n (-1)^{k(\vert v_1\vert+\dots+\vert v_{i-1}\vert)} f(v_1)\dots f(v_{i-1})d_V(v_i) f(v_{i+1})\dots
f(v_n)$$
Sullivan models of spheres {#modeles de Sullivan des spheres}
--------------------------
[**Sullivan models of odd spheres $S^{2n+1}$, $n\geq 0$.**]{}
Consider a cdga $A(S^{2n+1})$ whose cohomology is isomorphic as graded algebras to the cohomology of $S^{2n+1}$ with coefficients in ${{\mathbf{k}}}$: $$H^*(A(S^{2n+1}))\cong H^*(S^{2n+1}).$$ When ${{\mathbf{k}}}$ is ${{\mathbb{R}}}$, you can think of $A$ as the De Rham algebra of forms on $S^{2n+1}$. There exists a cycle $v$ of degree $2n+1$ in $A(S^{2n+1})$ such that $$H^*(A(S^{2n+1}))=\Lambda [v].$$ The inclusion of complexes $({{\mathbf{k}}}v,0)\hookrightarrow A(S^{2n+1})$ extends to a unique morphism of cdgas $m:(\Lambda v,0)\rightarrow
A(S^{2n+1})$(Property \[proprietes universelles\]):
$$\xymatrix{
({{\mathbf{k}}}v,0)\ar[r]\ar[d]
& A(S^{2n+1}) \\
(\Lambda v,0)\ar@{.>}[ur]_{\exists!m}
}$$ The induced morphism in homology $H(m)$ is an isomorphism. We say that $m:(\Lambda v,0)\buildrel{\simeq}\over\rightarrow
A(S^{2n+1})$ is a Sullivan model of $S^{2n+1}$
[**Sullivan models of even spheres $S^{2n}$, $n\geq 1$.**]{}
Exactly as above, we construct a morphism of cdga $m_1:(\Lambda v,0)\rightarrow A(S^{2n})$. But now, $H(m_1)$ is not an isomorphism:
$H(m_1)(v)=[v]$. Therefore $H(m_1)(v^2)=[v^2]=[v]^2=0$. Since $[v^2]=0$ in $H^*(A(S^{2n}))$, there exists an element $\psi\in A(S^{2n})$ of degree $4n-1$ such that $d\psi=v^2$.
Let $w$ denote another element of degree $4n-1$. The morphism of graded vector spaces ${{\mathbf{k}}}v\oplus {{\mathbf{k}}}w\hookrightarrow A(S^{2n})$, mapping $v$ to $v$ and $w$ to $\psi$ extends to a unique morphism of commutative graded algebras $m:\Lambda(v,w)\rightarrow A(S^{2n})$ (1) of Property \[proprietes universelles\]): $$\xymatrix{
{{\mathbf{k}}}v\oplus {{\mathbf{k}}}w
\ar[r]\ar[d]
& A(S^{2n}) \\
\Lambda(v,w)\ar@{.>}[ur]_{\exists!m}
}$$
The linear map of degree $+1$, $d_V:V:={{\mathbf{k}}}v\oplus {{\mathbf{k}}}w\rightarrow \Lambda(v,w)$ mapping $v$ to $0$ and $w$ to $v^2$ extends to a unique derivation $d:\Lambda(v,w)\rightarrow \Lambda(v,w)$ (2) of Property \[proprietes universelles\]). $$\xymatrix{
{{\mathbf{k}}}v\oplus {{\mathbf{k}}}w\ar[r]^{d_V}\ar[d]
&\Lambda(v,w)\\
\Lambda(v,w)\ar@{.>}[ur]_{\exists!d}
}$$ Since $d$ is a derivation of odd degree, $d\circ d$ (which is equal to $1/2[d,d]$) is again a derivation. The following diagram commutes $$\xymatrix{
V\ar[r]^{d_V}\ar[d]
&\Lambda V\ar[r]^{d}
&\Lambda V\\
\Lambda V\ar[urr]_{d\circ d}\ar[ur]^{d}
}$$ Since the composite $d\circ d_V$ is null, by unicity (2) of Property \[proprietes universelles\]), the derivation $d\circ d$ is also null. Therefore $(\Lambda V,d)$ is a cdga. This is the general method to check that $d\circ d=0$.
Denote by $d_A$ the differential on $A(S^{2n})$. Let’s check now that $d_A\circ m=m\circ d$. Since $d_A$ and $d$ are both $(id,id)$-derivations, $d_A\circ m$ and $m\circ d$ are both $(m,m)$-derivations.
Since $d_A(m(v))=d_A(v)=0=m(0)=m(d(v))$ and $d_A(m(w))=d_A(\psi)=v^2=m(v^2)=m(d(w))$, $d_A\circ m$ and $m\circ d$ coincide on $V$. Therefore by unicity (3) of Property \[proprietes universelles\]), $d_A\circ m=m\circ d$. Again, this method is general. So finally, we have proved that $m$ is a morphism of cdgas. Now we prove that $H(m)$ is an isomorphism, by checking that $H(m)$ sends a basis to a basis.
Sullivan models
===============
Definitions
-----------
Let $V$ be a graded vector space. Denote by $V^+=V^{\geq 1}$ the sub graded vector space of $V$ formed by the elements of $V$ of positive degrees: $V=V^0\oplus V^+$.
A *relative Sullivan model* (or *cofibration* in the category of cdgas) is a morphism of cdgas of the form $$(B,d_B)\hookrightarrow (B\otimes\Lambda V,d), b\mapsto b\otimes 1$$ where
$\bullet$ $H^0(B)\cong {{\mathbf{k}}}$,
$\bullet$ $V=V^{\geq 1}$,
$\bullet$ and $V$ is the direct sum of graded vector spaces $V(k)$: $$\forall n, V^n=\bigoplus_{k\in\mathbb{N}} V(k)^n$$ such that $d:V(0)\rightarrow B\otimes {{\mathbf{k}}}$ and $d:V(k)\rightarrow B\otimes \Lambda(V(<k))$. Here $V(<k)$ denotes the direct sum $V(0)\oplus\dots\oplus V(k-1)$.
Let $k\in{{\mathbb{N}}}$. Denote by $\Lambda^k V$ the sub graded vector space of $\Lambda V$ generated by elements of the form $v_1\wedge\dots\wedge v_k$, $v_i\in V$. Elements of $\Lambda^k V$ have by definition *wordlength* $k$. For example $\Lambda V={{\mathbf{k}}}\oplus V\oplus \Lambda^{\geq 2}V$ .
A relative Sullivan model $(B,d_B)\hookrightarrow (B\otimes\Lambda V,d)$ is *minimal* if $d:V\rightarrow B^+\otimes \Lambda V+ B\otimes \Lambda^{\geq 2}V$. A *(minimal) Sullivan model* is a (minimal) relative Sullivan model of the form $(B,d_B)=({{\mathbf{k}}},0)\hookrightarrow (\Lambda V,d)$.
[@Felix-Halperin-Thomas:ratht end of the proof of Lemma 23.1] Let $(\Lambda V,d)$ be cdga such that $V=V^{\geq 2}$. Then $(\Lambda V,d)$ is a Sullivan model.
[@Felix-Halperin-Thomas:ratht p. 144] Suppose that $d:V\rightarrow\Lambda^{\geq 2}V$. In this case, the $V(k)$ are easy to define: let $V(k):=V^k$ for $k\in N$. Let $v\in V^k$. By the minimality condition, $dv$ is equal to a sum $\sum_i x_iy_i$ where the non trivial elements $x_i$ and $y_i$ are both of positive length and therefore both of degre $\geq 2$. Since $\vert x_i\vert+\vert y_i\vert=\vert dv\vert=k+1$, both $x_i$ and $y_i$ are of degree less than k. Therefore $dv$ belongs to $\Lambda(V^{<k})=\Lambda(V(<k))$.
The composite of relative Sullivan models is again a Sullivan relative model.
Let $C$ be a cdga. A (minimal) *Sullivan model of* $C$ is a (minimal) Sullivan model $(\Lambda V,d)$ such that there exists a quasi-isomorphism of cdgas $(\Lambda V,d)\buildrel{\simeq}\over\rightarrow C$.
Let $\varphi:B\rightarrow C$ be a morphism of cdgas. A (minimal) *relative Sullivan model of* $\varphi$ is a (minimal) relative Sullivan model $(B,d_B)\hookrightarrow (B\otimes \Lambda V,d)$ such that $\varphi$ can be decomposed as the composite of the relative Sullivan model and of a quasi-isomorphism of cdgas: $$\xymatrix{
B\ar[r]^\varphi\ar[dr]
& C\\
& B\otimes\Lambda V\ar[u]_\simeq
}$$
Any morphism $\varphi:B\rightarrow C$ of cdgas admits a minimal relative Sullivan model if $H^0(B)\cong {{\mathbf{k}}}$, $H^0(\varphi)$ is an isomorphism and $H^1(\varphi)$ is injective.
This theorem is proved in general by Proposition 14.3 and Theorem 14.9 of [@Felix-Halperin-Thomas:ratht]. But in practice, if $H^1(\varphi)$ is an isomorphism, we construct a minimal relative Sullivan model, by induction on degrees as in Proposition 12.2. of [@Felix-Halperin-Thomas:ratht].
An example of relative Sullivan model {#exemple de
model relatif de Sullivan}
-------------------------------------
Consider the minimal Sullivan model of an odd sphere found in section \[modeles de Sullivan des spheres\]
$$(\Lambda v,0)\buildrel{\simeq}\over\rightarrow
A(S^{2n+1}).$$ Assume that $n\geq 1$. Consider the multiplication of $\Lambda v$: the morphism of cdgas $$\mu:(\Lambda v_1,0)\otimes (\Lambda v_2,0)\rightarrow (\Lambda v,0),
v_1\mapsto v, v_2\mapsto v.$$ Recall that $v$, $v_1$ and $v_2$ are of degree $2n+1$.
Denote by $sv$ an element of degree $\vert sv\vert =\vert s\vert+\vert
v\vert=-1+\vert v\vert$. The operator $s$ of degre $-1$ is called the *suspension*.
We construct now a minimal relative Sullivan model of $\mu$. Define $d(sv)=v_2-v_1$. Let $m:\Lambda(v_1,v_2,sv),d\rightarrow (\Lambda v,0)$ be the unique morphism of cdgas extending $\mu$ such that $m(sv)=0$. $$\xymatrix{
(\Lambda v_1,0)\otimes (\Lambda v_2,0)\ar[r]^-\mu\ar[dr]
& (\Lambda v,0)\\
& \Lambda(v_1,v_2,sv,d)\ar[u]_m
}$$
Let $A$ be a differential graded algebra such that $A^0={{\mathbf{k}}}$. The complex of indecomposables of $A$, denoted $Q(A)$, is the quotient $A^+/\mu(A^+\otimes A^+)$.
The complex of indecomposables of $(\Lambda v,0)$, $Q((\Lambda v,0))$, is $({{\mathbf{k}}}v,0)$ while $$Q(\Lambda(v_1,v_2,sv,d))=({{\mathbf{k}}}v_1\oplus{{\mathbf{k}}}v_2\oplus{{\mathbf{k}}}sv,d(sv)=v_2-v_1).$$ The morphism of complexes $Q(m): ({{\mathbf{k}}}v_1\oplus{{\mathbf{k}}}v_2\oplus{{\mathbf{k}}}sv,d(sv)=v_2-v_1)\rightarrow ({{\mathbf{k}}}v,0)$ map $v_1$ to $v$, $v_2$ to $v$ and $sv$ to $0$. It is easy to check that $Q(m)$ is a quasi-isomorphism of complexes.
By Proposition 14.13 of [@Felix-Halperin-Thomas:ratht], since $m$ is a morphism of cdgas between Sullivan model, $Q(m)$ is a quasi-isomorphim of if and only if $m$ is a quasi-isomorphism.
So we have proved that $m$ is a quasi-isomorphism and therefore $$(\Lambda v_1,0)\otimes (\Lambda v_2,0)\hookrightarrow\Lambda(v_1,v_2,sv,d)$$ is a minimal relative Sullivan model of $\mu$. Consider the following commutative diagram of cdgas where the square is a pushout $$\xymatrix{
&& \Lambda v,0\\
\Lambda (v_1,v_2),0\ar[urr]^\mu\ar[d]_\mu\ar[r]
& \Lambda(v_1,v_2,sv),d\ar[ur]_m^\simeq\ar[d]\\
\Lambda v,0\ar[r]
&\Lambda v,0\otimes_{\Lambda (v_1,v_2),0} \Lambda(v_1,v_2,sv),d
}$$ It is easy to check that the cdga $\Lambda v,0\otimes_{\Lambda (v_1,v_2),0} \Lambda(v_1,v_2,sv),d$ is isomorphic to $\Lambda(v,sv),0$. As we will explain later, we have computed in fact, the minimal Sullivan model $\Lambda(v,sv),0$ of the free loop space $(S^{2n+1})^{S^1}$. In particular, the cohomology algebra $H^*((S^{2n+1})^{S^1};{{\mathbf{k}}})$ is isomorphic to $\Lambda(v,sv)$. We can deduce easily that for $p\in{{\mathbb{N}}}$, $
\operatorname{dim} H^p((S^{2n+1})^{S^1})\leq 1
$. So we have shown that the sequence of Betti numbers of the free loop space on odd dimensional spheres is bounded.
The relative Sullivan model of the multiplication
-------------------------------------------------
[@Felix-Oprea-Tanre:algmodgeom Example 2.48]\[modele de Sullivan de la multiplication\] Let $(\Lambda V,d)$ be a relative minimal Sullivan model with $V=V^{\geq 2}$ (concentrated in degrees $\geq 2$). Then the multiplication $\mu: (\Lambda V,d)\otimes(\Lambda V,d)\twoheadrightarrow(\Lambda V,d)$ admits a minimal relative Sullivan model of the form $(\Lambda V\otimes \Lambda V\otimes\Lambda sV,D)$.
We proceed by induction on $n\in\mathbb{N^*}$ to construct quasi-isomorphisms of cdgas $\varphi_n:(\Lambda V^{\leq n}\otimes \Lambda V^{\leq n}\otimes\Lambda sV^{\leq n},D)
\buildrel{\simeq}\over\twoheadrightarrow(\Lambda V^{\leq n},d)$ extending the multiplication on $\Lambda V^{\leq n}$.
Suppose that $\varphi_n$ is constructed. We now define $\varphi_{n+1}$ extending $\varphi_n$ and $\mu$, the multiplication on $\Lambda V$. Let $v\in V^{n+1}$. Then $d(v)\in\Lambda^{\geq 2}(V^{\leq n})$ and $\varphi_n(dv\otimes 1\otimes 1-1\otimes dv\otimes 1)=0$. Since $\varphi_n$ is a surjective quasi-isomorphism, by the long exact sequence associated to a short exact sequence of complexes, $\text{Ker }\varphi_n$ is acyclic. Therefore since $dv\otimes 1\otimes 1-1\otimes dv\otimes 1$ is a cycle, there exists an element $\gamma$ of degree $n+1$ of $\Lambda V^{\leq n}\otimes \Lambda V^{\leq n}\otimes\Lambda sV^{\leq n}$ such that $D(\gamma)=dv\otimes 1\otimes 1-1\otimes dv\otimes 1$ and $\varphi_n(\gamma)=0$. For degree reasons, $\gamma$ is decomposable, i. e. has wordlength $\geq 2$. We define $D(1\otimes 1\otimes sv)=v\otimes 1\otimes 1-1\otimes v\otimes 1-\gamma$ and $\varphi_{n+1}(1\otimes 1\otimes sv)=0$. Since $D\circ D(1\otimes 1\otimes sv)=0$ and $d\circ\varphi_{n+1}(1\otimes 1\otimes sv)=\varphi_{n+1}\circ d(1\otimes 1\otimes sv)$, by Property \[proprietes universelles\], the derivation $D$ is a differential on $\Lambda V^{\leq n+1}\otimes \Lambda V^{\leq n+1}\otimes\Lambda sV^{\leq n+1}$ and the morphism of graded algebras $\varphi_{n+1}$ is a morphism of complexes.
The complex of indecomposables of $(\Lambda V^{\leq n+1}\otimes \Lambda V^{\leq n+1}\otimes\Lambda sV^{\leq n+1},D)$, $$Q((\Lambda V^{\leq n+1}\otimes \Lambda V^{\leq n+1}\otimes\Lambda sV^{\leq n+1},D)$$ is $(V^{\leq n+1}\oplus V^{\leq n+1}\oplus sV^{\leq n+1},d)$ with differential $d$ given by $d(v'\oplus v"\oplus sv)=v\oplus -v\oplus 0$ for $v'$, $v"$ and $v\in
V^{\leq n+1}$. Therefore it is easy to check that $Q(\varphi_{n+1})$ is a quasi-isomorphism. So by Proposition 14.13 of [@Felix-Halperin-Thomas:ratht], $\varphi_{n+1}$ is a quasi-isomorphism. Since $\gamma$ is of degree $n+1$ and $sV^{\leq n}$ is of degree $<n$, this relative Sullivan model is minimal. We now define $\varphi:(\Lambda V\otimes \Lambda V\otimes\Lambda sV,D)
\twoheadrightarrow(\Lambda V,d)$ as $$\displaystyle\lim_{\longrightarrow}\varphi_n=
\bigcup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\varphi_n: \bigcup_{n\in\mathbb{N}} \left(\Lambda V^{\leq n}\otimes \Lambda V^{\leq n}\otimes\Lambda sV^{\leq n}\right)\rightarrow\bigcup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\Lambda V^{\leq n}.$$ Since homology commutes with direct limits in the category of complexes [@Spanier:livre Chap 4, Sect 2, Theorem 7], $H(\varphi)=\displaystyle\lim_{\longrightarrow}H(\varphi_n)$ is an isomorphism.
Rational homotopy theory
========================
Let $X$ be a topological space. Denote by $S^*(X)$ the singular cochains of $X$ with coefficients in ${{\mathbf{k}}}$. The dga $S^*(X)$ is almost never commutative. Nevertheless, Sullivan, inspired by Quillen proved the following theorem.
[@Felix-Halperin-Thomas:ratht Corollary 10.10]\[quasi-isos entre A\_PL et les cochaines\] For any topological space $X$, there exists two natural quasi-isomorphisms of dgas $$S^*(X)\buildrel{\simeq}\over\rightarrow D(X)\buildrel{\simeq}\over\leftarrow A_{PL}(X)$$ where $A_{PL}(X)$ is commutative.
\[sur les reels formes de De Rham\] This cdga $A_{PL}(X)$ is called the algebra of *polynomial differential forms*. If ${{\mathbf{k}}}={{\mathbb{R}}}$ and $X$ is a smooth manifold $M$, you can think that $A_{PL}(M)$ is the De Rham algebra of differential forms on $M$, $A_{DR}(M)$ [@Felix-Halperin-Thomas:ratht Theorem 11.4].
[@Felix-Oprea-Tanre:algmodgeom Definition 2.34] Two topological spaces $X$ and $Y$ have the same *rational homotopy type* if there exists a finite sequence of continuous applications $$X\buildrel{f_0}\over\rightarrow Y_1\buildrel{f_1}\over\leftarrow Y_2
\dots
Y_{n-1}\buildrel{f_{n-1}}\over\leftarrow Y_n\buildrel{f_{n}}\over\rightarrow Y$$ such that the induced maps in rational cohomology $$\begin{gathered}
H^*(X;{{\mathbb{Q}}})\buildrel{H^*(f_0)}\over\leftarrow H^*(Y_1;{{\mathbb{Q}}})\buildrel{H^*(f_1)}\over\rightarrow H^*(Y_2;{{\mathbb{Q}}})
\dots
H^*(Y_{n-1}1;{{\mathbb{Q}}})\\\buildrel{H^*(f_{n-1})}\over\rightarrow H^*(Y_n;{{\mathbb{Q}}})\buildrel{H^*(f_{n})}\over\leftarrow H^*(Y;{{\mathbb{Q}}})\end{gathered}$$ are all isomorphisms.
\[modele minimal unique et groupes d’homotopie\] Let $X$ be a path connected topological space.
1\) (Unicity of minimal Sullivan models [@Felix-Halperin-Thomas:ratht Corollary p. 191]) Two minimal Sullivan models of $A_{PL}(X)$ are isomorphic.
2\) Suppose that $X$ is simply connected and $\forall n\in\mathbb{N}$, $H_n(X;{{\mathbf{k}}})$ is finite dimensional. Let $(\Lambda V,d)$ be a minimal Sullivan model of $X$. Then [@Felix-Halperin-Thomas:ratht Theorem 15.11] for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$, $V^n$ is isomorphic to $\text{Hom}_{{\mathbf{k}}}(\pi_n(X)\otimes_\mathbb{Z} {{\mathbf{k}}},{{\mathbf{k}}})\cong\text{Hom}_\mathbb{Z}(\pi_n(X),{{\mathbf{k}}})$. In particular [@Felix-Halperin-Thomas:ratht Remark 1 p.208], $\text{Dimension } V^n= \text{Dimension } \pi_n(X)\otimes_\mathbb{Z} {{\mathbf{k}}}< \infty$.
The isomorphim of graded vector spaces between $V$ and $\text{Hom}_{{\mathbf{k}}}(\pi_*(X)\otimes_\mathbb{Z} {{\mathbf{k}}},{{\mathbf{k}}})$ is natural in some sense [@Felix-Oprea-Tanre:algmodgeom p. 75-6] with respect to maps $f:X\rightarrow Y$. The isomorphism behaves well also with respect to the long exact sequence associated to a (Serre) fibration ([@Felix-Halperin-Thomas:ratht Proposition 15.13] or [@Felix-Oprea-Tanre:algmodgeom Proposition 2.65]).
[@Felix-Oprea-Tanre:algmodgeom Proposition 2.35][@Felix-Halperin-Thomas:ratht p. 139] Let $X$ and $Y$ be two simply connected topological spaces such that $H^n(X;{{\mathbb{Q}}})$ and $H^n(Y;{{\mathbb{Q}}})$ are finite dimensional for all $n\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$. Let $(\Lambda V,d)$ be a minimal Sullivan model of $X$ and let $(\Lambda W,d)$ be a minimal Sullivan model of $Y$. Then $X$ and $Y$ have the same rational homotopy type if and only if $(\Lambda V,d)$ is isomorphic to $(\Lambda W,d)$ as cdgas.
Sullivan model of a pullback
============================
Sullivan model of a product
---------------------------
Let $X$ and $Y$ be two topological spaces. Let $p_1:X\times Y\twoheadrightarrow Y$ and $p_2:X\times Y\twoheadrightarrow X$ be the projection maps. Let $m$ be the unique morphism of cdgas given by the universal property of the tensor product (Example \[example cdga\] 1)) $$\xymatrix{
& A_{PL}(Y)\ar[d]\ar@/^/[ddr]^{A_{PL}(p_2)}\\
A_{PL}(X)\ar[r]\ar@/_/[drr]_{A_{PL}(p_1)}
&A_{PL}(X)\otimes
A_{PL}(Y)\ar@{.>}[dr]|-{\exists!m}\\
&&A_{PL}(X\times Y).
}$$ Assume that $H^*(X;{{\mathbf{k}}})$ or $H^*(Y;{{\mathbf{k}}})$ is finite dimensional in all degrees. Then [@Felix-Halperin-Thomas:ratht Example 2, p. 142-3] $m$ is a quasi-isomorphism. Let $m_X:\Lambda V\buildrel{\simeq}\over\rightarrow A_{PL}(X)$ be a Sullivan model of $X$. Let $m_Y:\Lambda W\buildrel{\simeq}\over\rightarrow A_{PL}(Y)$ be a Sullivan model of $Y$. Then by Künneth theorem, the composite $$\Lambda V\otimes \Lambda W\buildrel{m_X\otimes m_Y}\over\rightarrow
A_{PL}(X)\otimes A_{PL}(Y) \buildrel{m}\over\rightarrow
A_{PL}(X\times Y)$$ is a quasi-isomorphism of cdgas. Therefore we have proved that “the Sullivan model of a product is the tensor product of the Sullivan models”.
the model of the diagonal {#modele de la diagonale}
-------------------------
Let $X$ be a topological space such that $H^*(X)$ is finite dimensional in all degrees. Denote by $\Delta:X\rightarrow X\times X$, $x\mapsto (x,x)$ the diagonal map of $X$. Using the previous paragraph, since $A_{PL}(p_1\circ \Delta)=A_{PL}(p_2\circ \Delta)=A_{PL}({\operatorname{id}})={\operatorname{id}}$, we have the commutative diagram of cdgas. $$\xymatrix{
A_{PL}(X)\ar[r]\ar[dr]_{A_{PL}(p_1)}\ar@/_2pc/[ddr]_{{\operatorname{id}}}
&A_{PL}(X)\otimes A_{PL}(X)\ar[d]^{m}_\simeq
& A_{PL}(X)\ar[l]\ar[dl]^{A_{PL}(p_2)}\ar@/^2pc/[ddl]^{{\operatorname{id}}}\\
&A_{PL}(X\times X)\ar[d]^{A_{PL}(\Delta)}\\
&A_{PL}(X)
}$$ Therefore the composite $A_{PL}(X)\otimes A_{PL}(X)\buildrel{m}\over\rightarrow
A_{PL}(X\times X)\buildrel{A_{PL}(\Delta)}\over\rightarrow A_{PL}(X)$ coincides with the multiplication $\mu: A_{PL}(X)\otimes A_{PL}(X)\rightarrow A_{PL}(X)$. Therefore the following diagram of cdgas commutes $$\xymatrix{
A_{PL}(X)
&A_{PL}(X\times X)\ar[l]_{A_{PL}(\Delta)}\\
& A_{PL}(X)\otimes A_{PL}(X)\ar[ul]_{\mu}\ar[u]_{m}^\simeq\\
\Lambda V\ar[uu]^{m_X}_\simeq
&\Lambda V\otimes \Lambda V\ar[l]^{\mu}\ar[u]_{m_X\otimes m_X}^\simeq\\
}$$ Here $m_X:\Lambda V\buildrel{\simeq}\over\rightarrow A_{PL}(X)$ denotes a Sullivan model of $X$. Therefore we have proved that “the morphism modelling the diagonal map is the multiplication of the Sullivan model”.
Sullivan model of a fibre product {#Sullivan model d'un produit fibre}
---------------------------------
Consider a pullback square in the category of topological spaces $$\xymatrix{
P\ar[r]^g\ar[d]_q
&E\ar[d]^p\\
X\ar[r]^f
&B
}$$
where
$\bullet$ $p:E\rightarrow B$ is a (Serre) fibration between two topological spaces,
$\bullet$ for every $i\in\mathbb{N}$, $H^i(X)$ and $H^i(B)$ are finite dimensional,
$\bullet$ the topological spaces $X$ and $E$ are path-connected and $B$ is simply-connected.
Since $p$ is a (Serre) fibration, the pullback map $q$ is also a (Serre) fibration. Let $A_{PL}(B)\otimes\Lambda V$ be a relative Sullivan model of $A(p)$. Consider the corresponding commutative diagram of cdgas $$\xymatrix{
&A_{PL}(B)\ar[r]^{A_{PL}(f)}\ar[d]\ar@/_2pc/[ddl]_{A_{PL}(p)}
&A_{PL}(X)\ar[d]\ar@/^2pc/[ddr]^{A_{PL}(q)}\\
&A_{PL}(B)\otimes\Lambda V\ar[r]\ar[dl]_m^\simeq
&A_{PL}(X)\otimes_{A_{PL}(B)}A_{PL}(B)\otimes\Lambda V\ar@{.>}[dr]|-{\exists!m'}\\
A_{PL}(E)\ar[rrr]^{A_{PL}(g)}
&&&A_{PL}(P)
}$$ where the rectangle is a pushout and $m'$ is given by the universal property. Explicitly, for $x\in A_{PL}(X)$ and $e\in A_{PL}(B)\otimes\Lambda V$, $m'(x\otimes e)$ is the product of $A_{PL}(q)(x)$ and $A_{PL}(g)\circ m(e)$.
Since $A_{PL}(B)\hookrightarrow A_{PL}(B)\otimes\Lambda V$ is a relative Sullivan model, the inclusion obtained via pullback $A_{PL}(X)\hookrightarrow A_{PL}(X)\otimes_{A_{PL}(B)}(A_{PL}(B)\otimes\Lambda V,d)\cong
(A_{PL}(X)\otimes\Lambda V,d)$ is also a relative Sullivan model (minimal if $A_{PL}(B)\hookrightarrow A_{PL}(B)\otimes\Lambda V$ is minimal).
By [@Felix-Halperin-Thomas:ratht Proposition 15.8] (or for weaker hypothesis [@Felix-Oprea-Tanre:algmodgeom Theorem 2.70]),
The morphism of cdgas $m'$ is a quasi-isomorphism.
We can summarize this theorem by saying that: “The push-out of a (minimal) relative Sullivan model of a fibration is a (minimal) relative Sullivan model of the pullback of the fibration.”
Since by [@Felix-Halperin-Thomas:ratht Lemma 14.1], $A_{PL}(B)\otimes\Lambda V$ is a “semi-free” resolution of $A_{PL}(E)$ as left $A_{PL}(B)$-modules, by definition of the differential torsion product, $$\text{Tor}^{A_{PL}(B)}(A_{PL}(X),A_{PL}(E)):=H(A_{PL}(X)\otimes_{A_{PL}(B)}(A_{PL}(B)\otimes\Lambda V).$$ By Theorem \[quasi-isos entre A\_PL et les cochaines\] and naturality, we have an isomorphim of graded vector spaces $$\text{Tor}^{A_{PL}(B)}(A_{PL}(X),A_{PL}(E))\cong \text{Tor}^{S^*(B)}(S^*(X),S^*(E)).$$ The Eilenberg-Moore formula gives an isomorphism of graded vector spaces $$\text{Tor}^{S^*(B)}(S^*(X),S^*(E))\cong H^*(P).$$ We claimed that the resulting isomorphism between the homology of $A_{PL}(X)\otimes_{A_{PL}(B)}(A_{PL}(B)\otimes\Lambda V)$ and $H^*(P)$ can be identified with $H(m)$. Therefore $m$ is a quasi-isomorphism.
Instead of working with $A_{PL}$, we prefer usually to work at the level of Sullivan models. Let $m_B:\Lambda B\buildrel{\simeq}\over\rightarrow A_{PL}(B)$ be a Sullivan model of $B$. Let $m_X:\Lambda X\buildrel{\simeq}\over\rightarrow A_{PL}(X)$ be a Sullivan model of $X$. Let $\varphi$ be a morphism of cdgas such the following diagram commutes exactly
$$\xymatrix{
A_{PL}(B)\ar[r]^{A_{PL}(f)}
&A_{PL}(X)\\
\Lambda B\ar[r]^{\varphi}\ar[u]^{m_B}_\simeq
&\Lambda X\ar[u]^{m_X}_\simeq
}$$ Let $\Lambda B\hookrightarrow \Lambda B\otimes \Lambda V$ be a relative Sullivan model of $A_{PL}(p)\circ m_B$. Consider the corresponding commutative diagram of cdgas $$\label{diagram Sullivan model d'un produit fibre}
\xymatrix{
A_{PL}(B)\ar[dd]_{A_{PL}(p)}
&\Lambda B\ar[r]^{\varphi}\ar[d]\ar[l]_{m_B}^ \simeq
&\Lambda X\ar[d]\ar[r]^{m_X}_\simeq
&A_{PL}(X)\ar[dd]^{A_{PL}(q)}\\
&\Lambda B\otimes\Lambda V\ar[r]\ar[dl]_m^\simeq
&\Lambda X\otimes_{\Lambda B}(\Lambda B\otimes\Lambda V)\ar@{.>}[dr]|-{\exists!m'}\\
A_{PL}(E)\ar[rrr]^{A_{PL}(g)}
&&&A_{PL}(P)
}$$ where the rectangle is a pushout and $m'$ is given by the universal property. Then again, $\Lambda X\hookrightarrow \Lambda X\otimes_{\Lambda B}(\Lambda B\otimes\Lambda V)$ is a relative Sullivan model and the morphism of cdgas $m'$ is a quasi-isomorphism. The reader should skip the following remark on his first reading.
\[modele a homotopie pres\] 1) In the previous proof, if the composites $m_X\circ \varphi$ and $A_{PL}(f)\circ m_B$ are not strictly equal then the map $m'$ is not well defined. In general, the composites $m_X\circ \varphi$ and $A_{PL}(f)\circ m_B$ are only homotopic and the situation is more complicated: see part 2) of this remark.
2\) Let $m_B:\Lambda B\buildrel{\simeq}\over\rightarrow A_{PL}(B)$ be a Sullivan model of $B$. Let $m_X':\Lambda X'\buildrel{\simeq}\over\rightarrow A_{PL}(X)$ be a Sullivan model of $X$. By the lifting Lemma of Sullivan models [@Felix-Halperin-Thomas:ratht Proposition 14.6], there exists a morphism of cdgas $\varphi':\Lambda B\rightarrow\Lambda
X'$ such that the following diagram commutes only up to homotopy (in the sense of [@Felix-Oprea-Tanre:algmodgeom Section 2.2]) $$\xymatrix{
A_{PL}(B)\ar[r]^{A_{PL}(f)}
&A_{PL}(X)\\
\Lambda B\ar[r]^{\varphi'}\ar[u]^{m_B}_\simeq
&\Lambda X'.\ar[u]^{m_X'}_\simeq
}$$ In general, this square is not strictly commutative. Let $\Lambda B\hookrightarrow \Lambda B\otimes \Lambda V$ be a relative Sullivan model of $A_{PL}(p)\circ m_B$. Then there exists a commutative diagram of cdgas $$\xymatrix{
A_{PL}(X)\ar[r]^{A_{PL}(q)}
& A_{PL}(P)\\
\Lambda X\ar[r]\ar[u]^ \simeq\ar[d]^ \simeq
& \Lambda X\otimes_{\Lambda B} (\Lambda B\otimes \Lambda V)\ar[u]^ \simeq\ar[d]^ \simeq\\
\Lambda X'\ar[r]
& \Lambda X'\otimes_{\Lambda B} (\Lambda B\otimes \Lambda V)}$$
Let $\Lambda B\buildrel{\varphi}\over\hookrightarrow \Lambda X\buildrel{\theta}\over\rightarrow \Lambda X'$ be a relative Sullivan model of $\varphi'$. Since the composites $m_{X}'\circ\theta\circ\varphi$ and $A_{PL}(f)\circ m_B$ are homotopic, by the homotopy extension property [@Felix-Oprea-Tanre:algmodgeom Proposition 2.22] of the relative Sullivan model $\varphi:\Lambda B\hookrightarrow \Lambda X$, there exists a morphism of cdgas $m_X:\Lambda X\rightarrow A_{PL}(X)$ homotopic to $m_{X}'\circ\theta$ such that $m_X\circ \varphi=A_{PL}(f)\circ m_B$. Therefore using diagram (\[diagram Sullivan model d’un produit fibre\]), we obtain the following commutative diagram of cdgas: $$\xymatrix{
A_{PL}(X)\ar[r]^{A_{PL}(q)}
& A_{PL}(P)
&A_{PL}(E)\ar[l]_{A_{PL}(g)}\\
\Lambda X\ar[r]\ar[u]^\simeq_{m_X}\ar[d]_\simeq^{\theta}
& \Lambda X\otimes_{\Lambda B} (\Lambda B\otimes \Lambda V)\ar[u]^ \simeq_{m'}\ar[d]_\simeq^{\theta\otimes_{\Lambda B} (\Lambda B\otimes \Lambda V)}
&\Lambda B\otimes \Lambda V\ar[u]^\simeq_{m}\ar[l]\\
\Lambda X'\ar[r]
& \Lambda X'\otimes_{\Lambda B} (\Lambda B\otimes \Lambda V).
}$$ Here, since $\theta$ is a quasi-isomorphism, the pushout morphism $\theta\otimes_{\Lambda B} (\Lambda B\otimes \Lambda V)$ along the relative Sullivan model $\Lambda X\hookrightarrow \Lambda X\otimes_{\Lambda B}(\Lambda B\otimes\Lambda V)$ is also a quasi-isomorphism [@Felix-Halperin-Thomas:ratht Lemma 14.2].
Sullivan model of a fibration {#modele de Sullivan d'une fibration}
-----------------------------
Let $p:E\rightarrow B$ be a (Serre) fibration with fibre $F:=p^{-1}(b_0)$.
$$\xymatrix{
F\ar[r]^j\ar[d]
&E\ar[d]^p\\
b_0\ar[r]
&B
}$$ Taking $X$ to be the point $b_0$, we can apply the results of the previous section. Let $m_B:(\Lambda V,d)\buildrel{\simeq}\over\rightarrow A_{PL}(B)$ be a Sullivan model of $B$. Let $(\Lambda V,d)\hookrightarrow (\Lambda V\otimes\Lambda W,d)$ be a relative Sullivan model of $A_{PL}(p)\circ m_B$.
Since $A_{PL}(\{b_0\})$ is equal to $({{\mathbf{k}}},0)$, there is a unique morphism of cdgas $m'$ such that the following diagram commutes
$$\xymatrix{
A_{PL}(B)\ar[r]^{A_{PL}(p)}
&A_{PL}(E)\ar[r]^{A_{PL}(j)}
&A_{PL}(F)\\
(\Lambda V,d)\ar[r]\ar[u]_{m_B}^\simeq
&(\Lambda V\otimes\Lambda W,d)\ar[r]\ar[u]_\simeq
&(k,0)\otimes_{(\Lambda V,d)}(\Lambda V\otimes\Lambda W,d)\ar[u]_{m'}
}$$ Suppose that the base $B$ is a simply connected space and that the total space $E$ is path-connected. Then by the previous section, the morphism of cdga’s $$m':(k,0)\otimes_{(\Lambda V,d)}(\Lambda V\otimes\Lambda W,d)\cong
(\Lambda W,\bar{d})\buildrel{\simeq}\over\longrightarrow A_{PL}(F)$$ is a quasi-isomorphism:
“ The cofiber of a relative Sullivan model of a fibration is a Sullivan model of the fiber of the fibration.”
Note that the cofiber of a relative Sullivan model is minimal if and only if the relative Sullivan model is minimal.
Sullivan model of free loop spaces
----------------------------------
Let $X$ be a simply-connected space. Consider the commutative diagram of spaces $$\xymatrix{
X^{S^1}\ar[r]\ar[d]_{ev}
& X^I\ar[d]_{(ev_0,ev_1)}
& X\ar[dl]^{\Delta}\ar[l]^{\approx}_\sigma
\\
X\ar[r]_-{\Delta}
&X\times X
}$$ where the square is a pullback. Here $I$ denotes the closed interval $[0,1]$, $ev$, $ev_0$, $ev_1$ are the evaluation maps and the homotopy equivalence $\sigma:X\buildrel{\approx}\over\rightarrow X^I$ is the inclusion of constant paths. Let $m_X:\Lambda V\buildrel{\simeq}\over\rightarrow A_{PL}(X)$ be a minimal Sullivan model of $X$. By Proposition \[modele de Sullivan de la multiplication\], the multiplication $\mu:\Lambda V\otimes\Lambda V\rightarrow \Lambda V$ admits a minimal relative Sullivan model of the form $$\Lambda V\otimes\Lambda V\hookrightarrow\Lambda V\otimes\Lambda V\otimes\Lambda sV.$$ Since $\mu$ is a model of the diagonal (Section \[modele de la diagonale\]) and since $\Delta=(ev_0,ev_1)\circ\sigma$, we have the commutative rectangle of cdgas $$\xymatrix{
A_{PL}(X\times X)\ar[rr]^{A_{PL}((ev_0,ev_1))}
&& A_{PL}(X^I)\ar[r]^{A_{PL}(\sigma)}
& A_{PL}(X)\\
\Lambda V\otimes\Lambda V\ar[u]^{m_{X\times X}}_\simeq\ar[rr]
&& \Lambda V\otimes\Lambda V\otimes\Lambda sV\ar[r]_-\simeq
&\Lambda V\ar[u]_{m_{X}}^\simeq
}$$ Since $\sigma$ is a homotopy equivalence, $S^*(\sigma)$ is a homotopy equivalence of complexes and in particular a quasi-isomorphim. So by Theorem \[quasi-isos entre A\_PL et les cochaines\] and naturality, $A_{PL}(\sigma)$ is also a quasi-isomorphism. Therefore, by the lifting property of relative Sullivan models [@Felix-Halperin-Thomas:ratht Proposition 14.6], there exists a morphism of cdgas $\varphi:\Lambda V\otimes\Lambda V\otimes\Lambda sV
\rightarrow A_{PL}(X^I)
$ such that, in the diagram of cdgas $$\xymatrix{
A_{PL}(X\times X)\ar[r]^{A_{PL}((ev_0,ev_1))}
& A_{PL}(X^I)\ar[r]^{A_{PL}(\sigma)}_\simeq
& A_{PL}(X)\\
\Lambda V\otimes\Lambda V\ar[u]^{m_{X\times X}}_\simeq\ar[r]
& \Lambda V\otimes\Lambda V\otimes\Lambda sV\ar[r]_-\simeq
\ar@{.>}[u]^{\varphi}_\simeq
&\Lambda V\ar[u]_{m_{X}}^\simeq
}$$ the left square commutes exactly and the right square commutes in homology. Therefore $\varphi$ is also a quasi-isomorphism. This means that $$\Lambda V\otimes\Lambda V\hookrightarrow\Lambda V\otimes\Lambda V\otimes\Lambda sV.$$ is a relative Sullivan model of the composite $$\Lambda V\otimes \Lambda V\buildrel{m_{X\times X}}\over\rightarrow
A_{PL}(X\times X)\buildrel{A_{PL}((ev_0,ev_1))}\over\longrightarrow
A_{PL}(X^I).$$ Here diagram (\[diagram Sullivan model d’un produit fibre\]) specializes to the following commutative diagram of cdgas $$\label{diagram Sullivan model lacets libres}
\xymatrix{
&\Lambda V\otimes\Lambda V\ar[r]^{\mu}\ar[d]
&\Lambda V\ar[d]\ar[r]^{m_X}_\simeq
&A_{PL}(X)\ar[dd]^{A_{PL}(ev)}\\
&\Lambda V\otimes\Lambda V\otimes\Lambda sV\ar[r]\ar[dl]_\varphi^\simeq
&\Lambda V\otimes_{\Lambda V\otimes\Lambda V}\Lambda V\otimes\Lambda V\otimes\Lambda sV\ar[dr]_{\simeq}\\
A(X^I)\ar[rrr]
&&&A(X^{S^1})
}$$ where the rectangle is a pushout. Therefore $$\Lambda V\hookrightarrow
\Lambda V\otimes_{\Lambda V\otimes\Lambda V}\left(\Lambda V\otimes\Lambda V\otimes\Lambda sV\right)\cong (\Lambda V\otimes\Lambda sV,\delta)$$ is a minimal relative Sullivan model of $A_{PL}(ev)\circ m_X$.
\[theoreme de Chen sur lacets libres\] Let $X$ be a simply-connected space. Then the free loop space cohomology of $H^*(X^{S^1};{{\mathbf{k}}})$ with coefficients in a field ${{\mathbf{k}}}$ of characteristic $0$ is isomorphic to the Hochschild homology of $A_{PL}(X)$, $HH_*(A_{PL}(X),A_{PL}(X))$.
Replacing $A_{PL}(X)$ by $A_{DR}(M)$ (Remark \[sur les reels formes de De Rham\]), this Corollary is a theorem of Chen [@Brylinski:loopchageo 3.2.3 Theorem] when $X$ is a smooth manifold $M$.
The quasi-isomorphism of cdgas $m_X:\Lambda V
\buildrel{\simeq}\over\rightarrow A_{PL}(X)$ induces an isomorphism between Hochschild homologies $$HH_*(m_X,m_X):HH_*(\Lambda V,\Lambda V)\buildrel{\cong}\over\rightarrow HH_*(A_{PL}(X), A_{PL}(X)).$$ By [@Felix-Halperin-Thomas:ratht Lemma 14.1], $\Lambda V\otimes\Lambda V\otimes\Lambda sV$ is a semi-free resolution of $\Lambda V$ as a $\Lambda V\otimes\Lambda V^{op}$-module. Therefore the Hochschild homology $HH_*(\Lambda V,\Lambda V)$ can be defined as the homology of the cdga $(\Lambda V\otimes\Lambda sV,\delta)$. We have just seen above that $H(\Lambda V\otimes\Lambda sV,\delta)$ is isomorphic to the free loop space cohomology $H^*(X^{S^1};{{\mathbf{k}}})$.
We have shown that a Sullivan model of $X^{S^1}$ is of the form $(\Lambda V\otimes \Lambda sV,\delta)$. The following theorem of Vigué-Poirrier and Sullivan gives a precise description of the differential $\delta$.
([@Vigue-Sullivan:homtcg Theorem p. 637] or [@Felix-Oprea-Tanre:algmodgeom Theorem 5.11]\[differentiel du modele de Sullivan des lacets libres\]) Let $X$ be a simply connected topological space. Let $(\Lambda V,d)$ be a minimal Sullivan model of $X$. For all $v\in V$, denote by $sv$ an element of degree $\vert v\vert -1$. Let $s:\Lambda V\otimes \Lambda sV\rightarrow \Lambda V\otimes \Lambda sV$ be the unique derivation of (upper) degree $-1$ such that on the generators $v$, $sv$, $v\in V$, $s(v)=sv$ and $s(sv)=0$. We have $s\circ s=0$. Then there exists a unique Sullivan model of $X^{S^1}$ of the form $(\Lambda V\otimes \Lambda sV,\delta)$ such that $\delta\circ s+s\circ \delta=0$ on $\Lambda V\otimes \Lambda sV$.
\[modele de la fibration des lacets libres\] Consider the free loop fibration $\Omega X\hookrightarrow X^{S^1}\buildrel{ev}\over\twoheadrightarrow X$. Since $(\Lambda V,d)\hookrightarrow (\Lambda V\otimes \Lambda sV,\delta)$ is a minimal relative Sullivan model of $A_{PL}(ev)\circ m_X$, by Section \[modele de Sullivan d’une fibration\], $${\Bbbk}\otimes_{(\Lambda V,d)}(\Lambda V\otimes \Lambda sV,\delta)\cong (\Lambda sV,\bar{\delta})$$ is a minimal Sullivan model of $\Omega X$. Let $v\in V$. By Theorem \[differentiel du modele de Sullivan des lacets libres\], $\delta(sv)=-s\delta v=-sdv$. Since $dv\in\Lambda^{\geq 2}V$, $\delta(sv)\in \Lambda^{\geq 1}V\otimes \Lambda^1 sV$. Therefore $\bar{\delta}=0$. Since $\Omega X$ is a $H$-space, this follows also from Theorem \[model H-space\] and from the unicity of minimal Sullivan models (part 1) of Theorem \[modele minimal unique et groupes d’homotopie\]).
Examples of Sullivan models
===========================
Sullivan model of spaces with polynomial cohomology
---------------------------------------------------
The following proposition is a straightforward generalisation [@Felix-Halperin-Thomas:ratht p. 144] of the Sullivan model of odd-dimensional spheres (see section \[modeles de Sullivan des spheres\]).
\[modele de Sullivan polynomial cohomology\] Let $X$ be a path connected topological space such that its cohomology $H^*(X;{{\mathbf{k}}})$ is a free graded commutative algebra $\Lambda V$ (for example, polynomial). Then a Sullivan model of $X$ is $(\Lambda V,0)$.
Odd-dimensional spheres $S^{2n+1}$, complex or quartenionic Stiefel manifolds [@Felix-Oprea-Tanre:algmodgeom Example 2.40] $V_k(\mathbb{C}^n)$ or $V_k(\mathbb{H}^n)$, classifying spaces $BG$ of simply connected Lie groups [@Felix-Oprea-Tanre:algmodgeom Example 2.42], connected Lie groups $G$ as we will see in the following section.
Sullivan model of an $H$-space
------------------------------
An *$H$-space* is a pointed topological space $(G,e)$ equipped with a pointed continuous map $\mu:(G,e)\times (G,e)\rightarrow (G,e)$ such that the two pointed maps $g\mapsto \mu(e,g)$ and $g\mapsto \mu(g,e)$ are pointed homotopic to the identity map of $(G,e)$.
[@Felix-Halperin-Thomas:ratht Example 3 p. 143]\[model H-space\] Let $G$ be a path connected $H$-space such that $\forall n\in\mathbb{N}$, $H_n(G;{{\mathbf{k}}})$ is finite dimensional. Then
1\) its cohomology $H^*(G;{{\mathbf{k}}})$ is a free graded commutative algebra $\Lambda V$,
2\) $G$ has a Sullivan model of the form $(\Lambda V,0)$, that is with zero differential.
1\) Let $A$ be $H^*(G;{{\mathbf{k}}})$ the cohomology of $G$. By hypothesis, $A$ is a connected commutative graded Hopf algebra (not necessarily associative). Now the theorem of Hopf-Borel in caracteristic $0$ [@DoldA:lecat VII.10.16] says that $A$ is a free graded commutative algebra.
2\) By Proposition \[modele de Sullivan polynomial cohomology\], 1) and 2) are equivalent.
Let $G$ be a path-connected Lie group (or more generally a $H$-space with finitely generated integral homology). Then $G$ has a Sullivan model of the form $(\Lambda V,0)$. By Theorem \[modele minimal unique et groupes d’homotopie\], $V^n$ and $\pi_n(G)\otimes_\mathbb{Z}{{\mathbf{k}}}$ have the same dimension for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Since $H_*(G;{{\mathbf{k}}})$ is of finite (total) dimension, $V$ and therefore $\pi_*(G)\otimes_\mathbb{Z}{{\mathbf{k}}}$ are concentrated in odd degrees. In fact, more generally [@Browder:torsionH-space Theorem 6.11], $\pi_2(G)=\{0\}$. Note, however that $\pi_4(S^3)=\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}\neq \{0\}$.
Sullivan model of projective spaces
-----------------------------------
Consider the complex projective space $\mathbb{CP}^n$, $n\geq 1$. The construction of the Sullivan model of $\mathbb{CP}^n$ is similar to the construction of the Sullivan model of $S^2=\mathbb{CP}^ 1$ done in section \[modeles de Sullivan des spheres\]:
The cohomology algebra $H^*(A_{PL}(\mathbb{CP}^n))\cong H^*(\mathbb{CP}^n)$ is the truncated polynomial algebra $\frac{{{\mathbf{k}}}[x]}{x^{n+1}=0}$ where $x$ is an element of degree $2$. Let $v$ be a cycle of $A_{PL}(\mathbb{CP}^n)$ representing $x:=[v]$. The inclusion of complexes $({{\mathbf{k}}}v,0)\hookrightarrow A_{PL}(\mathbb{CP}^n)$ extends to a unique morphism of cdgas $m:(\Lambda v,0)\rightarrow
A_{PL}(\mathbb{CP}^n)$(Property \[proprietes universelles\]). Since $[v^{n+1}]=x^{n+1}=0$, there exists an element $\psi\in A_{PL}(\mathbb{CP}^n)$ of degree $2n+1$ such that $d\psi=v^{n+1}$. Let $w$ denote another element of degree $2n+1$. Let $d$ be the unique derivation of $\Lambda(v,w)$ such that $d(v)=0$ and $d(w)=v^{n+1}$. The unique morphism of graded algebras $m:(\Lambda(v,w),d)\rightarrow A_{PL}(\mathbb{CP}^n)$ such that $m(v)=v$ and $m(w)=\psi$, is a morphism of cdgas. In homology, $H(m)$ sends $1$, $[v]$, …, $[v^n]$ to $1$, $x$, …, $x^n$. Therefore $m$ is a quasi-isomorphism.
More generally, let $X$ be a simply connected space such that $H^*(X)$ is a truncated polynomial algebra $\frac{{{\mathbf{k}}}[x]}{x^{n+1}=0}$ where $n\geq 1$ and $x$ is an element of even degree $d\geq 2$. Then the Sullivan model of $X$ is $(\Lambda(v,w),d)$ where $v$ is an element of degree $d$, $w$ is an element of degree $d(n+1)-1$, $d(v)=0$ and $d(w)=v^{n+1}$.
Free loop space cohomology for even-dimensional spheres and projective spaces
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we compute the free loop space cohomology of any simply connected space $X$ whose cohomology is a truncated polynomial algebra $\frac{{{\mathbf{k}}}[x]}{x^{n+1}=0}$ where $n\geq 1$ and $x$ is an element of even degree $d\geq 2$.
Mainly, this is the even-dimensional sphere $S^d$ ($n=1$), the complex projective space $\mathbb{CP}^n$ ($d=2$), the quaternionic projective space $\mathbb{HP}^n$ ($d=4$) and the Cayley plane $\mathbb{OP}^2$ ($n=2$ and $d=8$).
In the previous section, we have seen that the minimal Sullivan model of $X$ is $(\Lambda(v,w),d(v)=0,d(w)=v^{n+1})$ where $v$ is an element of degree $d$ and $w$ is an element of degree $d(n+1)-1$. By the constructive proof of Proposition \[modele de Sullivan de la multiplication\], the multiplication $\mu$ of this minimal Sullivan model $(\Lambda(v,w),d)$ admits the relative Sullivan model $(\Lambda(v,w)\otimes \Lambda(v,w)\otimes \Lambda(sv,sw),D)$ where $$D(1\otimes 1\otimes sv)=v\otimes 1\otimes 1-1\otimes v\otimes 1\text{ and}$$ $$D(1\otimes 1\otimes sw)=w\otimes 1\otimes 1-1\otimes w\otimes 1-\sum_{i=0}^n v^i\otimes v^{n-i}\otimes sv.$$
Therefore, by taking the pushout along $\mu$ of this relative Sullivan model (diagram (\[diagram Sullivan model lacets libres\])), or simply by applying Theorem \[differentiel du modele de Sullivan des lacets libres\], a relative Sullivan model of $A_{PL}(ev)\circ m_X$ is given by the inclusion of cdgas $
(\Lambda(v,w),d)\hookrightarrow (\Lambda(v,w,sv,sw),\delta)
$ where $\delta(sv)=-sd(v)=0$ and $\delta(sw)=-s(v^{n+1})=-(n+1)v^nsv$. Consider the pushout square of cdgas $$\xymatrix{
(\Lambda(v,w),d)\ar[r]\ar[d]^\theta_\simeq
& (\Lambda(v,w,sv,sw),\delta)\ar[d]_\simeq^{\theta\otimes_{\Lambda (v,w)}\Lambda (sv,sw)} \\
(\frac{{{\mathbf{k}}}[v]}{v^{n+1}=0},0)\ar[r]
& \left(\frac{{{\mathbf{k}}}[v]}{v^{n+1}=0}\otimes \Lambda (sv,sw),\bar{\delta}\right).
}$$ Here, since $\theta$ is a quasi-isomorphism, the pushout morphism $\theta\otimes_{\Lambda (v,w)}\Lambda (sv,sw)$ along the relative Sullivan model $
\Lambda(v,w)\hookrightarrow \Lambda(v,w,sv,sw)
$ is also a quasi-isomorphism [@Felix-Halperin-Thomas:ratht Lemma 14.2]. Therefore, $H^*(X^{S^1};{{\mathbf{k}}})$ is the graded vector space $${\Bbbk}\oplus \bigoplus_{1\leq p\leq n,\; i\in\mathbb{N}} {\Bbbk}v^{p}(sw)^i
\oplus \bigoplus_{0\leq p\leq n-1,\; i\in\mathbb{N}} {\Bbbk}v^{p}sv(sw)^i.$$ (In [@MenichiL:cohrfl Section 8], the author extends these rational computations over any commutative ring.) Since for all $i\in\mathbb{N}$, the degree of $v(sw)^{i+1}$ is strictly greater than the degree of $v^n(sw)^i$, the generators $1$, $v^{p}(sw)^i$, $1\leq p\leq n$, $i\in\mathbb{N}$, have all distinct (even) degrees. Since for all $i\in\mathbb{N}$, the degree of $sv(sw)^{i+1}$ is strictly greater than the degree of $v^{n-1}sv(sw)^i$, the generators $v^{p}sv(sw)^i$, $0\leq p\leq n-1$, $i\in\mathbb{N}$, have also distinct (odd) degrees. Therefore, for all $p\in\mathbb{N}$, $\text{Dim
}H^p(X^{S^1};{{\mathbf{k}}})\leq 1$.
At the end of section \[exemple de model relatif de Sullivan\], we have shown the same inequalities when $X$ is an odd-dimensional sphere, or more generally for a simply-connected space $X$ whose cohomology $H^*(X;{{\mathbf{k}}})$ is an exterior algebra $\Lambda x$ on an odd degree generator $x$. Since every finite dimensional graded commutative algebra generated by a single element $x$ is either $\Lambda x$ or $\frac{{{\mathbf{k}}}[x]}{x^{n+1}=0}$, we have shown the following proposition:
\[monogene donne Betti bornes\] Let $X$ be a simply connected topological space such that its cohomology $H^*(X;{{\mathbf{k}}})$ is generated by a single element and is finite dimensional. Then the sequence of Betti numbers of the free loop space on $X$, $b_n:=\text{dim } H^n(X^{S^1};{{\mathbf{k}}})$ is bounded.
The goal of the following section will be to prove the converse of this proposition.
Vigué-Poirrier-Sullivan theorem on closed geodesics
===================================================
The goal of this section is to prove (See section \[proofofViguePoirrierSullivantheorem\]) the following theorem due to Vigué-Poirrier and Sullivan.
Statement of Vigué-Poirrier-Sullivan theorem and of its generalisations
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
([@Vigue-Sullivan:homtcg Theorem p. 637] or [@Felix-Oprea-Tanre:algmodgeom Proposition 5.14]\[nombres de betti lacets libres pas bornes\]) Let $M$ be a simply connected topological space such that the rational cohomology of $M$, $H^*(M;\mathbb{Q})$ is of finite (total) dimension (in particular, vanishes in higher degrees).
If the cohomology algebra $H^*(M;\mathbb{Q})$ requires at least two generators then the sequence of Betti numbers of the free loop space on $M$, $b_n:=\text{dim } H^n(M^{S^1};\mathbb{Q})$ is unbounded.
\[Betti rationel sur le produit de spheres\](Betti numbers of $(S^3\times S^3)^{S^1}$ over $\mathbb{Q}$)
Let $V$ and $W$ be two graded vector spaces such $\forall n\in\mathbb{N}$, $V^n$ and $W^n$ are finite dimensional. We denote by $$P_{V}(z):=\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty}(\text{Dim }V^n) z^n$$ the sum of the *Poincaré serie* of $V$. If $V$ is the cohomology of a space $X$, we denote $P_{H^*(X)}(z)$ simply by $P_{X}(z)$. Note that $P_{V\otimes W}(z)$ is the product $P_V(z)P_W(z)$. We saw at the end of section \[exemple de model relatif de Sullivan\] that $H^*((S^3)^{S^1};\mathbb{Q})\cong \Lambda v\otimes \Lambda sv$ where $v$ is an element of degree $3$. Therefore $$P_{(S^3)^{S^1}}(z)=(1+z^3)\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty}z^{2n}=\frac{1+z^3}{1-z^2}.$$ Since the free loops on a product is the product of the free loops $$H^*((S^3\times S^3)^{S^1})\cong H^*((S^3)^{S^1})\otimes H^*((S^3)^{S^1}).$$ Therefore, since $\displaystyle{\frac{1}{1-z^2}=\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty}
(n+1) z^{2n}}$, $$P_{(S^3\times
S^3)^{S^1}}(z)=\left(\frac{1+z^3}{1-z^2}\right)^2=1+2z^2+\sum_{n=3}^{+\infty}
(n-1) z^n.$$ So the Betti numbers over $\mathbb{Q}$ of the free loop space on $S^3\times S^3$, $b_n:=\text{Dim }H^n((S^3\times
S^3)^{S^1};\mathbb{Q})$ are equal to $n-1$ if $n\geq 3$. In particular, they are unbounded.
\[conjecture geodesiques fermees\] The theorem of Vigué-Poirrier and Sullivan holds replacing $\mathbb{Q}$ by any field $\mathbb{F}$.
(Betti numbers of $(S^3\times S^3)^{S^1}$ over $\mathbb{F}$)
The calculation of Example \[Betti rationel sur le produit de spheres\] over $\mathbb{Q}$ can be extended over any field $\mathbb{F}$ as follows: Since $S^3$ is a topological group, the map $\Omega S^3\times
S^3\rightarrow (S^3)^{S^1}$, sending $(w,g)$ to the free loop $t\mapsto
w(t)g$, is a homeomorphism. Using Serre spectral sequence ([@Serre:suitespectrale Proposition 17] or[@Spanier:livre Chap 9. Sect 7. Lemma 3]) or Bott-Samelson theorem ([@SelickP:introhomot Corollary 7.3.3] or [@Husemoller:fibb Appendix 2 Theorem 1.4]), the cohomology of the pointed loops on $S^3$, $H^*(\Omega S^3)$ is again isomorphic (as graded vector spaces only!) to the polynomial algebra $\Lambda sv$ where $sv$ is of degree $2$. Therefore exactly as over $\mathbb{Q}$, $H^*((S^3)^{S^1};\mathbb{F})\cong \Lambda v\otimes \Lambda
sv$ where $v$ is an element of degree $3$. Now the same proof as in Example \[Betti rationel sur le produit de spheres\] shows that the Betti numbers over $\mathbb{F}$ of the free loop space on $S^3\times S^3$, $b_n:=\text{Dim }H^n((S^3\times
S^3)^{S^1};\mathbb{F})$ are again equal to $n-1$ if $n\geq 3$.
In fact, the theorem of Vigué-Poirrier and Sullivan is completely algebraic:
([@Vigue-Sullivan:homtcg] when $\mathbb{F}=\mathbb{Q}$, [@Halperin-Vigue:homfls Theorem III p. 315] over any field $\mathbb{F}$)\[nombres de Betti homologie de Hochschild\] Let $\mathbb{F}$ be a field. Let $A$ be a cdga such that $H^{<0}(A)=0$, $H^{0}(A)=\mathbb{F}$ and $H^*(A)$ is of finite (total) dimension. If the algebra $H^*(A)$ requires at least two generators then the sequence of dimensions of the Hochschild homology of $A$, $b_n:=\text{dim } HH_{-n}(A,A)$ is unbounded.
Generalising Chen’s theorem (Corollary \[theoreme de Chen sur lacets libres\]) over any field $\mathbb{F}$, Jones theorem [@JonesJ:Cycheh] gives the isomorphisms of vector spaces
$$H^n(X^{S^1};\mathbb{F})\cong HH_{-n}(S^*(X;\mathbb{F}), S^*(X;\mathbb{F})), \quad n\in\mathbb{Z}$$ between the free loop space cohomology of $X$ and the Hochschild homology of the algebra of singular cochains on $X$. But since the algebra of singular cochains $S^*(X;\mathbb{F})$ is not commutative, Conjecture \[conjecture geodesiques fermees\] does not follow from Theorem \[nombres de Betti homologie de Hochschild\].
A first result of Sullivan
--------------------------
In this section, we start by a first result of Sullivan whose simple proof illustrates the technics used in the proof of Vigué-Poirrier-Sullivan theorem.
[@Sullivan:conftokyo]\[cohomologie des lacets libres pas bornee\] Let $X$ be a simply-connected space such that $H^*(X;\mathbb{Q})$ is not concentrated in degree $0$ and $H^n(X;\mathbb{Q})$ is null for $n$ large enough. Then on the contrary, $H^n(X^{S^1};\mathbb{Q})\neq 0$ for an infinite set of integers $n$.
Let $(\Lambda V,d)$ be a minimal Sullivan model of $X$. Suppose that $V$ is concentrated in even degree. Then $d=0$. Therefore $H^*(\Lambda V,d)=\Lambda V$ is either concentrated in degree $0$ or is not null for an infinite sequence of degrees. By hypothesis, we have excluded theses two cases. Therefore $\text{dim }V^{odd}\geq 1$.
Let $x_1$, $x_2$, …, $x_m$, $y$, $x_{m+1}$, ..... be a basis of $V$ ordered by degree where $y$ denotes the first generator of odd degree ($m\geq 0$). For all $1\leq i\leq m$, $dx_i\in\Lambda x_{<i}$. But $dx_i$ is of odd degree and $\Lambda x_{<i}$ is concentrated in even degre. So $dx_i=0$. Since $dy\in \Lambda x_{\leq m}$, $dy$ is equal to a polynomial $P(x_1,\dots,x_m)$ which belongs to $\Lambda^{\geq 2}(x_1,\dots,x_m)$.
Consider $(\Lambda V\otimes\Lambda sV,\delta)$, the Sullivan model of $X^{S^1}$, given by Theorem \[differentiel du modele de Sullivan des lacets libres\]. We have $\forall 1\leq i\leq m$, $\delta(sx_i)=-sdx_i=0$ and $\delta (sy)=-sdy\in \Lambda^{\geq 1}(x_1,\dots,x_m)\otimes \Lambda^{1}(sx_1,\dots,sx_m)$. Therefore, since $sx_1$,…,$sx_m$ are all of odd degree, $\forall p\geq 0$, $$\delta (sx_1\dots sx_m(sy)^p)=\pm sx_1\dots sx_m p\delta(sy)(sy)^{p-1}=0.$$ For all $p\geq 0$, the cocycle $sx_1\dots sx_m(sy)^p$ gives a non trivial cohomology class in $H^*(X^{S^1};\mathbb{Q})$, since by Remark \[modele de la fibration des lacets libres\], the image of this cohomology class in $H^*(\Omega X;\mathbb{Q})\cong \Lambda V$ is different from $0$.
Dimension of $V^{odd}\geq 2$
----------------------------
In this section, we show the following proposition:
\[au moins deux generateurs de degree impair\] Let $X$ be a simply connected space such that $H^*(X;\mathbb{Q})$ is of finite (total) dimension and requires at least two generators. Let $(\Lambda V,d)$ be the minimal Sullivan model of $X$. Then $\text{dim }V^{odd}\geq 2$.
(Koszul complexes)\[complexes de Koszul a une variable\] Let $A$ be a graded algebra. Let $z$ be a central element of even degree of $A$ which is not a divisor of zero. Then we have a quasi-isomorphism of dgas $$(A\otimes\Lambda sz,d)\buildrel{\simeq}\over\twoheadrightarrow A/z.A\quad a\otimes 1\mapsto a, a\otimes sz\mapsto 0,$$ where $d(a\otimes 1)=0$ and $d(a\otimes sz)=(-1)^{\vert a\vert}az$ for all $a\in A$.
As we saw in the proof of Theorem \[cohomologie des lacets libres pas bornee\], there is at least one generator $y$ of odd degree, that is $\text{dim }V^{odd}\geq 1$. Suppose that there is only one. Let $x_1$, $x_2$, …, $x_m$, $y$, $x_{m+1}$,…be a basis of $V$ ordered by degree ($m\geq 0$).
First case: $dy=0$. If $m\geq 1$, $dx_1=0$. If $m=0$, $dx_1\in\Lambda^{\geq 2}(y)=\{0\}$ and therefore again $dx_1=0$. Suppose that for $n\geq 1$, $x_1^n$ is a coboundary. Then $x_1^n=d(yP(x_1,\dots))=yd(P(x_1,\dots))$ where $P(x_1,\dots)$ is a polynomial in the $x_i$’s. But this is impossible since $x_1^n$ does not belong to the ideal generated by $y$. Therefore for all $n\geq 1$, $x_1^n$ gives a non trivial cohomology class in $H^*(X)$. But $H^*(X)$ is finite dimensional.
Second case: $dy\neq 0$. In particular $m\geq 1$. Since $dy$ is a non zero polynomial, $dy$ is not a zero divisor, so by Property \[complexes de Koszul a une variable\], we have a quasi-isomorphism of cdgas $$\Lambda(x_1,\dots,x_m,y)\buildrel{\simeq}\over\twoheadrightarrow\Lambda(x_1,\dots,x_m)/(dy).$$ Consider the push out in the category of cdgas $$\xymatrix{
\Lambda(x_1,\dots,x_m,y)\ar[r]\ar[d]_\simeq
& \Lambda(x_1,\dots,x_m,y,x_{m+1},\dots),d\ar[d]\\
\Lambda(x_1,\dots,x_m)/(dy)\ar[r]
& \Lambda(x_1,\dots,x_m)/(dy)\otimes \Lambda(x_{m+1},\dots),\bar{d}
}$$ Since $\Lambda(x_1,\dots,x_m)/(dy)\otimes \Lambda(x_{m+1},\dots)$ is concentrated in even degrees, $\bar{d}=0$. Since the top arrow is a Sullivan relative model and the left arrow is a quasi-isomorphism, the right arrow is also a quasi-isomorphism ([@Felix-Halperin-Thomas:ratht Lemma 14.2], or more generally the category of cdgas over $\mathbb{Q}$ is a Quillen model category). Therefore the algebra $H^*(X)$ is isomorphic to $\Lambda(x_1,\dots,x_m)/(dy)\otimes \Lambda(x_{m+1},\dots)$. If $m\geq 2$, $\Lambda(x_1,\dots,x_m)/(dy)$ and so $H^*(X)$ is infinite dimensional. If $m=1$, since $\Lambda x_1/(dy)$ is generated by only one generator, we must have another generator $x_2$. But $\Lambda(x_1)/(dy)\otimes \Lambda(x_{2},\dots)$ is also infinite dimensional.
Proof of Vigué-Poirrier-Sullivan theorem {#proofofViguePoirrierSullivantheorem}
----------------------------------------
[@Vigue-Sullivan:homtcg Proposition 4]\[elimination generateur degree pair\] Let $A$ be a dga over any field such that the multiplication by a cocycle $x$ of any degre $A\rightarrow A$, $a\mapsto xa$ is injective (Our example will be $A=(\Lambda V,d)$ and $x$ a non-zero element of $V$ of even degree such that $dx=0$). If the Betti numbers $b_n=\text{dim } H^n(A)$ of $A$ are bounded then the Betti numbers $b_n=\text{dim } H^n(A/xA)$ of $A/xA$ are also bounded.
Since $H^n(xA)\cong H^{n-\vert x\vert}(A)$, the short exact sequence of complexes $$0\rightarrow xA\rightarrow A\rightarrow A/xA\rightarrow 0$$ gives the long exact sequence in homology $$\dots\rightarrow H^n(A)\rightarrow H^n(A/xA)\rightarrow H^{n+1-\vert x\vert}(A)\rightarrow\dots$$ Therefore $\text{dim }H^n(A/xA)\leq \text{dim } H^n(A)+\text{dim } H^{n+1-\vert x\vert}(A)$
Let $(\Lambda V,d)$ be the minimal Sullivan model of $X$. Let $(\Lambda V\otimes\Lambda sV,\delta)$ be the Sullivan model of $X^{S^1}$ given by Theorem \[differentiel du modele de Sullivan des lacets libres\]. From Proposition \[au moins deux generateurs de degree impair\], we know that $\text{dim }V^{odd}\geq 2$. Let $x_1$, $x_2$, …, $x_m$, $y$, $x_{m+1}$,…, $x_n$, $z=x_{n+1}$, … be a basis of $V$ ordered by degrees where $x_1$,…, $x_n$ are of even degrees and $y$, $z$ are of odd degrees. Consider the commutative diagram of cdgas where the three rectangles are push outs $$\xymatrix{
\Lambda(x_1,\dots, x_n)\ar[r]\ar[d]
&(\Lambda V,d)\ar[r]\ar[d]
&(\Lambda V\otimes\Lambda sV,\delta)\ar[d]\\
\mathbb{Q}\ar[r]
&\Lambda(y,z,\dots)\ar[r]\ar[d]
&(\Lambda(y,z,\dots)\otimes\Lambda sV,\bar{\delta})\ar[d]\\
&\mathbb{Q}\ar[r]
&(\Lambda sV,0)
}$$ Note that by Remark \[modele de la fibration des lacets libres\], the differential on $\Lambda sV$ is $0$.
For all $1\leq j\leq n+1$, $$\delta x_j=dx_j\in \Lambda^{\geq 2}(x_{<j},y)\subset
\Lambda^{\geq 1}(x_{<j})\otimes \Lambda y.$$ Therefore $$\delta (sx_j)=-s\delta x_j\in \Lambda x_{<j}\otimes\Lambda^1 sx_{<j}\otimes\Lambda y+\Lambda^{\geq 1}(x_{<j})\otimes \Lambda^1 sy.$$ Since $(sx_1)^2=\dots=(sx_{j-1})^2=0$, the product $$sx_1\dots sx_{j-1} \delta (sx_j)\in \Lambda^{\geq 1}(x_{<j})\otimes \Lambda^1 sy.$$ So $\forall 1\leq j\leq n+1$, $sx_1\dots sx_{j-1} \bar{\delta} (sx_j)=0$. In particular $sx_1\dots sx_{n} \bar{\delta} (sz)=0$. Similarly, since $dy\in\Lambda^{\geq 2} x_{\leq m}$, $sx_1\dots sx_m\delta(sy)=0$ and so $sx_1\dots sx_n\bar{\delta}(sy)=0$. By induction, $\forall 1\leq j\leq n$, $\bar{\delta}(sx_1\dots sx_j)=0$. In particular, $\bar{\delta}(sx_1\dots sx_n)=0$. So finally, for all $p\geq 0$ and all $q\geq 0$, $\bar{\delta}(sx_1\dots sx_n(sy)^p(sz)^q)=0$. The cocycles $sx_1\dots sx_n(sy)^p(sz)^q$, $p\geq 0$, $q\geq 0$, give linearly independent cohomology classes in $H^*(\Lambda(y,z,\dots)\otimes\Lambda sV,\bar{\delta})$ since their images in $(\Lambda sV,0)$ are linearly independent.
For all $k\geq 0$, there is at least $k+1$ elements of the form $sx_1\dots sx_n(sy)^p(sz)^q$ in degree $\vert sx_1\vert+ \dots+\vert sx_n\vert+k\cdot\text{lcm}(\vert sy\vert,\vert sz\vert)$ (just take $p=i\cdot\text{lcm}(\vert sy\vert,\vert sz\vert)/\vert sy\vert$ and $q=(k-i)\text{lcm}(\vert sy\vert,\vert sz\vert)/\vert sz\vert$ for $i$ between $0$ and $k$). Therefore the Betti numbers of $H^*(\Lambda(y,z,\dots)\otimes\Lambda sV,\bar{\delta})$ are unbounded.
Suppose that the Betti numbers of $(\Lambda V\otimes\Lambda sV,\delta)$ are bounded. Then by Lemma \[elimination generateur degree pair\] applied to $A=(\Lambda V\otimes\Lambda sV,\delta)$ and $x=x_1$, the Betti numbers of the quotient cdga $(\Lambda(x_2,\dots)\otimes\Lambda sV,\bar{\delta})$ are bounded. By continuing to apply Lemma \[elimination generateur degree pair\] to $x_2$, $x_3$, …, $x_n$, we obtain that the Betti numbers of the quotient cdga $(\Lambda(y,z,\dots)\otimes\Lambda sV,\bar{\delta}$ are bounded. But we saw just above that they are unbounded.
Further readings
================
In this last section, we suggest some further readings that we find appropriate for the student.
In [@Bott-Tu:difforms Chapter 19], one can find a very short and gentle introduction to rational homotopy that the reader should compare to our introduction.
In this introduction, we have tried to explain that rational homotopy is a functor which transforms homotopy pullbacks of spaces into homotopy pushouts of cdgas. Therefore after our introduction, we advise the reader to look at [@Hess:introrationalhtpy], a more advanced introduction to rational homotopy, which explains the model category of cdgas.
The canonical reference for rational homotopy [@Felix-Halperin-Thomas:ratht] is highly readable.
In the recent book [@Felix-Oprea-Tanre:algmodgeom], you will find many geometric applications of rational homotopy. The proof of Vigué-Poirrier-Sullivan theorem we give here, follows more or less the proof given in [@Felix-Oprea-Tanre:algmodgeom].
We also like [@TanreD:homrmc] recently reprinted because it is the only book where you can find the Quillen model of a space: a differential graded Lie algebra representing its rational homotopy type (instead of a commutative differential graded algebra as the Sullivan model).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'There has been interest in finding a general variational principle for non-equilibrium statistical mechanics. We give evidence that [*Maximum Caliber*]{} (Max Cal) is such a principle. Max Cal, a variant of Maximum Entropy, predicts dynamical distribution functions by maximizing a path entropy subject to dynamical constraints, such as average fluxes. We first show that Max Cal leads to standard near-equilibrium results – including the Green-Kubo relations, Onsager’s reciprocal relations of coupled flows, and Prigogine’s principle of minimum entropy production – in a way that is particularly simple. More importantly, because Max Cal does not require any notion of ‘local equilibrium’, or any notion of entropy dissipation, or even any restriction to material physics, it is more general than many traditional approaches. We develop some generalizations of the Onsager and Prigogine results that apply arbitrarily far from equilibrium. Max Cal is not limited to materials and fluids; it also applies, for example, to flows and trafficking on networks more broadly.'
author:
- 'Michael J. Hazoglou'
- Valentin Walther
- 'Purushottam D. Dixit'
- 'Ken A. Dill'
title: Maximum caliber is a general variational principle for nonequilibrium statistical mechanics
---
Contributed equally
Introduction {#intro}
============
There has been interest in identifying a variational principle basis for non-equilibrium statistical mechanics (NESM). On the one hand, phenomenological dynamics is well established. It consists of: (a) phenomenological relationships, such as Ohm’s Law of electrical current flow, Fick’s Law of diffusion, Fourier’s Law of conduction, the Newtonian Law of viscosity, combined with (b) conservation laws, such Kirchoff’s current relationship, or similar relationships for flows of mass or heat. The combinations of relationships of types (a) and (b) leads to well-known dynamical equations such as the Navier-Stokes and Burgers’ equations of hydrodynamics or the diffusion and Smoluchowski equations, as elucidated in standard textbooks [@Bird2007].
However, the search for a microscopic statistical basis for these relationships has been more challenging; see for example [@bonetto2000fourier]. While there have been many powerful and important methods for particular calculations, including the Langevin equation, Master equation, Fokker-Planck and Smoluchowski equations and others, nevertheless so far, there has been no foundational basis for NESM that provides the same power that the Second Law of thermodynamics provides for equilibria [@Grandy2008; @Kon1998]. Indeed, multiple context dependent variational principles have been proposed for NESM, such as Minimum Entropy Production [@Kon1998], Maximum Entropy Production [@dewar2003information; @dewar2005maximum], and Minimum Energy Dissipation [@Ons1953]. Nevertheless, a general variational quantity remains illusive.
A common basis in the above principles is to begin with the ‘state entropy’, $S = - \sum_i p_i \log p_i$ where the $p_i$’s are the populations of equilibrium states $i = 1, 2, 3, \ldots$. Then, a ‘local equilibrium’ assumption is made that $S$, which is fundamentally only defined in the context of an extremum principle for predicting equilibrium, can also be a useful predictor near equilibrium. Then the entropy production is defined as $\sigma = dS/dt$ to determines rates of approach to equilibrium or of dissipation in steady states. One major drawback of the above methods is that they usually do not provide a natural quantifier for closeness to equilibrium; there is no systematic way to improve the near equilibrium predictions in terms of an expansion parameter. Here, we describe an approach based on path entropies, not state entropies, that does not have these problems, is applicable even far from equilibrium, has expansion parameters, and happens to give very simple routes to deriving properties of NESM.
A goal of NESM has been to find a variational quantity which can be maximized while imposing suitable dynamical constraints. Such an approach goes beyond phenomenological descriptions of only average forces and flows and explains fluctuating quantities and higher moments of dynamical properties as well. In 1980, E.T. Jaynes proposed a candidate NESM variational principle called ‘Maximum Caliber’ (Max Cal) [@Jaynes1985]. We and others have explored its applicability as a general foundation for NESM [@Pre2013; @dixit2014inferring; @Sto2008; @wang2005maximum; @Ge2012; @Sto2008; @Lee2012; @dixit2015inferring]. Here, we demonstrate that major results of NESM can be derived from assuming that Max Cal is a general foundational principle, these results are the Green-Kubo relations, Onsager reciprocal relations, and a generalized Prigogine’s principle.
Theory: the Maximum Caliber approach {#theory}
====================================
For concreteness, we consider a discrete-time discrete-state system with two types of fluxes: of ‘stuff’ $a$ and ‘stuff’ $b$. Examples of $a$ and $b$ include heat, mass, electrical charge, momentum. We allow for the coupling between the two fluxes; the flux of $a$ may depend in any way on the flux of $b$. We assume that the system reaches a macroscopic nonequilibrium stationary state after a long time after it has been coupled to gradients across its boundaries that set up the fluxes. Figure \[figureAA\] illustrates with an example of coupled heat and particle flows in one dimension.
![An illustration of coupled heat and particle flows.[]{data-label="figureAA"}](3systems.png)
Suppose the system has $N$ discrete states $\{ 1, 2, \dots, N \}$. Let us define an ensemble $\{ \Gamma\} $ of stationary-state micro-trajectories $\Gamma \equiv \dots \rightarrow i\rightarrow j \rightarrow \dots$ of fixed duration. The duration of the trajectories is not important, so we keep it unspecified. Based on how the system is coupled to the gradients and the internal structure of the system, each micro-trajectory $\Gamma$ will correspond to a specific value of flux $j_{a\Gamma}(t)$ of type $a$ (and $b$) at any time $t$. The ensemble average of the flux $J_a(t)$ of quantity $a$ at time $t$ is then given by $$J_a(t) = \langle j_{a\Gamma}(t) \rangle = \sum_\Gamma p_\Gamma j_{a\Gamma}(t) \label{eq:fluxdef}.$$
where $p_\Gamma$ is the probability of trajectory $\Gamma$. It is clear that different probability distributions $p_\Gamma$ could lead to macroscopic fluxes $J_a(t)$ and $J_b(t)$. The strategy of Max Cal is to seek the particular probability distribution $p_\Gamma$ that maximizes the path entropy and is otherwise consistent with the ensemble averaged fluxes $J_a(t)$ and $J_b(t)$ for all times $t$. We maximize the path entropy or the Caliber, $$\mathcal{C}= -\sum_\Gamma p_\Gamma \log \frac{p_{\Gamma}}{q_\Gamma}$$ subject to normalization and flux constraints. Here, $q_\Gamma$ is the [*reference*]{} probability distribution of trajectories when there are no gradients, i.e. at thermodynamic equilibrium. From Fig. \[figureAA\], it is clear that there are multiple choices of $q_\Gamma$, for example, it may correspond to the equilibrium distribution at $T_1$ and $\mu_1$ or to the distribution at $T_2$ and $\mu_2$. As an aside, the conditions for equilibrium (see below) are that (a) there are no net fluxes at equilibrium i.e. $$\langle j_{a\Gamma}(t) \rangle = \sum j_{a\Gamma}(t) q_\Gamma = 0 \label{eq:noflux}$$ and similarly for $\langle j_{b\Gamma}(t) \rangle$ and (b) the equilibrium state satisfies microscopic reversibility: the trajectory ensemble averages at equilibrium are unchanged under path reversal. Under the situation where the flux is odd under time-reversal the condition (b) yields (a).
The Caliber [@Jaynes1985; @Pre2013] is maximized with the constraints on the macroscopic fluxes of $a$ and $b$ at time $t$ for all $t$, which are enforced by the set of Lagrange multipliers $\{ \lambda_a(t) \}$ and $\{ \lambda_b(t) \}$:
$$\begin{gathered}
-\sum_\Gamma p_\Gamma \log \frac{p_\Gamma}{q_\Gamma} +\sum_t \lambda_{a}(t) \left( \sum_{\Gamma} p_\Gamma j_{a \Gamma}(t) -J_a(t) \right) \\ + \sum_t \lambda_{b}(t) \left( \sum_{\Gamma} p_\Gamma j_{b \Gamma}(t) -J_b(t) \right) +\alpha \left( \sum_\Gamma p_\Gamma -1\right ). \label{LagrangeFunction}\end{gathered}$$
Maximizing the Caliber with respect to the trajectory probability $p_\Gamma$ gives $$p_\Gamma =\frac{q_\Gamma}{Z} \exp \left( \sum_t \left[ \lambda_a(t) j_{a\Gamma}(t) +\lambda_b(t) j_{b \Gamma}(t) \right] \right)\label{eq:pgamma}$$ with the dynamical partition function $Z$ $$Z=\sum_{\Gamma}q_\Gamma \exp \left( \sum_t \left[ \lambda_a(t) j_{a\Gamma}(t) +\lambda_b(t) j_{b \Gamma}(t) \right] \right). \label{Partition}$$
Equations and are the expressions of the principle of Maximum Caliber for two types of flows. Like Maximum Entropy for equilibrium statistical mechanics, Maximum Caliber for nonequilibrium computes macroscopic quantities as derivatives of a partition-function-like quantity (in this case a sum of weights over the different pathways). For example, average flux quantities are first derivatives of the logarithm of the [*dynamical partition function*]{}: $$\begin{aligned}
J_a(t) = \langle j_{a\Gamma}(t) \rangle= \sum_{\Gamma}p_\Gamma j_{a \Gamma}(t)=\frac{\partial \log Z}{\partial \lambda_a (t)}.
\label{Averages}\end{aligned}$$ Identical equations follow for $J_b(t)$. Eq. allow the calculation of $\lambda_a(t)$ and $\lambda_b(t)$ from the knowledge of the functional form of $J_a [\lambda_a (t),\lambda_b (t)]$ and $J_b [\lambda_a (t),\lambda_b (t)]$ as well as the constrained values. Higher moments of the dynamical distribution function can be calculated by taking higher derivatives of $\log Z$. For example, the second order cumulants are $$\begin{aligned}
\langle j_{a\Gamma}(t) j_{a\Gamma}(\tau) \rangle-\langle j_{a\Gamma}(t) \rangle \langle j_{a\Gamma}(\tau) \rangle&=&\frac{\partial \langle j_{a\Gamma}(t)\rangle}{\partial \lambda_a (\tau)}\nonumber \\ &=&\frac{\partial^2 \log Z}{\partial \lambda_a(t) \partial \lambda_a(\tau)} \\
\langle j_{a\Gamma}(t) j_{b\Gamma}(\tau) \rangle-\langle j_{a\Gamma}(t) \rangle \langle j_{b\Gamma}(\tau) \rangle &=&\frac{\partial \langle j_{a\Gamma}(t)\rangle}{\partial \lambda_b (\tau)}=\frac{\partial \langle j_{b\Gamma}(\tau)\rangle}{\partial \lambda_a (t)} \nonumber \\ &=& \frac{\partial^2 \log Z}{\partial \lambda_a(t) \partial \lambda_b(\tau)}
\label{second order}\end{aligned}$$ Identical expressions follow for $b$.
So far, this development is general, allowing for time-dependent fluxes. However, for our purpose below of touching base with three well-known results of NESM, we now restrict consideration to stationary flows, $\langle j_{a\Gamma}(t) \rangle= J_a $ and $\langle j_{b\Gamma}(t) \rangle= J_b $ for all times $t$. Appendix 1 shows that it follows that the corresponding Lagrange multipliers $\lambda_{a}$, $\lambda_{b}$ are also independent of time. Now, we show how the Green-Kubo relations, Onsager’s reciprocal relations, and Prigogine’s minimum entropy production theorem, are derived quite simply from Equations and .
Deriving the Green-Kubo Relations from Max Cal {#deriveGK}
----------------------------------------------
The Green-Kubo relations are well-known expressions that give the relationships between various transport coefficients, on the one hand, and time correlation functions at equilibrium, on the other. Here, we show that they can be derived quite directly from Max Cal. Consider a coupled flow system in the linear regime and at stationary state when the driving forces are small. The macroscopic dynamics is time invariant (i.e. steady state). Concentrating on the fluxes at some time, call it $t=0$. Now, expand around small driving forces $\lambda \approx 0$. So, $\langle j_{a\Gamma}(t) \rangle = J_a(0)$ at $t=0$ is expanded to first order around $\lambda_a(\tau), \lambda_b(\tau)=0$ for all $\tau$: $$\begin{aligned}
J_a(0) \approx \sum_{\tau} \left[ \frac{\partial \langle j_{a\Gamma}(0) \rangle}{\partial \lambda_a(\tau)}_{\lambda=0} \lambda_a (\tau)+ \frac{\partial \langle j_{a\Gamma}(0) \rangle}{\partial \lambda_b(\tau)}_{\lambda=0} \lambda_b(\tau) \right]
\nonumber \\
= \lambda_a \sum_{\tau}\langle j_{a\Gamma}(0) j_{a\Gamma}(\tau) \rangle_{\lambda = 0} + \lambda_b \sum_{\tau} \langle j_{a\Gamma}(0) j_{b\Gamma}(\tau) \rangle_{\lambda=0}.\nonumber \\
\label{FirstOrderExp}\end{aligned}$$
In Eq. , we recognize that at $\lambda = 0$, $p_\Gamma$ is equal to the equilibrium distribution $ q_\Gamma$ and $\langle j_{a\Gamma(t)}\rangle = \langle j_{b\Gamma(t)}\rangle = 0$. When the system is in steady state any time dependence of the Lagrange multipliers $\lambda_a$ and $\lambda_b$ will vanish (see Appendix \[TimeIndependentLambda\] for the proof).
Eq. give the Green-Kubo relations [@Gre1952; @Gre1954; @Kub1957] between the linear transport coefficient and the flux autocorrelations. So, up to a constant factor, the Lagrange multipliers can be seen as the driving forces.
Deriving the Onsager Reciprocal Relationships from Max Cal
----------------------------------------------------------
When two types of flows are linearly proportional to the two corresponding forces (i.e., in nea-requilibrium situations, then we have $$\begin{aligned}
J_a &=& L_{aa} \lambda_a+ L_{ab} \lambda_b \\
J_b &=& L_{ba} \lambda_a+ L_{bb} \lambda_b.
\label{relabel}\end{aligned}$$ For this situation, Onsager derived the reciprocal relationship that $L_{ab} = L_{ba}$ [@Ons1931a; @Ons1931b]. This result can be derived straightforwardly from Maximum Caliber. From Eq. , and above, we have
$$\begin{aligned}
L_{ab} = \sum_\tau \frac{\partial^2 \log Z}{\partial \lambda_a(0) \partial \lambda_b(\tau)}_{\lambda=0}& =& \sum_\tau \langle j_a(0) j_b (\tau) \rangle_{\lambda=0} \nonumber \\ &=& \sum_\tau \langle j_a(\tau) j_b (0) \rangle_{\lambda=0} \nonumber \\ &=& L_{ba}.
\label{MicroReversibility}\end{aligned}$$
The last equality follows from microscopic reversibility of the equilibrium state. We have assumed that both fluxes have the same parity under time reversal. Summing (or integrating) over $\tau$ will not affect the symmetry of the matrix $L$.
It is clear that the symmetries in transport coefficients arise from microscopic reversibility of fluxes at equilibrium. Are there other such symmetries amongst the higher-order transport coefficients for systems not near equilibrium? While there has been a considerable effort to discover such symmetries, no clear general results have been obtained [@BK1977; @BK1979; @Ast2008; @Art2009]. Our development shows that $n^{\rm th}$ order expansion of the flux in terms of the thermodynamic gradients will involve $(n+1)^{\rm st}$ order cumulants functions among fluxes at equilibrium. These cumulants do have some symmetry properties owing to microscopic reversibility and translational invariance with respect to time. Nonetheless, in appendix \[HighOrderSym\] we show that there are no simple relationships between higher-order transport coefficients.
Deriving Prigogine’s Principle of Minimum Entropy Production from Max Cal {#PrigoginePrinc}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prigogine developed a variational principle for two coupled flows near equilibrium. If one of those flows $a$ is driven by a given force, and if the other $b$ is unconstrained, then the flux of $b$ is predicted to be that which has the minimum rate of entropy production [@seifert2008stochastic; @tome2012entropy]. First, here is the standard development. If the state entropy is $S$, then the rate of entropy production in a system carrying two fluxes $J_a$ and $J_b$ is given by $$\sigma = \frac{dS}{dt} = J_a \lambda_a + J_b \lambda_b$$ where $\lambda_a$ and $\lambda_b$ are driving gradients. Using the Onsager relationships near equilibrium, we have $$\sigma=L_{aa} \lambda_a^2 +2L_{ab}\lambda_a \lambda_b+ L_{bb} \lambda_b^2.$$
Prigogine’s principle then seeks the entropy production rate that is minimal with respect to variations in $\lambda_b$, $$\frac{\partial \sigma}{\partial \lambda_b}=2(L_{ab} \lambda_a+ L_{bb} \lambda_b)=2J_b=0,$$ which, correspondingly also predicts that $J_b = 0$ [@Kon1998].
Now, here instead is the same principle derived from Max Cal. First, express the Caliber as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{C} &=&-\sum_\Gamma p_\Gamma \ln \left( \frac{ p_\Gamma}{q_\Gamma} \right) \nonumber \\
&=& \ln Z- \sum_{t} \left[ \lambda_a(t) J_a(t) + \lambda_b(t) J_b(t) \right].\end{aligned}$$
Now, maximizing the Caliber gives $$\begin{split}
\frac{\partial \mathcal{C}}{\partial \lambda_b(\tau)}&=-\sum_{t} \left[ \lambda_a(t) \frac{\partial J_a(t)}{\partial \lambda_b(\tau)} + \lambda_b(t)\frac{\partial J_b(t)}{\partial \lambda_b(\tau)} \right] \\
&\approx -\lambda_a L_{ab}-\lambda_b L_{bb}+\mathcal{O}(\lambda^2) =-J_b =0
\end{split}$$ in the linear regime this is exactly the same result as the Prigogine’s principle of minimum entropy production. Max Cal makes an easily falsifiable prediction beyond the linear regime. The Caliber is maximized when $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{t} \left[ \lambda_a(t) \frac{\partial J_a(t)}{\partial \lambda_b(\tau)} + \lambda_b(t)\frac{\partial J_b(t)}{\partial \lambda_b(\tau)} \right]=0.\label{eq:nonlinearprig}\end{aligned}$$ If through detailed experiments, one knows how $J_a$ and $J_b$ depend on the imposed thermodynamic gradients $\lambda_a$ and $\lambda_b$, one can find out the gradient $\lambda_b$ to which the system adjusts itself when it is not constrained by solving Eq. .
Conclusions
===========
The principle of Max Cal is a putative variational principle for nonequilibrium statistical mechanics. We show here that Max Cal provides a natural and simple route to deriving several key results of NESM, including the Green-Kubo relations, Onsager Reciprocal relations and Prigogine’s minimum entropy production principle. It’s principal advantages over other derivations are that it is not limited to near equilibrium, or to ‘local equilibrium assumptions’, has a natural ‘order parameter’ for defining a distance from equilibrium, and has a sounder basis in principle than quantities like entropy production rates. In short, the power of the method is its focus on path entropies, not state entropies. We explore higher-order generalizations of Onsager relationships and Prigogine’s principle for situations not near equilibrium.
Acknowledgments
===============
We thank Kinghuk Ghosh and Steve Presse for many deeply engaging initial discussions that led to this work. We thank NSF grant PHY-1205881 and the Laufer Center for support to KD.
[26]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty @noop [**]{} (, ) @noop [ ()]{} [**](https://books.google.com/books?id=SnMF37J50DgC), International Series of Monographs on Physics (, ) @noop [**]{} (, ) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRev.91.1505) @noop [**]{}, edited by (, , ) p. @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/ct5001389), [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.2918345) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.3681941) [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4743955) @noop [ ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [**** ()]{} @noop [**** ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.020601)
Time Independence of the Lagrange Multipliers {#TimeIndependentLambda}
=============================================
Here, we show $\lambda_a(t)$ and $\lambda_b(t)$ are time-independent if $J_a$ and $J_b$ are time independent. It follows from the time-independence of $J_a$, and $J_b$ and equations $$\begin{aligned}
J_a = \frac{\partial \log Z}{\partial \lambda_a(t)}=\frac{\partial \log Z}{\partial \lambda_a(\tau)} \nonumber \\
J_b = \frac{\partial \log Z}{\partial \lambda_b(t)}=\frac{\partial \log Z}{\partial \lambda_b(\tau)}\end{aligned}$$ which are partial differential equations (PDEs) for the partition function $Z$ for any pair of times $t$ and $\tau$. These can be simplified by use of the chain rule $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{Z} \frac{\partial Z}{\partial \lambda_a(t)} &=& \frac{1}{Z}\frac{\partial Z}{\partial \lambda_a(\tau)} \nonumber \\
\frac{1}{Z}\frac{\partial Z}{\partial \lambda_b(t)} &=& \frac{1}{Z}\frac{\partial Z}{\partial \lambda_b(\tau)}.\end{aligned}$$
We apply the method of separation of variables to solve these PDEs. We assume that the solution to $Z(t)$ can be expressed as a product of arbitrary functions of each independent variable, $\prod_{t} f_t(\lambda_a(t))\cdot g_t(\lambda_b(t))$, substituting this into the PDEs above gives, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{f_t(\lambda_a(t))}\frac{\partial f_t(\lambda_a(t))}{\partial \lambda_a(t)}=\frac{1}{f_\tau (\lambda_a(\tau))}\frac{\partial f_\tau (\lambda_a(\tau))}{\partial \lambda_a (\tau)}=c \qquad
\nonumber \\
\frac{1}{g_t(\lambda_b(t))}\frac{\partial g_t(\lambda_b(t))}{\partial \lambda_b(t)}=\frac{1}{g_\tau (\lambda_b(\tau))}\frac{\partial g_\tau (\lambda_b(\tau))}{\partial \lambda_b (\tau)}=k \qquad\end{aligned}$$ the left and the right hand sides of these PDEs are functions of different independent variables so they must be constant (we use $c$ and $k$ as the arbitrary constants) and this is true for all times $t$ and $\tau$. The solutions are $f_t(\lambda_a (t))=a \exp(c \lambda_a(t))$ and $g_t(\lambda_b(t))=b \exp(k \lambda_b(t))$ for any time $t$, and $a$ and $b$ are arbitrary coefficients. Since these are linear PDEs the general solution is a sum of the assumed form $\prod_{t} f_t(\lambda_a(t))\cdot g_t(\lambda_b(t))$. The partition function can now be expressed in terms of the general solution and equated to the form in equation yielding $$\begin{split}
& \sum_i m_i \exp \left( c_i \sum_t \lambda_a(t) + k_i \sum_t \lambda_b(t) \right) = \\
& \sum_{\Gamma} q_\Gamma \exp \left( \sum_t \left[ \lambda_a(t) j_{a\Gamma}(t) +\lambda_b(t) j_{b \Gamma}(t) \right] \right).
\end{split}$$ Identifying the index $i$ with $\Gamma$ and $m_\Gamma=q_\Gamma$, then there are two solutions to this, one is a trivial solution where $j_{a \Gamma}(t)$ and $j_{b \Gamma}(t)$ are constant in time which is not physically interesting and the other where $\lambda_a(t)$ and $\lambda_b(t)$ are time-independent.
The Lack of Symmetry Relations between Higher-Order terms from Microscopic Reversibility {#HighOrderSym}
=========================================================================================
Here, we explore the question of whether there are higher-order reciprocal relations distant from equilibrium that resemble Onsager’s reciprocal relations for near equilibrium. We start with the coefficients of the second order terms. For $J_a$ this will be the following terms $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{\lambda_a^2}{2} \sum_{t, \tau} \langle j_{a \Gamma} (0) j_{a \Gamma} (t) j_{a \Gamma} (\tau) \rangle_{\lambda=0} \\ + \lambda_a \lambda_b \sum_{t,\tau} \langle j_{a \Gamma} (0) j_{a \Gamma}(t) j_{b \Gamma}(\tau)\rangle_{\lambda=0} \\
+\frac{\lambda_b^2}{2} \sum_{t,\tau} \langle j_{a \Gamma}(0) j_{b \Gamma} (t) j_{b \Gamma} (\tau) \rangle_{\lambda=0} .\label{SecondOrder}\end{gathered}$$ A similar expression follows for $J_b$ by replacing $j_{a\Gamma}(0)$ with $j_{b\Gamma}(0)$ in the expectation values above. It will be assumed for the rest of the section that the all fluxes are odd under time reversal (as would be the case if the transported quantities are even under time reversal, such as energy or mass) the general relations will be discussed in appendix \[MixedParity\]. Since the coefficients in the expansion are sums over moments we can simplify the sums and obtain relations between the moments by applying microscopic reversibility. Taking one of the moments and ordering the times as $0 \leq t \leq \tau$ microscopic reversibility gives the following expression $$\langle j_{l\Gamma}(0) j_{m\Gamma}(t) j_{n\Gamma}(\tau)\rangle_{\lambda=0} = -\langle j_{n\Gamma}(0) j_{m\Gamma}(\tau-t) j_{l\Gamma}(\tau)\rangle_{\lambda=0}
\label{3rdOrderCumulantReversibility}$$ where $l, m, n$ are either $a$ or $b$. Using this relation from time reversal several important relations can be observed. Equation and time translation invariance can be utilized together for more relations between cumulants in the series expansion. Shifting the time back by $\tau$ on the right hand side of equation $$\langle j_{l\Gamma}(0) j_{m\Gamma}(t) j_{n\Gamma}(\tau) \rangle_{\lambda=0} = -\langle j_{n\Gamma}(-\tau) j_{m\Gamma}(-t) j_{l\Gamma}(0) \rangle_{\lambda=0}
\label{3rdOrderCumulantShift}$$ additionally with the time ordering $t \leq 0 \leq \tau$ gives the following result from microscopic reversibility $$\langle j_{l\Gamma}(t) j_{m\Gamma}(0) j_{n\Gamma}(\tau) \rangle_{\lambda=0} = -\langle j_{n\Gamma}(-\tau) j_{m\Gamma}(0) j_{l\Gamma}(-t) \rangle_{\lambda=0}
\label{3rdOrderCumulantsAroundZero}$$ we see by using the equations and in equation each term will cancel with another or vanish. So the second-order terms in $\lambda$ when both fluxes have odd parity vanish in the expansion around equilibrium. These arguments can be extended to higher-order-even terms so the fluxes will be odd functions of driving forces $\lambda_a$ and $\lambda_b$.
The coefficients of third-order terms in the $J_a$ expansion are sums over the time indices of the fourth-order cumulants of fluxes $$\begin{gathered}
\langle j_{a\Gamma}(0) j_{l\Gamma}(t) j_{m\Gamma}(\tau) j_{n\Gamma}(s)\rangle_{\lambda=0} \\ - \langle j_{a\Gamma}(0) j_{l\Gamma}(t)\rangle_{\lambda=0} \langle j_{m\Gamma}(\tau) j_{n\Gamma}(s)\rangle_{\lambda=0} \\
-\langle j_{a\Gamma}(0) j_{m\Gamma}(\tau) \rangle_{\lambda=0} \langle j_{l\Gamma}(t) j_{n\Gamma}(s)\rangle_{\lambda=0} \\
-\langle j_{a\Gamma}(0) j_{n\Gamma}(s) \rangle_{\lambda=0} \langle j_{l\Gamma}(t) j_{m\Gamma}(\tau)\rangle_{\lambda=0}.\end{gathered}$$ Here too, replacing every instance of $j_{a\Gamma}(0)$ with $j_{a\Gamma}(0)$ gives the cumulants for the third order terms for $J_b$. The last three terms when summed over time can be expressed as $$-\sum_{P} L_{al} \sum_{t,\tau}\langle j_{m\Gamma}(t) j_{n\Gamma}(\tau)\rangle_{\lambda=0}$$ where the summation over $P$ is the set of cyclic permutations of the labels $l, m, n$. The first order coefficients make a reappearance at third-order, but this is the only nicety. The expressions for the third-order coefficients are quite cumbersome, there is no simple symmetry relations one can obtain for them. Though evaluating these coefficients can be simplified by using relations obtained with, time translation invariance, and microscopic reversibility.
Various Cases of Mixed Time-Reversal Parity of Fluxes, and Higher-Order Symmetry Relations {#MixedParity}
==========================================================================================
This appendix is a continuation of previous microscopic reversibility arguments made in appendix \[HighOrderSym\], because so far only the case where the fluxes were negative under time-reversal were considered. To first order in the expansion of fluxes if $a$ and $b$ flows have opposite parity under time reversal we obtain by microscopic reversibility and time translation $$\begin{aligned}
\langle j_{a\Gamma}(0) j_{b\Gamma}(\tau) \rangle_{\lambda=0} &=& -\langle j_{b\Gamma}(0) j_{a\Gamma}(\tau) \rangle_{\lambda=0} \nonumber \\
&=& -\langle j_{a\Gamma}(0) j_{b\Gamma}(-\tau) \rangle_{\lambda=0}\end{aligned}$$ summing over $\tau$ gives the first order transport coefficients implying they all vanish $L_{ab}=L_{ba}=0$, so there can be no off diagonal coupling coefficient between flows of opposite parity.
Here we will start considering the second order terms for the cases when the parity of $j_{a\Gamma}$ and $j_{b\Gamma}$ are both even and when they are opposite to each. Lets define $\epsilon_a$ and $\epsilon_b$ as the time reversal parity of $j_{a\Gamma}$ and $j_{b\Gamma}$, respectively. The general form of equation is written as $$\begin{gathered}
\langle j_{l\Gamma}(0) j_{m\Gamma}(t) j_{n\Gamma}(\tau)\rangle_{\lambda=0} = \\ \epsilon_l \epsilon_m \epsilon_n \langle j_{n\Gamma}(0) j_{m\Gamma}(\tau-t) j_{l\Gamma}(\tau)\rangle_{\lambda=0}\end{gathered}$$ and the time translation of the right hand side gives $$\begin{gathered}
\langle j_{l\Gamma}(0) j_{m\Gamma}(t) j_{n\Gamma}(\tau) \rangle_{\lambda=0} = \\ \epsilon_l \epsilon_m \epsilon_n \langle j_{n\Gamma}(-\tau) j_{m\Gamma}(-t) j_{l\Gamma}(0) \rangle_{\lambda=0}\end{gathered}$$ again with the time ordering $t \leq 0 \leq \tau$ gives the following more general result from microscopic reversibility $$\begin{gathered}
\langle j_{l\Gamma}(t) j_{m\Gamma}(0) j_{n\Gamma}(\tau) \rangle_{\lambda=0} = \\ \epsilon_l \epsilon_m \epsilon_n\langle j_{n\Gamma}(-\tau) j_{m\Gamma}(0) j_{l\Gamma}(-t) \rangle_{\lambda=0}.\end{gathered}$$
When $\epsilon_a=\epsilon_b=1$ the three equations above combine to show that for each term like $\langle j_{a\Gamma}(0) j_{a\Gamma}(t) j_{b\Gamma}(\tau)\rangle_{\lambda=0}$, which is a term in the moment expansion of the coefficient for the $\lambda_a \lambda_b$ term in the second order expansion of $J_a$, there is an equal term in the moment expansion of the $\lambda_a^2$ coefficient for flux $J_b$, $\langle j_{b\Gamma}(0) j_{a\Gamma}(\tau-t) j_{a\Gamma}(\tau)\rangle_{\lambda=0}$ with $0 \leq t \leq \tau$. In the expansion of $J_a$ part of the $\lambda_a \lambda_b$ coefficient are $\langle j_{a\Gamma}(t) j_{a\Gamma}(0) j_{b\Gamma}(\tau) \rangle_{\lambda=0}$ with $t \leq 0 \leq \tau$. These terms equal $\langle j_{b\Gamma}(-\tau) j_{a\Gamma}(0) j_{a\Gamma}(-t) \rangle_{\lambda=0}$ and belong to the same sum for the $\lambda_a \lambda_b$ coefficient. Similar expressions follow when we switch the labels of $a$ and $b$. So we can write $J_a$ and $J_b$ to second order in $\lambda$ as
$$J_a = L_{aa}\lambda_a + L_{ab}\lambda_b + \frac{S_{a}}{2}\lambda_a^2+(K_a+V)\lambda_a\lambda_b + \frac{(P_a+M)}{2}\lambda_b^2$$
$$J_b = L_{ba}\lambda_a + L_{bb}\lambda_b+ \frac{(P_b+V)}{2}\lambda_a^2+(K_b+M)\lambda_a\lambda_b +\frac{S_{b}}{2} \lambda_b^2$$
where $K_a, K_b, P_a, P_b, V$ and $M$ are partial summations which calculate the second order response coefficients, $S_a$ and $S_b$ give the second-order response if the other driving force is zero. Despite being able to simplify the summations with microscopic reversibility and time translation there is still no relationship between the coefficients themselves.
For the situation of differing parity we will take $\epsilon_a=-1$ and $\epsilon_b=1$ without loss of generality since switching the labels of $a$ and $b$ will give the results for $\epsilon_b=-1$ and $\epsilon_a=1$. Moments which are odd in $j_{a\Gamma}$ will cancel with other moments of equal and opposite value in a manner similar to what was mentioned in appendix \[HighOrderSym\], but $\langle j_{a\Gamma}(0) j_{a\Gamma}(t) j_{b\Gamma}(\tau)\rangle_{\lambda=0}$ = $\langle j_{b\Gamma}(0) j_{a\Gamma}(\tau-t) j_{a\Gamma}(\tau)\rangle_{\lambda=0}$ ($0 \leq t \leq \tau$) and $\langle j_{a\Gamma}(t) j_{a\Gamma}(0) j_{b\Gamma}(\tau) \rangle_{\lambda=0}$ = $\langle j_{b\Gamma}(-\tau) j_{a\Gamma}(0) j_{a\Gamma}(-t) \rangle_{\lambda=0}$ just as occurred above
$$J_a = L_{aa}\lambda_a + (K_a+V)\lambda_a\lambda_b$$
$$J_b = L_{bb}\lambda_b+ (P_b+V)\lambda_a^2+S_{b} \lambda_b^2$$
this is effectively a hybridized version of previous results.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The supersymmetry properties of the asymptotically anti-de Sitter black holes of Einstein theory in 2+1 dimensions are investigated. It is shown that (i) the zero mass black hole has two exact supersymmetries; (ii) extreme $lM=|J|$ black holes with $M \not= 0$ have only one; and (iii) generic black holes do not have any. It is also argued that the zero mass hole is the ground state of (1,1)-adS supergravity with periodic (“Ramond") boundary conditions on the spinor fields.'
---
[Supersymmetry of the 2+1 black holes]{}
[Olivier Coussaert and Marc Henneaux$^*$\
Faculté des Sciences, Université Libre de Bruxelles,\
Campus Plaine C.P. 231, B-1050 Bruxelles, Belgium]{}\
Among the black hole solutions of (2+1)-Einstein theory discovered recently [@1], the one with zero mass and zero angular momentum stands apart. (i) It is the solution with smallest mass. (ii) It has zero temperature. (iii) It has zero entropy. We show in this letter that it enjoys also remarkable supersymmetry properties [@2]-\[10\]. Namely, it is the black hole solution with the maximum number of exact supersymmetries. We shall first establish the result and shall then discuss its implications [@rem].
The 2+1 black hole metric is given by [@1] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1}
\nonumber ds^2=-N^2 dt^2 + N^{-2} dt^2 + r^2 ( N^\varphi dt + d\varphi)^2\\
N^2=(r/l)^2 - M + (J/2r)^2\\
\nonumber N^\varphi=-J/2r^2\end{aligned}$$ where $M$ and $J$ are respectively the mass and angular momentum of the hole, and where $-l^2$ is the cosmological constant. It can be obtained by making appropriate identifications of the anti-de Sitter metric [@17], which corresponds to (\[1\]) with $M=-1$ and $J=0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2}
ds^2_{adS}= -[(r/l)^2+1] dt^2 + [(r/l)^2+1]^{-1} dr^2 + r^2 d\varphi^2\end{aligned}$$
The metric (\[1\]) with $M \neq -1$ has only two Killing vectors [@17]. If regarded as a solution of the equations of motion of adS supergravity with zero gravitini,it may possess, in addition, exact supersymmetries. Exact supersymmetries are by definition supersymmetry transformations leaving the metric (\[1\]) (with zero gravitini) invariant. The spinor parameters of these transformations solve the “Killing spinor equation" $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3}
D_\lambda \psi = \frac{\epsilon}{2l} \gamma_\lambda \psi\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon = 1$ or $-1$ depending on the representation of the $\gamma$-matrices.
As it is well known, there are two inequivalent two-dimensional irreductible representations of the $\gamma$-matrices in three spacetime dimensions. One may be taken to be $\gamma^{(0)}=i
\sigma^2$, $\gamma^{(1)}=\sigma^1$ and $\gamma^{(2)}=\sigma^3$, where the $\sigma^k$ are the Pauli matrices. The other is given by $\gamma'^{(\lambda)}=
-\gamma^{(\lambda)}$. We shall consider here the simplest supergravity model with negative cosmological constant involving both representations, namely $(1,1)$ adS supergravity [@Ach].
The anti-de Sitter metric (\[2\]) possesses four Killing spinors, two for each inequivalent representation of the $\gamma$-matrices. In the radial tetrad frame $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber h_{(0)}=-[(r/l)^2+1]^{\frac{1}{2}} dt
\\ h_{(1)}=[(r/l)^2+1]^{-\frac{1}{2}} dr\\
\nonumber h_{(2)}=r d\varphi\end{aligned}$$ the Killing spinors are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4}
\psi=[(\frac{N_{ads}+1}{ 2})^{\frac{1}{2}} + \epsilon
(\frac{N_{ads}-1}{ 2})^{\frac{1}{2}}
\gamma^{(1)}] \\ \nonumber \times (cos \frac{1}{2}
(\varphi+\epsilon t/l)-sin\frac{1}{2}
(\varphi+\epsilon t/l) \gamma^{(0)}) A\end{aligned}$$ where $A$ is a constant spinor.
Since the black hole metric can be obtained from (\[2\]) by making appropriate identifications, it possesses locally as many Killing spinors as anti-de Sitter space. However, only a subset of these Killing spinors are, in general, compatible with the identifications, i.e., invariant under the transformations of the discrete group used in the identifications. So, whereas all the local integrability conditions for the Killing equations (\[3\]) are fullfilled [@19], there may be no Killing spinor at all because of global reasons.
In order to discuss which Killing spinors are compatible with the identifications, let us make a choice of coordinates in which the identifications take a simple form. As shown in [@17] , anti-de Sitter space can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{7}
ds^2_{ads}=-[(R/l)^2-1] dT^2 + [(R/l)^2 -1 ]^{-1} dR^2
+ R^2 d\Phi^2\end{aligned}$$ in new coordinates $(T,R,\Phi)$ where $\Phi$ is not an angle but runs over the entire real line. The Killing spinors are, in the frame $$\begin{aligned}
\label{8}
\nonumber h_{(0)}=-[(R/l)^2-1]^{\frac{1}{2}} dT
\\ h_{(1)}=[(R/l)^2-1]^{-\frac{1}{2}} dR
\\ \nonumber h_{(2)}= R d\Phi\end{aligned}$$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{9}
\psi=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[((R/l)+1)^\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon
((R/l)-1)^\frac{1}{2}
\gamma^{(1)}]
\\ \nonumber \times (cosh\frac{1}{2}(\Phi+\epsilon T/l)
+sinh \frac{1}{2}(\Phi+\epsilon T/l) \gamma^{(2)})A\end{aligned}$$ The identifications appropriate to a non extreme black hole with angular momentum $J$ and mass $M$ ($ |J|<Ml$) have been shown in [@17] to be $$\begin{aligned}
\label{10}
(T,\Phi) \sim (T + J, \Phi + M), |J|<Ml\end{aligned}$$ Since the Killing spinors are not invariant (even up to a sign) under these identifications, they are not well defined in the quotient space. Therefore, a generic black hole has no Killing spinor.
Let us now consider the extreme case $|J|=Ml$. The identifications appropriate to that case are more complicated to describe in the coordinate system where (\[7\]) holds [@21]. For that reason, we shall directly proceed to the explicit integration of the Killing spinor equations in the metric (\[1\]), where $\varphi$ is an angle. For definitess, we treat the case $J=Ml$. The case $J=-Ml$ is treated similarly. One may take as local Lorentz frame $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber h_{(0)}= -N dt \\ \label{11} h_{(1)} = N^{-1} dr \\
\nonumber h_{(2)} = - \frac{Ml}{2r} dt + r d\varphi\end{aligned}$$ One finds that the Killing spinors solutions of (\[3\]) with $\epsilon = 1 $ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{12}
\psi = \frac{1}{2} [(U^{\frac{1}{2}} +
U^{-\frac{1}{2}})+(U^{\frac{1}{2}}-U^{-\frac{1}{2}}) \gamma^{(1)}]
\\ \nonumber [1+\frac{1}{2}(\gamma^{(2)}-\gamma^{(0)})
(\varphi + t/l)] A\end{aligned}$$ where $A$ is a constant spinor and $U$ is given by $$U=l/r ((r/l)^2-M/2).$$ The Killing spinors for the other representation of the $\gamma$-matrices are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{14}
\psi=\frac{1}{2} (r/l)^{\frac{1}{2}}
[\alpha cosh (\sqrt{M/2} (t/l-\varphi)) +\\
\nonumber \beta sinh (\sqrt{M/2}(t/l-\varphi))]
\left( \begin{array}{c} 1 \\-1 \end{array} \right) \\
\nonumber+ \frac{1}{2}
(r/l)^{-\frac{1}{2}} \sqrt{M/2}
[\alpha sinh (\sqrt{M/2}(t/l-\varphi))
\\ \nonumber + \beta cosh (\sqrt{M/2}
(t/l-\varphi))\left( \begin{array}{c} 1 \\ 1 \end{array} \right)\end{aligned}$$ where we recall that $\gamma^{(1)}=\sigma^{(1)}$, and where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are constants. The Killing spinor (\[12\]) is compatible with the periodicity of $\varphi$ if and only if the linearly growing term in $\varphi$ disappears, i.e., if and only if $A$ is an eigenstate of $\gamma^{(1)}$ with eigenvalue $+1$. In that case, (\[12\]) does not depend on $\varphi$ and is thus manifestly periodic. The Killing spinor (\[14\]) is never periodic or anti-periodic. There is thus only one Killing spinor for the extreme black hole with non vanishing mass.
In the limit $M
\rightarrow 0$, one gets from each sign of $J$ a $\varphi$-independent Killing spinor. These read explicitly $$\label{15}
\psi_1=\frac{1}{2}(r/l)^{\frac{1}{2}}
\left( \begin{array}{c} 1 \\ 1 \end{array} \right)$$ and $$\label{16}
\psi_2=\frac{1}{2}(r/l)^{\frac{1}{2}}
\left( \begin{array}{c} 1 \\-1 \end{array}
\right).$$ The zero mass state has thus two exact supersymmetries.
The Killing spinors of the extreme black hole solutions have the same asymptotic growing in $r$ as the Killing spinors of anti-de Sitter space. However, they are periodic in $\varphi$, while those of anti-de Sitter space are anti-periodic.
This feature has interesting implications. It has been established in [@13] that a negative cosmological constant allows for rich asymptotics. Namely, there exist boundary conditions on the gravitational variables such that the asymptotic symmetry algebra of ($2+1$)-gravity with a negative cosmological constant is the conformal algebra in two dimensions, i.e., twice the Virasoro algebra. The mass and angular momentum are respectively given by $M =l^{-1}(K_0 + L_0)$ and $J = K_0 -
L_0$, where $K_n$ and $L_n$ are the right and left Virasoro generators. These boundary conditions include the black hole solutions of [@1].
Now, in a spacetime with the black hole topology $R^2 \times S^1$ [@17], one can consider spinor fields that are either periodic or anti-periodic in $\varphi$ in the above radial triad frames. These different behaviours define inequivalent spinor structures and lead to different asymptotic superalgebras for (3+1)-supergravity with a negative cosmological constant. The periodic case yields the Ramond graded extension of the Virasoro algebra and will be referred to as the “Ramond sector" for that reason. The anti-periodic case yields the Neveu-Schwarz extension and will be called the “Neveu-Schwarz sector".
Just as in $3+1$ dimensions [@14; @15; @16], the asymptotic supersymmetry algebra implies bounds for the generators $K_0$ and $L_0$. The stronger ones are $$\label{NS1}
K_0 = G_{1/2} G_{-1/2} + G_{-1/2} G_{1/2} - \frac {1} {2}
\geq - \frac {1} {2},$$ $$\label{NS2}
L_0 = \bar G_{1/2} \bar G_{-1/2} + \bar G_{-1/2} \bar G_{1/2}
- \frac {1} {2}
\geq - \frac {1} {2}$$ for the Neveu-Schwarz case, and $$\label{R1}
K_0 = F^2_0 \geq 0$$ $$\label{R2}
L_0 = \bar F^2_0 \geq 0$$ for the Ramond case. The $G_k$ and $F_k$ are the asymptotic right supersymmetry generators, while the $\bar G_k$ and $\bar F_k$ are the asymptotic left supersymmetry generators.
The exact supersymmetries of anti-de Sitter space belong to the Neveu-Schwarz sector and are generated by the right and left supersymmetry charges with “frequency" $1/2$ and $-1/2$ (the Killing spinors have that dependence on $\varphi$). Hence, anti-de Sitter space is annihilated by $G_{1/2}$ and $\bar G_{1/2}$ and saturates the bound for the Neveu-Schwarz case, in agreement with $ M = - 1$. Similarly, the zero mass hole is invariant under the two zero-mode supersymmetries generated by $F_0$ and $\bar F_0$ and saturates the bounds (\[R1\]) and (\[R2\]) of the Ramond case, leading to $M = 0$. Accordingly, the zero mass hole appears as the ground state of the Ramond sector. The extreme black holes $lM=|J|$ with $M \not= 0$ saturate only one of the bounds (\[R1\]) or (\[R2\]).
In the above analysis, we have set the electric charge equal to zero. The reason why we did not consider charged black holes is that these appear to possess somewhat unphysical properties in 2+1 dimensions. (i) They fail to fullfill the fall-off conditions given in [@13] for asymptotically anti-de sitter spaces. (ii) The energy $M$ is not bounded from either below or above when the charge is different from zero. Indeed given an arbitrarily negative mass, the solution given in [@1] possess an event horizon hiding the singularity for Q big enough. The unboundedness of the energy renders the solutions unstable and should imply the absence of asymptotic Killing spinors -a fortiori of exact Killing spinors.
Once one imposes the asymptotic behaviour of [@13], one must take $Q=0$. This forces the electromagnetic field to vanish and makes the vector potential locally pure gauge. The vector potential is not necessarily globally pure gauge, however, since the fundamental group of black hole solutions is non trivial. Because of the presence of non contractible loops, the black hole spacetimes can support non zero holonomies of $A_\lambda$, given by $A_t=0$, $A_r=0$, $A_\varphi=Constant$. This is somewhat reminiscent of (3+1)-black holes with axionic charge [@18]. It is no accident, since in 2+1 dimensions, the electromagnetic field ( and not the Kalb-Ramond field) is dual to the axion field .
In four-dimensional Einstein-Maxwell theory with zero cosmological constant, the only black holes with exact supersymmetries are the extreme Reissner-Nordstrom black holes. These have the further remarkable property that one can construct static, extreme multi-black hole solutions [@22; @23], in which the Coulomb potential exactly balance the gravitational attraction. Both properties have sometimes been related, so that it is natural to ask whether one can also construct static multi-black holes solutions in 2+1 dimensions. It turns out that this is not the case. As we shall show in detail in a separate publication where the general static solution of 2+1 Einstein theory with negative cosmological constant will be constructed, there is no static, supersymmetric, pure multi-black hole metric without additional (undesirable) naked branch point singularities.
To conclude, we have shown in this letter that the zero mass state enjoys remarkable supersymmetry properties. These indicate that the zero mass state is the ground state of the Ramond sector of (1,1) adS supergravity. Furthermore, exact supersymmetry is associated with the precise bounds guaranteing the absence of naked singularity (cosmic censorship), as in 3+1 dimensions [@11]. The extreme bound $lM=|J|$ yields one supersymmetry. The bound $M=0$ yields a second supersymmetry. A detailed presentation of this work, covering the extended $(p,q)$ adS supergravity models, will be reported elsewhere.
0.5 cm [**Acknowledgements**]{}
One of us (M. H.) is grateful to Andrew Strominger for interesting questions on the supersymmetry properties of the charged $2+1$-black holes and to Claudio Teitelboim for useful comments and discussions. He also gratefully acknowledges the hospitality of the Institute for Advanced Study where this work has been partly carried out. O. C. is “Chercheur I.R.S.I.A". This research has been supported in part by research funds from F.N.R.S. and by a research contract with the Community of the European Communities.
[000]{} M. Bañados, C. Teitelboim and J. Zanelli, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{} (1992)1849. Exact supersymmetry properties of (3+1)-black holes have been must studied since the realization that extremal Reisner-Nordstrom black holes have some unbroken supersymmetries\[3-6\]. These properties have been shown recently to play a central role in nonrenormaliztion theorems for extreme black holes\[7\]. They have been generalized to dilaton gravity\[8-10\]. P.C. Aichelburg and R. Güven, Phys. Rev. [**D24**]{} (1981)2066; [**D27**]{}(1983) 456; Phys. Rev. Lett. [**51**]{} (1983)1613. G.W. Gibbons, in [*Supersymmetry, supergravity and related topics*]{}, eds. F. del Aguila, J. de Azc[á]{}rraga and L. Ib[á]{}ñez (World Scientific, Singapore, 1985) p.147; G.W. Gibbons and C.M. Hull, Phys. Lett. [**B109**]{} (1982)190. K.P. Tod, Phys. Lett. [**B121**]{} (1983)241. L.J. Romans, Nucl. Phys. [**B383**]{} (1992)395. R. Kallosh, Phys. Lett. [**B282**]{} (1992)80. G.W. Gibbons, Nucl. Phys. [**B207**]{} (1982)337; G.W. Gibbons and K. Maeda, Nucl. Phys. [**B298**]{} (1988)741; D. Garfinkle, G.T. Horowitz and A. Strominger, Phys. Rev. [**D43**]{} (1991)3140; A. Shapere, S. Trivedi and F. Wilczek, Mod. Phys. Lett. [**A6**]{} (1991)2677. R. Kallosh, A. Linde, T. Ort[í]{}n, A. Peet and A. van Proyen, Phys. Rev. [**D46**]{} (1992)5278. T. Ort[í]{}n, Phys. Rev. [**D47**]{} (1993)3136. Even though its horizon has zero length, we shall refer to the zero mass solution as being a black hole since the singularity, which coincides with the horizon, is invisible to an observer at infinity. M. Bañados, M. Henneaux, C. Teitelboim and J. Zanelli, Phys. Rev. [**D48**]{} (1993)1506. A.Ach[ú]{}carro and P.K. Townsend, Phys. Lett. [**180B**]{} (1986) 89. The fulfilment of the integrability condition is quite obvious in terms of the Chern-Simons formulation of (2+1)-supergravity [@Ach; @Witten]. Indeed, the Killing equations then read $\nabla_\lambda \psi=0$ where $\nabla_\lambda$ is the covariant derivative in the $SO(2,2)$-connection. Since this connection is flat, the equations are integrable. E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. [**B311**]{} (1988/1989) 46. If one takes $|J|=Ml$ in the identifications (\[10\]), one does not get an asymptotically anti-de Sitter black hole solution. Nevertheless, the resulting quotient space is quite interesting: it has no singularity, no closed time like curves, two Killing spinors and four Killing vectors ( the vector field used in making the identification is everywhere spacelike and turns out to be self-dual $(J=Ml)$ or anti-self-dual $(J=-Ml)$). J.D. Brown and M. Henneaux, Commun. Math. Phys. [**104**]{}(1986)207. C. Teitelboim, Phys. Lett [**69B**]{} (1977)240; S. Deser and C. Teitelboim, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**39**]{} (1977)249. E. Witten, Commun. Math. Phys. [**80**]{} (1981)397 L.F. Abbott and S. Deser, Nucl. Phys. [**B195**]{} (1982)76. M.J. Bowick, S.B. Giddings, J.A. Harvey, G.T. Horowitz and A. Strominger, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**61**]{} (1988)2823. A. Papapetrou, Proc. R. Irish Acad. [**A51**]{} (1947)191; S.D. Majumdar, Phys. Rev. 72 (1947)930. J.B. Hartle and S.W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys. [**26**]{} (1972)87.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) research has mostly focused on English. We show that it is possible to use AMR annotations for English as a semantic representation for sentences written in other languages. We exploit an AMR parser for English and parallel corpora to learn AMR parsers for Italian, Spanish, German and Chinese. Qualitative analysis show that the new parsers overcome structural differences between the languages. We further propose a method to evaluate the parsers that does not require gold standard data in the target languages. This method highly correlates with the gold standard evaluation, obtaining a (Pearson) correlation of 0.95.'
author:
- |
Marco Damonte Shay B. Cohen\
\
\
\
bibliography:
- 'naaclhlt2018-cross.bib'
title: 'Cross-lingual Abstract Meaning Representation Parsing'
---
Introduction
============
Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) parsing is the process of converting natural language sentences into their corresponding AMR representations [@Banarescu13abstractmeaning]. An AMR is a graph with nodes representing the concepts of the sentence and edges representing the semantic relations between them. Most available AMR datasets large enough to train statistical models consist of pairs of English sentences and AMR graphs.
The cross-lingual properties of AMR across languages has been the subject of preliminary discussions. The AMR guidelines state that AMR is not an interlingua [@Banarescu13abstractmeaning] and categorizes different kinds of divergences in the annotation between English AMRs and Czech AMRs. show that structurally aligning English AMRs with Czech and Chinese AMRs is not always possible but that refined annotation guidelines suffice to resolve some of these cases. We extend this line of research by exploring whether divergences among languages can be overcome, i.e., we investigate whether it is possible to maintain the AMR annotated for English as a semantic representation for sentences written in other languages, as in Figure \[fig:al\].
(0,8) node(z) \[\] [*This is the sovereignty of each country*]{}; (0,6.8) node(s) \[ellipse,draw\] [sovereignty]{}; (2,5.5) node(c) \[ellipse,draw\] [country]{}; (-2,5.5) node(t) \[ellipse,draw\] [this]{}; (2,4) node(e) \[ellipse,draw\] [each]{}; (0,3) node(z) \[\] [*Questa è la sovranità di ogni paese*]{};
\(s) – node\[right=0.1cm\] (c); (s) – node\[right\] (t); (c) – node\[left\] (e);
(-2.7,7.8) – (t); (-2.4,3.2) – (t); (1.5,3.2) – (e); (1.5,7.8) to\[out=-20,in=20\] (e); (0,7.8) – (s); (2,7.8) – (c); (0,3.2) to\[out=80,in=-80\] (s); (2.5,3.2) to\[out=-0,in=-10\] (c);
We implement AMR parsers for Italian, Spanish, German and Chinese using annotation projection, where existing annotations are projected from a source language (English) to a target language through a parallel corpus [e.g., @yarowsky2001inducing; @hwa2005bootstrapping; @pado2009cross; @evangcross]. By evaluating the parsers and manually analyzing their output, we show that the parsers are able to recover the AMR structures even when there exist structural differences between the languages, i.e., although AMR is not an interlingua it can act as one. This method also provides a quick way to prototype multilingual AMR parsers, assuming that Part-of-speech (POS) taggers, Named Entity Recognition (NER) taggers and dependency parsers are available for the target languages. We also propose an alternative approach, where Machine Translation (MT) is used to translate the input sentences into English so that an available English AMR parser can be employed. This method is an even quicker solution which only requires translation models between the target languages and English. Due to the lack of gold standard in the target languages, we exploit the English data to evaluate the parsers for the target languages. (Henceforth, we will use the term target parser to indicate a parser for a target language.) We achieve this by first learning the target parser from the gold standard English parser, and then inverting this process to learn a new English parser from the target parser. We then evaluate the resulting English parser against the gold standard. We call this “full-cycle” evaluation.
Similarly to , we also directly evaluate the target parser on “silver” data, obtained by parsing the English side of a parallel corpus.
In order to assess the reliability of these evaluation methods, we collected gold standard datasets for Italian, Spanish, German and Chinese by acquiring professional translations of the AMR gold standard data to these languages. We hypothesize that the full-cycle score can be used as a more reliable proxy than the silver score for evaluating the target parser. We provide evidence to this claim by comparing the three evaluation procedures (silver, full-cycle, and gold) across languages and parsers.
Our main contributions are:
- We provide evidence that AMR annotations can be successfully shared across languages.
- We propose two ways to rapidly implement non-English AMR parsers.
- We propose a novel method to evaluate non-English AMR parsers when gold annotations in the target languages are missing. This method highly correlates with gold standard evaluation, obtaining a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.95.
- We release human translations of an AMR dataset (LDC2015E86) to Italian, Spanish, German and Chinese.
Cross-lingual AMR parsing
=========================
AMR is a semantic representation heavily biased towards English, where labels for nodes and edges are either English words or Propbank frames [@kingsbury2002treebank]. The goal of AMR is to abstract away from the syntactic realization of the original sentences while maintaining its underlying meaning. As a consequence, different phrasings of one sentence are expected to provide identical AMR representations. This canonicalization does not always hold across languages: two sentences that express the same meaning in two different languages are not guaranteed to produce identical AMR structures [@bojar2014comparing; @xue2014not]. However, show that in many cases the unlabeled AMRs are in fact shared across languages. We are encouraged by this finding and argue that it should be possible to develop algorithms that account for some of these differences when they arise. We therefore introduce a new problem, which we call cross-lingual AMR parsing: given a sentence in any language, the goal is to recover the AMR graph that was originally devised for its English translation. This task is harder than traditional AMR parsing as it requires to recover English labels as well as to deal with structural differences between languages, usually referred as translation divergence. We propose two initial solutions to this problem: by annotation projection and by machine translation.
Method 1: Annotation Projection {#sec:annotation_projection}
-------------------------------
AMR is not grounded in the input sentence, therefore there is no need to change the AMR annotation when projecting to another language. We think of English labels for the graph nodes as ones from an independent language, which incidentally looks similar to English. However, in order to train state-of-the-art AMR parsers, we also need to project the alignments between AMR nodes and words in the sentence (henceforth called AMR alignments). We use word alignments, similarly to other annotation projection work, to project the AMR alignments to the target languages.
Our approach depends on an underlying assumption that we make: if a source word is word-aligned to a target word and it is AMR aligned with an AMR node, then the target word is also aligned to that AMR node. More formally, let $S = s_1 \dots s_{\vert s \vert}$ be the source language sentence and $T = t_1 \dots t_{\vert t \vert}$ be the target language sentence; $A_s(\cdot)$ be the AMR alignment mapping word tokens in $S$ to the set of AMR nodes that are triggered by it; $A_t(\cdot)$ be the same function for $T$; $v$ be a node in the AMR graph; and finally, $W(\cdot)$ be an alignment that maps a word in $S$ to a subset of words in $T$. Then, the AMR projection assumption is: $$\forall i,j,v \;\; t_j \in W(s_i) \wedge v \in A_s(s_i) \Rightarrow v \in A_t(t_j)$$
In the example of Figure \[fig:al\], *Questa* is word-aligned with *This* and therefore AMR-aligned with the node *this*, and the same logic applies to the other aligned words. The words *is*, *the* and *of* do not generate any AMR nodes, so we ignore their word alignments. We apply this method to project existing AMR annotations to other languages, which are then used to train the target parsers.
Method 2: Machine Translation {#sec:mt}
-----------------------------
We invoke an MT system to translate the sentence into English so that we can use an available English parser to obtain its AMR graph. Naturally, the quality of the output graph depends on the quality of the translations. If the automatic translation is close to the reference translation, then the predicted AMR graph will be close to the reference AMR graph. It is therefore evident that this method is not informative in terms of the cross-lingual properties of AMR. However, its simplicity makes it a compelling engineering solution for parsing other languages.
Evaluation
----------
We now turn to the problem of evaluation. Let us assume that we trained a parser for a target language, for example using the annotation projection method discussed in Section \[sec:annotation\_projection\]. In line with rapid development of new parsers, we assume that the only gold AMR dataset available is the one released for English.
#### SILVER
We can generate a silver test set by running an automatic (English) AMR parser on the English side of a parallel corpus and use the output AMRs as references. However, the silver test set is affected by mistakes made by the English AMR parser, therefore it may not be reliable.
#### FULL-CYCLE
In order to perform the evaluation on a gold test set, we propose full-cycle evaluation: after learning the target parser from the English parser, we invert this process to learn a new English parser from the target parser, in the same way that we learned the target parser from the English parser. The resulting English parser is then evaluated against the (English) AMR gold standard. We hypothesize that the score of the new English parser can be used as a proxy to the score of the target parser.
#### GOLD
To show whether the evaluation methods proposed can be used reliably, we also generated gold test AMR datasets for four target languages (Italian, Spanish, German and Chinese). In order to do so, we collected professional translations for the English sentences in the AMR test set.[^1] We were then able to create pairs of human-produced sentences with human-produced AMR graphs.
A diagram summarizing the different evaluation stages is shown in Figure \[fig:eval\_diagram\]. In the case of MT-based systems, the full-cycle corresponds to first translating from English to the target language and then back to English (back-translation), and only then parsing the sentences with the English AMR parser. At the end of this process, a noisy version of the original sentence will be returned and its parsed graph will be a noisy version of the graph parsed from the original sentence.
(-3.9,0) node(gold)\[database, minimum width=1cm, minimum height=1cm\] [Gold $e$]{}; (5.5,0) node(silv)\[database, minimum width=1cm, minimum height=1cm\] [Silver $f$]{}; (8,0) node(gold2)\[database, minimum width=1cm, minimum height=1cm\] [Gold $f$]{}; (0,-1.5) node(pe) \[rectangle,draw,minimum size=1cm\] [Parser e]{}; (2.5,-1.5) node(pf) \[rectangle,draw,minimum size=1cm\] [Parser f]{}; (0,-3) node(pe2) \[rectangle,draw,minimum size=1cm\] [Parser e]{}; (pf) – (2.5,-3); (2.5,-3) – (pe2); (pe) – (pf);
(-3.9,-3) node(full) \[ellipse,draw,minimum size=1cm\] [FULL-CYCLE]{}; (gold) – (full) node \[midway, left=0.1cm, fill=white\] [Ref]{}; (pe2) – (full) node \[midway, above=0.1cm, fill=white\] [Eval]{};
(5.5,-1.5) node(silver) \[ellipse,draw\] [SILVER]{}; (silv) – (silver) node \[midway, left=0.1cm, fill=white\] [Ref]{}; (pf) – (silver) node \[midway, above=0.1cm, fill=white\] [Eval]{};
(8,-3) node(goldeval) \[ellipse,draw\] [GOLD]{}; (gold2) – (goldeval) node \[midway, left=0.1cm, fill=white\] [Ref]{}; (2.7,-2) – (2.7,-3); (2.7,-3) – (goldeval) node \[midway, above=0.1cm, fill=white\] [Eval]{};
Experiments {#sec:experiments}
===========
We run experiments on four languages: Italian, Spanish, German and Chinese. We use Europarl [@koehn2005europarl] as the parallel corpus for Italian, Spanish and German, containing around 1.9M sentences for each language pair. For Chinese, we use the first 2M sentences from the United Nations Parallel Corpus [@ziemski2016united]. For each target language we extract two parallel datasets of 20,000/2,000/2,000 (train/dev/test) sentences for the two step of the annotation projection (English $\rightarrow$ target and target $\rightarrow$ English). These are used to train the AMR parsers. The projection approach also requires training the word alignments, for which we use all the remaining sentences from the parallel corpora (Europarl for Spanish/German/Italian and UN Parallel Corpus for Chinese). These are also the sentences we use to train the MT models. The gold AMR dataset is LDC2015E86, containing 16,833 training sentences, 1,368 development sentences, and 1,371 testing sentences.
Word alignments were generated using fast\_align [@dyer2013simple], while AMR alignments were generated with [JAMR]{} [@carbonell2014discriminative]. AMREager [@damonte2016incremental] was chosen as the pre-existing English AMR parser. AMREager is an open-source AMR parser that needs only minor modifications for re-use with other languages. Our multilingual adaptation of AMREager is available at <http://www.github.com/mdtux89/amr-eager-multilingual>.[^2] It requires tokenization, POS tagging, NER tagging and dependency parsing, which for English, German and Chinese are provided by CoreNLP [@corenlp]. We use Freeling [@carreras04] for Spanish, as CoreNLP does not provide dependency parsing for this language. Italian is not supported in CoreNLP: we use Tint [@aprosio2016italy], a CoreNLP-compatible NLP pipeline for Italian.
In order to experiment with the approach of Section \[sec:mt\], we experimented with translations from Google Translate.[^3] As Google Translate has access to a much larger training corpus, we also trained baseline MT models using Moses [@koehn2007moses] and Nematus [@sennrich-EtAl:2017:EACLDemo], with the same training data we use for the projection method and default hyper-parameters.
Smatch [@cai2013smatch] is used to evaluate AMR parsers. It looks for the best alignment between the predicted AMR and the reference AMR and it then computes precision, recall and $F_1$ of their edges. The original English parser achieves 65% Smatch score on the test split of LDC2015E86. Full-cycle and gold evaluations use the same dataset, while silver evaluation is performed on the split of the parallel corpora we reserved for testing. Results are shown in Table \[tab:results\]. The Google Translate system outperforms all other systems, but is not directly comparable to them, as it has the unfair advantage of being trained on a much larger dataset. Due to noisy [JAMR]{} alignments and silver training data involved in the annotation projection approach, the MT-based systems give in general better parsing results. The BLEU scores of all translation systems are shown in Table \[tab:bleu\].
There are several sources of noise in the annotation projection method, which affect the parsing results: 1) the parsers are trained on silver data obtained by an automatic parser for English; 2) the projection uses noisy word alignments; 3) the AMR alignments on the source side are also noisy; 4) translation divergences exist between the languages, making it sometimes difficult to project the annotation without loss of information.
-- ----------------------------------------- -- -- --
**System & **Silver & **Gold & **Cycle\
& Projection & 45 & 43 & 45\
& Moses & 51 & 52 & 51\
& Nematus & 49 & 43 & 41\
& GT & 52 & 58 & 59\
& Projection& 44 & 42 & 44\
& Moses & 53 & 53 & 51\
& Nematus & 51 & 43 & 42\
& GT & 56 & 60 & 60\
& Projection & 45 & 39 & 43\
& Moses & 50 & 49 & 49\
& Nematus & 47 & 38 & 39\
& GT & 54 & 57 & 59\
& Projection & 45 & 35 & 32\
& Moses & 57 & 42 & 48\
& Nematus & 57 & 39 & 40\
& GT & 64 & 50 & 55\
********
-- ----------------------------------------- -- -- --
: Silver, gold and full-cycle Smatch scores for projection-based and MT-based systems.[]{data-label="tab:results"}
--------------------------------------- -- -- --
**Model & **Moses & **Nematus & **GT\
EN-IT & 23.83 & 21.27 & 61.31\
IT-EN & 23.74 & 19.77 & 42.20\
EN-ES & 29.00 & 26.14 & 78.14\
ES-EN & 27.66 & 21.63 & 50.78\
EN-DE & 15.47 & 15.74 & 63.48\
DE-EN & 21.50 & 14.96 & 41.78\
EN-ZH & 9.19 & 8.67 & 26.75\
ZH-EN & 10.81 & 10.37 & 22.21\
********
--------------------------------------- -- -- --
: BLEU scores for Moses, Nematus and Google Translate (GT) on the (out-of-domain) LDC2015E86 test set[]{data-label="tab:bleu"}
Qualitative Analysis
====================
Figure \[fig:examples\] shows examples of output parses[^4] for all languages, including the AMR alignments by-product of the parsing process, that we use to discuss the mistakes made by the parsers.
In the Italian example, the only evident error is that *Infine* (*Lastly*) should be ignored. In the Spanish example, the word *medida* (*measure*) is wrongly ignored: it should be used to generate a child of the node *impact-01*. Some of the *:ARG* roles are also not correct. In the German example, *meines* (*my*) should reflect the fact that the speaker is talking about his own country. Finally, in the Chinese example, there are several mistakes including yet another concept identification mistake: *intend-01* is erroneously triggered.
Most mistakes involve concept identification. In particular, relevant words are often erroneously ignored by the parser. This is directly related to the problem of noisy word alignments in annotation projection: the parser learns what words are likely to trigger a node (or a set of nodes) in the AMR by looking at their AMR alignments (which are induced by the word alignments). If an important word consistently remains unaligned, the parser will erroneously learn to discard it. More accurate alignments are therefore crucial in order to achieve better parsing results. We computed the percentage of words in the training data that are learned to be non-content-bearing in each parser and we found that the Chinese parser, which is our least accurate parser, is the one that most suffer from this, with 33% non-content-bearing words. On the other hand, in the German parser, which is the highest scoring, only 26% of the words are non-content-bearing, which is the lowest percentage amongst all parsers.
Translational Divergence
------------------------
In order to investigate the hypothesis that AMR can be shared across these languages, we now look at translational divergence and discuss how it affects parsing, following the classification used in previous work [@dorr2002improved; @dorr1994machine], which identifies classes of divergences for several languages. also follow the same categorization for French.
Figure \[fig:divergences\] shows six sentences displaying these divergences. The aim of this analysis is to assess how the parsers deal with the different kind of translational divergences, regardless of the overall quality of the output.
#### Categorical.
This divergence happens when two languages use different POS tags to express the same meaning. For example, the English sentence *I am jealous of you* is translated into Spanish as *Tengo envidia de ti* (*I have jealousy of you*). The English adjective *jealous* is translated in the Spanish noun *envidia*. In Figure \[fig:divergences\]a we note that the categorical divergence does not create problems since the parsers correctly recognized that *envidia* (*jealousy*/*envy*) should be used as the predicate, regardless of its POS.
#### Conflational.
This divergence happens when verbs expressed in a language with a single word can be expressed with more words in another language. Two subtypes are distinguished: *manner* and *light verb*. Manner refers to a manner verb that is mapped to a motion verb plus a manner-bearing word. For example, *We will answer* is translated in the Italian sentence *Noi daremo una riposta* (*We will give an answer*), where *to answer* is translated as *daremo una risposta* (*will give an answer*). Figure \[fig:divergences\]b shows that the Italian parser generates a sensible output for this sentence by creating a single node labeled *answer-01* for the expression *dare una riposta*.
In a light verb conflational divergence, a verb is mapped to a light verb plus an additional meaning unit, such as when *I fear* is translated as *Io ho paura* (*I have fear*) in Italian: *to fear* is mapped to the light verb *ho* (*have*) plus the noun *paura* (*fear*). Figure \[fig:divergences\]e shows that also this divergence is dealt properly by the Italian parser: *ho paura* correctly triggers the root *fear-01*.
#### Structural.
This divergence happens when verb arguments result in different syntactic configurations, for example, due to an additional PP attachment. When translating *He entered the house* with *Lui è entrato nella casa* (*He entered in the house*), the Italian translation has an additional *in* preposition. Also this parsed graph, in Figure \[fig:divergences\]c, is structurally correct. The missing node *he* is due to pronoun-dropping, which is frequent in Italian.
#### Head swapping.
This divergence occurs when the direction of the dependency between two words is inverted. For example, *I like eating*, where *like* is head of *eating*, becomes *Ich esse gern* (*I eat likingly*) in German, where the dependency is inverted. Unlike all other examples, in this case, the German parser does not cope well with this divergence: it is unable to recognize *like-01* as the main concept in the sentence, as shown in Figure \[fig:divergences\]d.
#### Thematic.
Finally, the parse of Figure \[fig:divergences\]f has to deal with a thematic divergence, which happens when the semantic roles of a predicate are inverted. In the sentence *I like grapes*, translated to Spanish as *Me gustan uvas*, *I* is the subject in English while *Me* is the object in Spanish. Even though we note an erroneous reentrant edge between *grape* and *I*, the thematic divergence does not create problems: the parser correctly recognizes the *:ARG0* relationship between *like-01* and *I* and the *:ARG1* relationship between *like-01* and *grape*. In this case, the edge labels are important, as this type of divergence is concerned with the semantic roles.
(0,8) node(j) \[ellipse,draw\] [envy]{}; (0,6.5) node(i) \[ellipse,draw\] [I]{}; (j) – node\[left=0.1cm\] (i); (0,5.5) node(z1) \[\] [*(a) ES: Tengo envidia de ti*]{}; (0,5) node(z1) \[\] [*(I am jealous of you)*]{};
(5,8) node(a) \[ellipse,draw\] [answer-01]{}; (5,6.5) node(w) \[ellipse,draw\] [we]{}; (a) – node\[left=0.1cm\] (w); (5,5.5) node(z2) \[\] [*(b) IT: Noi daremo una risposta*]{}; (5,5) node(z2) \[\] [*(We will answer)*]{};
(10,8) node(e) \[ellipse,draw\] [enter-01]{}; (10,6.5) node(h) \[ellipse,draw\] [home]{}; (e) – node\[left=0.1cm\] (h); (10,5.5) node(z3) \[\] [*(c) IT: Lui è entrato nella casa*]{}; (10,5) node(z3) \[\] [*(He entered the house)*]{};
(0,3) node(l) \[ellipse,draw\] [eat-01]{}; (0,1.5) node(i) \[ellipse,draw\] [I]{}; (l) – node\[left=0.1cm\] (i); (0,0.5) node(z1) \[\] [*(d) DE: Ich esse gern*]{}; (0,0) node(z3) \[\] [*(I like eating)*]{};
(5,3) node(f) \[ellipse,draw\] [fear-01]{}; (3,1.5) node(fi) \[ellipse,draw\] [I]{}; (7,1.5) node(si) \[ellipse,draw\] [I]{}; (f) – node\[left=0.1cm\] (fi); (f) – node\[right=0.1cm\] (si); (5,0.5) node(z3) \[\] [*(e) IT: Io ho paura*]{}; (5,0) node(z3) \[\] [*(I fear)*]{};
(10,3) node(l) \[ellipse,draw\] [like-01]{}; (8.5,1.5) node(i) \[ellipse,draw\] [I]{}; (11.5,1.5) node(g) \[ellipse,draw\] [grape]{}; (l) – node\[right=0.1cm\] (g); (l) – node\[left=0.1cm\] (i); (g) – node\[below=0.1cm\] (i); (10,0.5) node(z3) \[\] [*(f) ES: Me gustan uvas*]{}; (10,0) node(z3) \[\] [*(I like grapes)*]{};
Discussion
==========
#### Can AMR be shared across these languages?
As mentioned in Section \[sec:mt\], the MT-based systems are not helpful in answering this question and we instead focus on the projection-based parsers. Qualitative analysis showed that the parsers are able to overcome translational divergence and that concept identification must be more accurate in order to provide good parsing results. We therefore argue that the suboptimal performance of the parsers in terms of Smatch scores is due to the many sources of noise in the annotation projection approach rather than instability of AMR across languages. We provide strong evidence that cross-lingual AMR parsing is indeed feasible and hope that the release of the gold standard test sets will motivate further work in this direction.
#### Are silver and full-cycle evaluations reliable?
We computed the Pearson correlation coefficients for the Smatch scores of Table \[tab:results\] to determine how well silver and full-cycle correlate with gold evaluation. Full-cycle correlates better than silver: the Pearson coefficient is 0.95 for full-cycle and 0.47 for silver. Figure \[fig:regr\] shows linear regression lines. Unlike silver, full-cycle uses the same dataset as gold evaluation and it does not contain parsing mistakes, which makes it more reliable than silver. Interestingly, if we ignore the scores obtained for Chinese, the correlation between silver and gold dramatically increases, perhaps indicating that Europarl is more suitable than the UN corpus for this task: the Pearson coefficient becomes 0.97 for full-cycle and 0.87 for silver. A good proxy for gold evaluation should rank different systems similarly. We hence computed the Kendall-tau score [@kendall1945treatment], a measure for similarity between permutations, of the rankings extracted from Table 1. The results further confirm that full-cycle approximate gold better than silver does: the score is 0.40 for silver and 0.82 for full-cycle. Full cycle introduces additional noise but it is not as expensive as gold and is more reliable than silver.
table [ 43 45 52 51 43 49 58 52 42 44 53 53 43 51 60 56 39 45 49 50 38 47 57 54 35 45 42 57 39 57 50 64 ]{}; ;
table [ 43 45 52 51 43 41 58 59 42 44 53 51 43 42 60 60 39 43 49 49 38 39 57 59 35 32 42 48 39 40 50 55 ]{}; ;
Related Work
============
AMR parsing for languages other than English has made only a few steps forward. In previous work [@li2016annotating; @xue2014not; @bojar2014comparing], nodes of the target graph were labeled with either English words or with words in the target language. We instead use the AMR annotation used for English for the target language as well, without translating any word. To the best of our knowledge, the only previous work that attempts to automatically parse AMR graphs for non-English sentences is by . Sentences in several languages (French, German, Spanish and Japanese) are parsed into a logical representation, which is then converted to AMR using a small set of rules. A comparison with this work is difficult, as the authors do not report results for the parsers (due to the lack of an annotated corpus) or release their code.
Besides AMR, other semantic parsing frameworks for non-English languages have been investigated [@hoffman1992ccg; @cinkova2009tectogrammatical; @gesmundo2009latent; @evangcross]. is the most closely related to our work as it uses a projection mechanism similar to ours for CCG. A crucial difference is that, in order to project CCG parse trees to the target languages, they only make use of literal translation. Previous work has also focused on assessing the stability across languages of semantic frameworks such as AMR [@xue2014not; @bojar2014comparing], UCCA [@sulem2015conceptual] and Propbank [@van2010cross]. Cross-lingual techniques can cope with the lack of labeled data on languages when this data is available in at least one language, usually English. The annotation projection method, which we follow in this work, is one way to address this problem. It was introduced for POS tagging, base noun phrase bracketing, NER tagging, and inflectional morphological analysis [@yarowsky2001inducing] but it has also been used for dependency parsing [@hwa2005bootstrapping], role labeling [@pado2009cross; @akbik2015generating] and semantic parsing [@evangcross]. Another common thread of cross-lingual work is model transfer, where parameters are shared across languages [@zeman2008cross; @cohen2009shared; @cohen-11b; @mcdonald2011multi; @sogaard2011data].
Conclusions
===========
We introduced the problem of parsing AMR structures, annotated for English, from sentences written in other languages as a way to test the cross-lingual properties of AMR. We provided evidence that AMR can be indeed shared across the languages tested and that it is possible to overcome translational divergences. We further proposed a novel way to evaluate the target parsers that does not require manual annotations of the target language. The full-cycle procedure is not limited to AMR parsing and could be used for other cross-lingual problems in NLP. The results of the projection-based AMR parsers indicate that there is a vast room for improvements, especially in terms of generating better alignments. We encourage further work in this direction by releasing professional translations of the AMR test set into four languages.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers and Sameer Bansal, Gozde Gul Sahin, Sorcha Gilroy, Ida Szubert, Esma Balkir, Nikos Papasarantopoulos, Joana Ribeiro, Shashi Narayan, Toms Bergmanis, Clara Vania, Yang Liu and Adam Lopez for their helpful comments. This research was supported by a grant from Bloomberg and by the H2020 project SUMMA, under grant agreement 688139.
[^1]: These datasets are currently available upon request from the authors.
[^2]: A demo is available at <http://cohort.inf.ed.ac.uk/amreager.html>.
[^3]: <https://translate.google.com/toolkit>.
[^4]: In this section, all parsed graphs were generated with the projection-based system of Section \[sec:annotation\_projection\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We investigate numerically the decay of isotropic, rotating, magnetohydrodynamic (MHD), and rotating MHD flows in a periodic box. The Reynolds number $Re$ defined with the box size and the initial velocity is $100$ at which the flows are in a weakly nonlinear regime, i.e. not laminar but far away from the fully turbulent state. The decay of isotropic flow has two stages, the first stage for the development of small scales and the second stage for the viscous dissipation. In the rapidly rotating flow, fast rotation induces the inertial wave and causes the large-scale structure to inhibit the development of the first stage and retard the flow decay. In the MHD flow, the imposed field also causes the large-scale structure but facilitates the flow decay in the first stage because of the energy conversion from flow to magnetic field. Magnetic Reynolds number $Rm$ is important for the dynamics of the MHD flow, namely a high $Rm$ induces the Alfvén wave but a low $Rm$ cannot. In the rotating MHD flow, slower rotation tends to convert more kinetic energy to magnetic energy. The orientation between the rotational and magnetic axes is important for the dynamics of the rotating MHD flow, namely the energy conversion is more efficient and the stronger wave is induced when the two axes are not parallel than when they are parallel.'
author:
- Xing Wei
bibliography:
- 'paper.bib'
date: 'Received: date / Accepted: date'
title: Decay of isotropic flow and anisotropic flow with rotation or magnetic field or both in a weakly nonlinear regime
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Rotation and magnetic field play important roles in the engineering, geophysical and astrophysical fluid motions. Rotation causes the Coriolis force in the rotating frame and magnetic field causes the Lorentz force. These body forces act as restoring forces to induce the internal waves that transport energy and angular momentum in the fluid interior. Rotation induces the inertial wave [@greenspan], magnetic field induces the Alfvén wave [@davidson1], and the combined effect of rotation and magnetic field induces magneto-Coriolis wave [@moffatt]. The propagation of these waves leads to the anisotropy of flows and the large-scale structure forms along the rotational axis in the rapidly rotating flow or along the magnetic field lines in the MHD flow. The decay of the rotating turbulence and the MHD turbulence has been studied, for example, the experimental work of @sreenivasan [@staplehurst], etc., the analytical work of @moffatt1 [@goldreich; @davidson3], etc., and the numerical work of @thiele [@okamoto; @lee; @teitelbaum; @wan], etc. It has been already pointed out that the decay rate depends on the initial flow in the isotropic turbulence [@ishida] as well as in the anisotropic turbulence [@davidson3]. Moreover, in the MHD turbulence the decay rate also depends on the ratio of various time scales, namely the lack of universality as suggested by @moffatt1 [@lee], etc. We will discuss this in §\[sec:mhd\]. However, the rotating MHD turbulence is not extensively studied, especially how the different orientations of the rotational and magnetic axes will influence the decay of the rotating MHD turbulence. On the other hand, the weakly nonlinear regime is not well studied. Through our moderate-scale numerical calculations in the weakly nonlinear regime, we will answer the question whether the isotropic and anisotropic flows in the weakly nonlinear regime exhibit the similar behaviour to the turbulent flows or they are quite different from the turbulence. In addition, we will study the influence of the orientation between rotation and magnetic field on the rotating MHD flow in the weakly nonlinear regime, which is of help to understanding the rotating MHD turbulence.
In this paper we will numerically study the decay of unforced flows in the presence of rotation or magnetic field or both. The geometry is a periodic box, i.e. unbounded flows. The Reynolds number $Re$ is defined with the box size and the initial velocity. It should be noted that our Reynolds number is different from the conventional Reynolds number $R_\lambda$ defined with the turbulent fluctuating velocity and the Taylor micro-scale $\lambda$ which is often used in the study of turbulence. We choose $Re=100$ in almost all parts of this paper, except that in §\[sec:iso\] we will calculate $Re=200$ for comparison with $Re=100$. At such the low $Re=100$ (note: not $R_\lambda$ but $Re$ defined with the large scale of box size and initial velocity), the flows are in the weakly nonlinear regime, i.e. they are not laminar but far away from the fully turbulent state. In the next sections we will study step-by-step the isotropic flow, the rotating flow, the MHD flow and the rotating MHD flow.
Isotropic flow {#sec:iso}
==============
Before studying the anisotropic flow in the presence of rotation or magnetic field, we begin with isotropic flow. We study in the Cartesian coordinate system $(x_1,x_2,x_3)$. The computational geometry is a cube with its size to be $2\pi l$ and subject to the periodic boundary condition in the $x_1$, $x_2$ and $x_3$ directions. This periodic box can be considered as a small piece of region taken out of the flow interior. We give an initial velocity $\bm u_0$ and then numerically calculate the governing equation of fluid motion for the decay problem. The dimensionless Navier-Stokes equation governing incompressible fluid motion reads $$\frac{\partial\bm u}{\partial t}+\bm u\cdot\bm\nabla\bm u=-\bm\nabla p+\frac{1}{Re}\nabla^2\bm u,$$ where length is normalised with $l$, velocity with the volume-averaged initial velocity $\bar u_0=\sqrt{\int u_0^2dV/V}$, time with $l/\bar u_0$ and pressure with $\rho\bar u_0^2$ where $\rho$ is fluid density. Reynolds number is defined as $$Re=\frac{\bar u_0 l}{\nu}$$ where $\nu$ is viscosity.
To satisfy the incompressible condition $\bm\nabla\cdot\bm u_0$, the initial velocity is simply given to be $$u_{01}=\sin(k_0x_2)\sin(k_0x_3),u_{02}=\sin(k_0x_3)\sin(k_0x_1),u_{03}=\sin(k_0x_1)\sin(k_0x_2),$$ where $k_0$ is the initial wave number and measures the length scale of initial flow. It should be noted that the dynamics of decaying turbulence depends on the initial condition as pointed out in @ishida, namely the linear momentum conservation or the angular momentum conservation of the initial flow. However, we are not concerned with this subtle point in this short paper. On the other hand, our initial flow for the study in the weakly nonlinear regime is on the large scale but in the study of fully nonlinear turbulence the initial flow is on the small scale, say, $k_0$ up to 80 in @ishida.
We output the volume-averaged kinetic energy and viscous dissipation. With the periodic boundary condition, viscous dissipation is equal to enstrophy multiplied by viscosity. We normalise kinetic energy with $u_0^2$ and viscous dissipation with $u_0^3/l$, and so their dimensionless expressions are respectively $$\frac{1}{V}\int\frac{1}{2}|\bm u|^2dV \hspace{3mm}{\rm and}\hspace{3mm} \frac{1}{Re}\frac{1}{V}\int|\bm\nabla\times\bm u|^2dV.$$
The numerical method is the standard pseudo-spectral algorithm. Taking the divergence of Navier-Stokes equation leads to Poisson’s equation of pressure $$\nabla^2 p=\bm\nabla\cdot\bm f,$$ where $\bm f=-\bm u\cdot\bm\nabla\bm u$ is the inertial force. In the next sections $\bm f$ involves the other body forces, i.e. the Coriolis force in the rotating flow and the Lorentz force in the MHD flow. Because of the periodic boundary condition we assume that velocity and pressure are expressed as $$\bm u=\hat{\bm u}(t)e^{i\bm k\cdot\bm x} \hspace{3mm}{\rm and}\hspace{3mm} p=\hat{p}(t)e^{i\bm k\cdot\bm x},$$ where hat denotes spectral space and $\bm k$ is wave vector. Solving the pressure equation in spectral space and substituting into Navier-Stokes equation, we derive $$\left(\frac{d}{dt}+\frac{k^2}{Re}\right)\hat{\bm u}=-\frac{\bm k\cdot\hat{\bm f}}{k^2}\bm k+\hat{\bm f},$$ where the viscous term is treated implicitly. The nonlinear term $\bm f$ is calculated in physical space and $\hat{\bm f}$ in spectral space is calculated by fast Fourier transform. Time is stepped forward with the prediction-correction method. The second-order Runge-Kutta method is used for time stepping. The resolution as high as $128^3$ and the time step as small as $10^{-2}$ are used. The fast Fourier transform is used and the dealiase is satisfied in the discrete Fourier transform.
We calculate the four isotropic flows with the combination of $Re=(100, 200)$ and $k_0=(1,2)$. Figure \[fig:iso1\] shows the time evolution of the volume-averaged kinetic energy and viscous dissipation. Time is integrated until the order of viscous time scale $t_\nu=Re=O(10^2)$. The left panel indicates that kinetic energy decays for two stages. In the first stage flow develops to small scales through the nonlinear coupling, and then in the second stage kinetic energy decays through viscosity. The right panel verifies these two stages. In the first stage enstrophy increases to its peak because of formation of small scales, and then in the second stage enstrophy decays through viscosity. The flows with higher $k_0$ have an earlier first stage because small scales develop earlier with higher $k_0$. These two stages in the weakly nonlinear flow are similar to the cascade and dissipation stages in the fully turbulent flow [@davidson2; @ishida]. It is not surprising that in both the first and the second stages higher $Re$ corresponds to slower decay because of smaller viscosity and higher $k_0$ corresponds to faster decay because of smaller scales. We will see in the next sections that the energy cascade in the anisotropic flows with fast rotation or a strong magnetic field will not have the two distinct stages as in the isotropic flow because of the two dimensionalization.
![Isotropic flow. The time evolution of volume-averaged kinetic energy and viscous dissipation. Black lines denote $Re=100$ and red lines $Re=200$. Solid lines denote $k_0=1$ and dashed lines $k_0=2$.[]{data-label="fig:iso1"}](iso1.ps)
Figure \[fig:iso2\] shows the spectrum of kinetic energy at the snapshot when enstrophy reaches its peak value (for isotropic flow the spectra in all the three directions are identical). It indicates that higher $Re$ or $k_0$ corresponds to wider spectrum, because higher $Re$ leads to stronger nonlinearity and higher $k_0$ leads to coupling with wider gap. The flow at $Re=100$ and with $k_0=1$ shows a visible energy spectrum, which suggests that the flow is in the weakly nonlinear regime.
![Isotropic flow. The spectrum of kinetic energy at the snapshot when enstrophy reaches its peak value. Black symbols denote $Re=100$ and red symbols $Re=200$. Circle symbols denote $k_0=1$ and square symbols $k_0=2$. Spectrum is truncated at $k=20$ for better view.[]{data-label="fig:iso2"}](iso2.ps)
After this simple investigation on $Re$ and $k_0$ for isotropic flow, we will use these two parameters, $Re=100$ and $k_0=1$, to calculate the weakly nonlinear flows in the next sections for the studies of anisotropic flows.
Rotating flow {#sec:rot}
=============
In this section we study the decay of the rotating flow. Suppose that the cube rotates about the $x_3$ axis at a constant angular velocity $\bm\Omega=\Omega \hat{\bm x}_3$, hat denoting unit vector. In the frame rotating at $\bm\Omega$ the dimensionless Navier-Stokes equation reads $$\frac{\partial\bm u}{\partial t}+\bm u\cdot\bm\nabla\bm u=-\bm\nabla p+\frac{1}{Re}\nabla^2\bm u+\frac{1}{Ro}2\bm u\times\hat{\bm x}_3,$$ where the curl-free centrifugal force is absorbed into pressure gradient. The Rossby number $$Ro=\frac{\bar u_0}{\Omega l}$$ measures the ratio of the inertial force to the Coriolis force. In the rapidly rotating flow $Ro$ is lower than unity and the Coriolis force wins, whereas in the slowly rotating flow $Ro$ is higher than unity and inertial force wins.
We calculate the rotating flows with $Ro$ decreasing from $1$ to $0.1$, for which the Coriolis force wins and rotation becomes faster and faster. Figure \[fig:rot1\] shows the time evolution of volume-averaged kinetic energy and viscous dissipation. The left panel indicates that the rotating flows decay much more slowly than the isotropic flow, and faster rotation at lower $Ro$ corresponds to slower decay in the first stage, but the decay rates of the rotating flows at different $Ro$’s do not differ too much in the second stage. This suggests that rotation takes its effect on flow decay mainly in the first stage while viscosity takes its effect in the second stage. The right panel indicates that the large-scale structure forms at low $Ro$. Enstrophy at $Ro=1.0$ and $0.5$ initially increases to the peak and then decays, which is similar to isotropic flow. $Ro=0.5$ corresponds to a lower peak than $Ro=1.0$ because flow at lower $Ro$ has larger scale. At $Ro=0.2$ and $0.1$ enstrophy does not have the initial increase, because flows at sufficiently low $Ro$ do not develop to small scales. Therefore, fast rotation inhibits the first stage for development of small scales.
![Rotating flow. The time evolution of volume-averaged kinetic energy and viscous dissipation. Black lines denote isotropic flow. Red, blue, green and magenta lines denote respectively $Ro=1.0$, $0.5$, $0.2$ and $0.1$.[]{data-label="fig:rot1"}](rot1.ps)
Figure \[fig:rot2\] shows the $k_1$ and $k_3$ spectra of kinetic energy at time$=100$ for $Ro=1.0$ (the slowest rotation) and $0.1$ (the fastest rotation). The $k_2$ spectrum is the same as the $k_1$ spectrum. At the slow rotation the $k_1$ and $k_3$ spectra do not differ too much and both concentrate on the first two modes, namely the flow is almost isotropic. With the fast rotation the $k_3$ spectrum in the rotational direction concentrates on the $k_3=1$ mode but the $k_1$ spectrum on the first two modes, namely the flow is anisotropic. Moreover, the difference between the two energies contained in the $k_1$ and the $k_3$ modes for the same wavenumber (the difference between circle and square symbols for the same wavenumber) is larger with the faster rotation than the slower rotation. Therefore, the faster rotation leads to the more anisotropy of flow. Figure \[fig:cont\] shows the contours of the three components of velocity in the $x_1-x_3$ plane. $u_1$ and $u_2$ have similar structure whereas $u_3$ has quite different structure. It can interpreted by the equation of motion. The Coriolis force $(1/Ro)2\bm u\times\hat{\bm x}_3$ has no component in the $x_3$ direction such that the equation of $u_3$ has no Coriolis term. Therefore, the energy contained in the three components are very different.
![Rotating flow. The spectrum of kinetic energy at time$=100$. Black symbols denote $Ro=1.0$ and red symbols $Ro=0.1$. Circle symbols denote $k_1$ the spectrum and square symbols the $k_3$ spectrum. Spectrum is truncated at $k=5$ for better view.[]{data-label="fig:rot2"}](rot2.ps)
![Rotating flow. The contours of the three components of velocity in the $x_1-x_3$ plane. From left to right the three panels are $u_1$, $u_2$ and $u_3$. $Ro=0.1$.[]{data-label="fig:cont"}](cont.ps)
Interestingly, in the rotating flow there exist oscillations of kinetic energy in the three directions. Figure \[fig:rot3\] shows the time evolution of volume-averaged total kinetic energy, and kinetic energy in the $x_1$ direction (i.e. $1/V\int u_1^2/2dV$) and in the $x_3$ direction (i.e. $1/V\int u_3^2/2dV$). Kinetic energy in the $x_2$ direction is the same as in the $x_1$ direction. The oscillation period is $0.45$ for $Ro=0.2$ shown in the left panel and $0.22$ for $Ro=0.1$ shown in the right panel. The frequency of inertial wave is $\omega=2\Omega\cos\theta$ where $\theta$ is the angle between the wave vector and the rotational axis. With our normalisation, the period of inertial wave is $\pi Ro/\cos\theta$, namely it is proportional to $Ro$. The fact that the two periods in the figure are proportional to $Ro$ suggests that these oscillations arise from inertial wave. Furthermore, we can calculate the angle $\theta$. The period of kinetic energy should be half of the period of inertial wave, e.g. $u_1^2\propto e^{2i\omega t}$, and the substitution of numerical values gives $\theta=45^\circ$. In addition, comparison between the left and right panels indicates that faster rotation causes more difference of kinetic energy between the two directions. Again, faster rotation leads to more anisotropy.
![Rotating flow. The time evolution of volume-averaged kinetic energy to show inertial wave. Black line denotes the total kinetic energy, red line the kinetic energy in the $x_1$ direction and blue line the kinetic energy in the $x_3$ direction. Left panel is for $Ro=0.2$ and the oscillation period is $0.45$. Right panel is for $Ro=0.1$ and the oscillation period is $0.22$. Time is truncated at $t=30$ for better view.[]{data-label="fig:rot3"}](rot3.ps)
MHD flow {#sec:mhd}
========
In this section we study decay of MHD flow. It is well known that the propagation of Alfvén wave along magnetic field lines will lead to anisotropy, e.g. @reddy numerically studied the strong anisotropy in the forced MHD turbulence. We assume that a uniform magnetic field is imposed in the $x_3$ direction. The assumption that the imposed field is uniform is valid for the situation that the length scale of variation of imposed field is much larger than that of flow and induced field, i.e. the local WKB approximation. We decompose the total magnetic field into the imposed field $\bm B_0$ and the induced field $\bm b$. The dimensionless Navier-Stokes equation then reads $$\frac{\partial\bm u}{\partial t}+\bm u\cdot\bm\nabla\bm u=-\bm\nabla p+\frac{1}{Re}\nabla^2\bm u+V_A^2(\bm\nabla\times\bm b)\times(\hat{\bm x}_3+\bm b),$$ where magnetic field is normalised with $B_0$. The dimensionless Alfvén speed $$V_A=\frac{B_0}{\sqrt{\rho\mu}\bar u_0}$$ measures the strength of imposed field relative to the initial flow. The magnetic induction equation reads $$\frac{\partial\bm b}{\partial t}=\bm\nabla\times\left(\bm u\times(\hat{\bm x}_3+\bm b)\right)+\frac{1}{Rm}\nabla^2\bm b.$$ The magnetic Reynolds number $$Rm=\frac{\bar u_0 l}{\eta}$$ measures the strength of induction effect against magnetic diffusion. There are two additional parameters in MHD flow, $V_A$ and $Rm$. The imposed field is measured by $V_A$ and the induced field by $Rm$.
In addition to the $V_A$ and $Rm$ there are some other dimensionless parameters in the MHD flow and they are the ratios between different time scales. The damping time of Alfvén wave $t_d=\eta/\widetilde{V_A}^2$ where $\widetilde{V_A}=B_0/\sqrt{\rho\mu}$ is the dimensional Alfvén speed is called the magnetic damping time, and it should be noted that $t_d$ is different from the magnetic diffusion time $t_\eta=l^2/\eta$. Firstly we define the interaction parameter by the ratio of $l/\bar u_0$ to $t_d$ $$N=\frac{l/\bar u_0}{t_d}=\frac{lB_0^2}{\rho\mu\eta\bar u_0}.$$ The interaction parameter is often used in the analysis of low $Rm$ MHD flow [@davidson1]. Then we define the Lundquist number as the ratio of the magnetic diffusion time $t_\eta$ to the Alfvénic time $l/\widetilde{V_A}$ $$S=\frac{l^2/\eta}{l/V_A}=\frac{l\widetilde{V_A}}{\eta}=\frac{lB_0}{\sqrt{\rho\mu}\eta}.$$ The Lundquist number is often used in the analysis of MHD turbulence [@moffatt1]. $Rm$, $N$ and $S$ are related through $$S=(RmN)^{1/2}.$$ It is well known that the decay of MHD turbulence has the lack of universality, namely the decay rate depends on the strength of imposed field which can be measured by $V_A$, $N$ or $S$. For example, in [@moffatt1] the decay rate depends on $\zeta=\bm B_0\cdot\bm k/(\sqrt{\rho\mu}\eta k^2)$ where $\bm k$ is the wave vector of Fourier components of velocity.
Besides the kinetic energy and viscous dissipation in the hydrodynamic flow, in the MHD flow we need to output the magnetic energy and Ohmic dissipation of induced field. The former is normalised with $\bar u_0^2$ and the latter with $\bar u_0^3/l$, and so their dimensionless expressions are respectively $$V_A^2\frac{1}{V}\int\frac{1}{2}|\bm b|^2dV \hspace{3mm}{\rm and}\hspace{3mm} \frac{V_A^2}{Rm}\frac{1}{V}\int|\bm\nabla\times\bm b|^2dV.$$
Firstly we keep $Rm=0.1$ for a weak induced field and vary $V_A$ from $0.5$ to $5$ to study the effect of imposed field. Figure \[fig:mhd1\] shows the time evolution of volume-averaged kinetic energy, viscous dissipation, and magnetic energy and Ohmic dissipation of induced field. The upper-left panel indicates that in the first stage the MHD flows decay faster than the isotropic flow and a stronger imposed field leads to faster decay. The upper-right panel indicates that in the first stage a stronger imposed field leads to a larger scale structure, and particularly, with the strongest imposed field the enstrophy does not increase but decrease. It seems opposite to the situation of the rotating flow, in which a larger scale structure with faster rotation leads to slower decay. To interpret this, we need to refer to the energy equation of MHD flow $$\begin{aligned}
& -\frac{d}{dt}\mbox{(kinetic energy + magnetic energy of imposed field (equal to $V_A^2$)} \nonumber\\
& \hspace{32.5mm}\mbox{+ magnetic energy of induced field)} \nonumber\\
& =\mbox{viscous dissipation + Ohmic dissipation of induced field}.\end{aligned}$$ This equation suggests that the kinetic and magnetic energies can be converted to each other due to the work done by Lorentz force. Then the two bottom panels give the reason for this discrepancy between rotating and MHD flows. This is because kinetic energy is converted to magnetic energy which is damped through Ohmic dissipation. Comparison between the upper-right and bottom-right panels indicates that Ohmic dissipation wins out viscous dissipation with the strength of imposed field increasing.
![MHD flow. The time evolution of volume-averaged kinetic energy, viscous dissipation, and magnetic energy and Ohmic dissipation of induced field. $Rm=0.1$. Black lines denote isotropic flow. Red, blue, green and magenta lines denote respectively $V_A=0.5$, $1$, $2$ and $5$. Time is truncated at $t=15$ for better view.[]{data-label="fig:mhd1"}](mhd1.ps)
Next we keep $V_A=1$ and vary $Rm$ from $0.1$ to $100$ to study the effect of induced field. Figure \[fig:mhd2\] shows the time evolution of volume-averaged kinetic energy and magnetic energy of induced field. The left panel indicates that kinetic energy at the lowest $Rm=0.1$ and the highest $Rm=100$ decays faster than at the other two intermediate $Rm$’s, and this is not straightforward to understand. The right panel indicates that the highest $Rm$ corresponds to the strongest induced field, and this is not surprising.
![MHD flow. The time evolution of volume-averaged kinetic energy and magnetic energy of induced field. $V_A=1$. Black, red, blue and green lines denote respectively $Rm=0.1$, $1$, $10$ and $100$.[]{data-label="fig:mhd2"}](mhd2.ps)
Similar to the inertial wave in the rotating flow, the Alfvén wave exists in MHD flow. At the lowest $Rm=0.1$ Alfvén wave cannot be found because the induction effect is too weak. At the higher $Rm$’s Alfvén wave is induced. Figure \[fig:mhd3\] shows the Alfven wave at the highest $Rm=100$. The period of oscillations at $V_A=0.5$ is nearly twice of that at $V_A=1$, which is consistent with the fact that the frequency of Alfvén wave is proportional to the strength of imposed field. The reason that it is not exactly twice is due to the wave number $k_3$. The dimensionless frequency of Alfvén wave is $Vak_3$ which depends not only on $V_A$ but also on wave number $k_3$ (for comparison, the frequency of inertial wave does not depend on wave number but the orientation of wave vector), and different $V_A$ leads to different $k_3$ because of different anisotropy.
![MHD flow. The time evolution of volume-averaged kinetic energy to show Alfvén wave. $Rm=100$. Black line denotes the total kinetic energy, red line the kinetic energy in the $x_1$ direction and blue line the kinetic energy in the $x_3$ direction. Left panel is for $V_A=0.5$ and the oscillation period is $7.12$. Right panel is for $V_A=1$ and the oscillation period is $3.26$. Time is truncated at $t=20$ for better view.[]{data-label="fig:mhd3"}](mhd3.ps)
Rotating MHD flow {#sec:rot-mhd}
=================
In this section we study decay of rotating MHD flow. We impose a magnetic field which is static in the rotating frame of reference, namely the imposed field is co-rotating with the mean flow. This setup is often used in the study of planetary and stellar interiors, e.g. the dynamo action. In this case the angle between rotational and magnetic axes should be considered. Suppose that rotation is along the $x_3$ axis and imposed field is in the $x_1-x_3$ plane. Denote the angle between rotation and imposed field by $\alpha$ and then the dimensionless imposed field is expressed as $$\bm B_0=(\sin\alpha,0,\cos\alpha).$$ The dimensionless Navier-Stokes and induction equations are respectively $$\frac{\partial\bm u}{\partial t}+\bm u\cdot\bm\nabla\bm u=-\bm\nabla p+\frac{1}{Re}\nabla^2\bm u+\frac{1}{Ro}2\bm u\times\hat{\bm x}_3+V_A^2(\bm\nabla\times\bm b)\times(\bm B_0+\bm b),$$ $$\frac{\partial\bm b}{\partial t}=\bm\nabla\times\left(\bm u\times(\bm B_0+\bm b)\right)+\frac{1}{Rm}\nabla^2\bm b.$$ One may question the validity of magnetic induction equation in the rotating frame of reference. It should be noted that the displacement current is neglected in the MHD approximation because the rotational speed of fluid is much less than the speed of light, such that the magnetic induction equation still holds in the rotating frame.
We introduce the Elsasser number measuring the ratio of the Lorentz force to the Coriolis force, $$\Lambda=\frac{B_0^2}{\rho\mu\eta\Omega}.$$ The Elsasser number plays an important role in the dynamo action. In the magnetostrophic balance, the pressure gradient, the Coriolis force and the Lorentz force are balanced. In this situation the Elsasser number is of the order of unity. It might happen in the fluid core of the Earth where the toroidal field created by the differential rotation (the so-called $\omega$ effect) is so strong that the magnetostrophic balance is reached. The Elsasser number is related to the Rossby number, the magnetic Reynolds number and the dimensionless Alvfén speed through the expression $$\Lambda=RoRmV_A^2.$$
Through the study in §\[sec:mhd\] we know that low $Rm$ and high $Rm$ regimes are quite different for dynamics, namely Alfvén wave can be induced at high $Rm$ but is absent at low $Rm$. In geophysical and astrophysical flows, $Rm$ is high, e.g. in the Earth’s fluid core $Rm$ is of the order of $100$. Therefore, we keep $Rm=100$ to study the high $Rm$ regime. $\alpha$ is kept to be $0^\circ$. We calculate the four rotating MHD flows with the combination of $Ro=(0.2, 0.1)$ and $V_A=(0.5, 1.0)$ for comparison between slow and fast rotation as well as weak and strong imposed field. Figure \[fig:rot-mhd1\] shows the time evolution of volume-averaged kinetic energy and magnetic energy of induced field. In the left panel, the two flows at $Ro=0.1$ (red and green lines, they are almost overlapped) decay more slowly than the two flows at $Ro=0.2$ (black and blue lines), because fast rotation retards the flow decay. The fact that the flows are grouped by $Ro$ other than $V_A$ indicates that rotation wins out imposed field in the parameter regime investigated. At $Ro=0.2$ of slow rotation, the flow with stronger imposed field (blue line) decays faster than with weaker imposed field (black line) because of energy conversion studied in §\[sec:mhd\]. In the right panel, it is not surprising that the two flows with stronger imposed field (blue and green lines) have higher magnetic energy of induced field than the two flows with weaker imposed field (black and red lines). However, it is interesting that at each $V_A$ the flow at $Ro=0.2$ has higher magnetic energy of induced field than at $Ro=0.1$ (black versus red, blue versus green). Again, it is because of energy conversion. As indicated by the left panel, the two flows at $Ro=0.1$ have higher kinetic energy than at $Ro=0.2$. Therefore, slower rotation in rotating MHD flow tends to convert more kinetic energy to magnetic energy.
![Rotating MHD flow. The time evolution of volume-averaged kinetic energy and magnetic energy of induced field. $Rm=100$ and $\alpha=0^\circ$. Black, red, blue and green lines denote the pair of $(Ro,V_A)$ to be respectively $(0.2,0.5)$, $(0.1,0.5)$, $(0.2,1.0)$ and $(0.1,1.0)$. Time is truncated at $t=50$ for better view.[]{data-label="fig:rot-mhd1"}](rot-mhd1.ps)
To end this section we study the effect of angle $\alpha$ on rotating MHD flow. We keep $Ro=0.2$, $V_A=1$ and $Rm=100$, and vary $\alpha$ from $0^\circ$ to $90^\circ$. Figure \[fig:rot-mhd2\] shows the time evolution of volume-averaged kinetic energy and magnetic energy of induced field. Both left and right panels reveal that a noticeable difference with respect to amplitude and frequency of oscillations exists between $\alpha=0^\circ$ and $\alpha\neq0^\circ$ but this difference among the non-zero angles is not very noticeable (the phase difference always exists for different angles). More kinetic energy at $\alpha\neq0^\circ$ is converted to magnetic energy than at $\alpha=0^\circ$. Heavier oscillations at $\alpha\neq0^\circ$ than at $\alpha=0^\circ$ indicate that stronger wave is induced at $\alpha\neq0^\circ$. Therefore, a field component perpendicular to rotation causes more efficient energy conversion and induces stronger wave. This may be tentatively interpreted with the electromotive force (e.m.f.) on its first order, $\bm u\times\bm B_0$. In the presence of rotation, flow in the rotational direction wins out the other two directions, as suggested by figure \[fig:rot3\], such that the major contribution to e.m.f. is $u_3B_0\sin\alpha\hat{\bm x}_2$. The e.m.f. measures the interaction of flow and field. With $\alpha$ increasing, this interaction increases such that more energy conversion occurs and stronger wave is induced.
![Rotating MHD flow. The time evolution of volume-averaged kinetic energy and magnetic energy of induced field. $Ro=0.2$, $V_A=1$ and $Rm=100$. Black, red, blue, green and magenta lines denote respectively $\alpha=0^\circ$, $30^\circ$, $45^\circ$, $60^\circ$ and $90^\circ$. Time is truncated at $t=20$ for better view.[]{data-label="fig:rot-mhd2"}](rot-mhd2.ps)
Discussion {#sec:diss}
==========
In this paper, we study the decay of isotropic and anisotropic flows in the weakly nonlinear regime. The parameters used in the numerical calculations are listed in Table \[tab:parameters\]. The decay of isotropic flow has two stages, the first stage for development of small scales and the second stage for viscous dissipation. Rotation induces inertial wave and causes the formation of large-scale structure and retards the flow decay. It takes the effect in the first stage. Imposed field also causes the large-scale structure, but facilitates the flow decay in the first stage because of energy conversion from flow to magnetic field. The high and low $Rm$ regimes have different dynamics: in the former Alfvén wave is induced but in the latter it cannot. In the presence of both rotation and magnetic field, slower rotation tends to convert more kinetic energy to magnetic energy, and the orientation of rotation and field is important for the dynamics, namely a non-zero angle between rotation and magnetic field causes more efficient energy conversion and stronger wave than the zero angle. It is found that these isotropic and anisotropic flows in the weakly nonlinear regime exhibit the similar behaviour to the turbulent flows. Therefore, it provides some implications for the study of turbulent flow, e.g. for the decay of rotating MHD turbulent flow, the different angles between rotational and magnetic axes should be more thoroughly studied.
\[tab:parameters\]
[|ll|]{}\
$Re$ & $k_0$\
100, 200 & 1, 2\
[|lll|]{}\
$Re$ & $Ro$ & $k_0$\
100 & 1.0, 0.5, 0.2, 0.1 & 1\
[|llll|]{}\
$Re$ & $V_A$ & $Rm$ & $k_0$\
100 & 0.5, 1, 2, 5 & 0.1, 1, 10, 100 & 1\
\
[|lllll|]{}\
$Re$ & $(Ro, V_A)$ & $Rm$ & $\alpha$ & $k_0$\
100 & (0.2, 0.5), (0.1, 0.5), (0.2, 1.0), (0.1, 1.0) & 100 & 0$^\circ$, 30$^\circ$, 45$^\circ$, 60$^\circ$, 90$^\circ$ & 1\
This work was started in Princeton and completed in Shanghai. This work was partly supported by the National Science Foundation’s Center for Magnetic Self-Organization under grant PHY-0821899 and partly by the start-up grant of Shanghai Jiao Tong University.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the spectrum of the Laplacian on the Sierpinski lattices. First, we show that the spectrum of the Laplacian, as a subset of $\mathbb{C}$, remains the same for any $\ell^p$ spaces. Second, we characterize all the spectral points on the lattices with a boundary point.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, Cornell Univeristy, Ithaca 14853, USA'
- 'Department of Mathematics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, SHATIN, N.T., Hong Kong'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Nanjing Univeristy, Nanjing 210093, China'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Cornell Univeristy, Ithaca 14853, USA'
- 'Department of Mathematics, The University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison 53706, USA'
author:
- Shiping Cao
- Yiqi Huang
- Hua Qiu
- 'Robert S. Strichartz'
- Xiaohan Zhu
title: 'Spectral analysis beyond $\ell^2$ on Sierpinski lattices'
---
[^1]
[^2]
[^3]
[^4]
introduction
============
In this note, we study the spectrum of the Laplacian on the Sierpinski Lattice $\lSG$. This problem was fully investigated by A. Teplyaev [@T] in the $\ell^2$ setting. We will continue his study for the $\ell^p$ case, and the $\ell^1$ and $\ell^\infty$ cases are of special interest.
![The Sierpinski lattices.[]{data-label="fig6"}](blowup.pdf){width="8cm"}
The *Sierpinski lattice* is an infinite graph defined as follows. Let $$F_0(x)=\frac{1}{2}x+(\frac{1}{4},\frac{\sqrt{3}}{4}),\quad F_1(x)=\frac{1}{2}x,\quad F_2(x)=\frac{1}{2}x+(\frac{1}{2},0),$$ and $q_0=(\frac{1}{2},\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}),q_1=(0,0),q_2=(1,0)$ be the fixed points of $F_i$ respectively. Given an infinite word $\omega=\omega_1\omega_2\cdots \in \{0,1,2\}^\infty$, the corresponding Sierpinski lattice $\lSG$ is constructed as $$\lSG=\bigcup_{m=1}^\infty F_{\omega_1}^{-1}F_{\omega_2}^{-1}\cdots F_{\omega_m}^{-1}(V_m),$$ where $V_0=\{q_0,q_1,q_2\}$ and $V_m=\bigcup_{i=0}^2 F_i(V_{m-1})$ are defined iteratively. See Figure \[fig6\]. For $x,y\in \widetilde{\SG}$, we write $x\sim y$ if $x,y\in F_{\omega_1}^{-1}F_{\omega_2}^{-1}\cdots F_{\omega_m}^{-1}F_{l_m}F_{l_{m-1}}\cdots F_{l_1}(V_0)$ for a sequence $l_1,\cdots, l_m\in\{0,1,2\}$. Call $y$ a *neighbouring vertex* of $x$. All vertices in the Sierpinski lattice have four neighbouring vertices, except at most one vertex called the *boundary vertex*, which admits only two neighbouring vertices. The boundary vertex exists if and only if there exists $M\in \mathbb{N}$ and $i\in \{0,1,2\}$ such that $\omega_m=i$ for all $m\geq M$, see [@T].
The Laplacian $\Delta$ on $\lSG$ is defined as $$\label{eqn11}
\Delta f(x)=\begin{cases}
\sum_{y\sim x}f(y)-4f(x), \quad &\text{if $x$ is not a boundary point,}\\
\sum_{y\sim x}2f(y)-4f(x),\quad &\text{if $x$ is a boundary point.}
\end{cases}$$
The celebrated result of A. Teplyaev [@T] showed that the Lapalacian $\Delta$, viewed as an operator $\ell^2(\lSG)\to\ell^2(\lSG)$ has pure point spectrum. What’s more, $\ell^2(\lSG)$ admits a basis of localized eigenfunctions of the Laplacian, which can be generated using the spectral decimation recipe [@FS; @tS]. Read the book [@S1] for an introduction to the spectral decimation. For the spectral analysis on other fractal graphs and related fractalfolds, see [@MT; @S2; @ST].
In this work, we will describe the spectrum of the Laplacian $\Delta:\ell^p(\lSG)\to\ell^p(\lSG)$. In Section 2, we will show that the spectrum is a union of a Julia set and a discrete set named $6$-series eigenvalues. The spectrum remains the same for any $1\leq p\leq \infty$ and any lattice. On the other hand, in Section 3, we will see that for $1<p<\infty$, the Laplacian has only point spectrum and continuous spectrum, while $\Delta:\ell^1\to\ell^1$ has all three kinds of spectral points. This phenomenon is a consequence of the existence of the $4$-eigenfunctions in $\ell^\infty(\lSG)$, which does not live in other $\ell^p(\lSG)$ spaces. In addition, we get a full description of the $\ell^1$ spectrum for the lattices with one boundary vertex.
The spectrum of $\Delta$ on $\lSG$ {#intro}
==================================
In this section, we compute the spectrum of the Laplacian $\Delta:\ell^p(\lSG)\to \ell^p(\lSG),$ which is stated in the following Theorem \[Q1\].
The Julia set corresponding to the polynomial $R(\lambda)=\lambda(5-\lambda)$ is defined as $$\mathcal{J}=\{x\in\mathbb{C}: \{R^{\circ k}(x)\}_{k=0}^\infty\in l^\infty\}.$$
**Remark.** The Hausdorff dimension of $\mathcal{J}$ is the unique zero of the Bowen’s function $$B(t)=\lim_{k\to\infty} \frac{1}{k}\ln \sum_{w\in R^{-k}(x)}|(R^{\circ k})'(w)|^{-t},$$ where $x$ is any chosen point in $\mathcal{J}$. See Section 9.1 in the book [@PU].
\[Q1\] Let $\sigma(\Delta)=\mathcal{J}\cup \Sigma_6$, where $\Sigma_6=\{6\}\cup (\bigcup_{m=0}^\infty R^{\circ -m}\{3\})$. The spectrum of $\Delta: \ell^p(\widetilde{\SG})\rightarrow \ell ^p (\widetilde{\SG})$ is equal to $\sigma(\Delta)$ for all $1\leq p\leq \infty$.
**Remark.** Theorem 2.2 is proved for the $\ell^2(\lSG)$ case in [@T]. Here a different approach will be used to deal with general $\ell^p$ cases. The theorem is also valid for $\Delta:C_0(\lSG)\to C_0(\lSG)$.
We will prove Theorem \[Q1\] with several lemmas. For a fixed infinite word $\omega$, we consider a sequence of sparse lattices $\lSG^{(-k)}$ defined as $$\lSG^{(-k)}=\bigcup_{m=k}^\infty F_{\omega_1}^{-1}F_{\omega_2}^{-1}\cdots F_{\omega_m}^{-1}V_{m-k},$$ and we say $x\sim_{-k}y$ if $x,y\in F_{\omega_1}^{-1}F_{\omega_2}^{-1}\cdots F_{\omega_m}^{-1}F_{l_{m-k}}F_{l_{m-k-1}}\cdots F_{l_1}(V_0)$ for a sequence $l_1,\cdots, l_{m-k}\in\{0,1,2\}$. The Laplacian $\Delta_{(-k)}$ on $\lSG^{(-k)}$ can be defined in a similar manner as (\[eqn11\]). The eigenvalues and eigenfunctions on $\lSG^{(-k)}$ for different $k$’s are related by the spectral decimation method [@FS; @ST; @T].
To understand the spectral decimation, we only need to focus on a small neighbourhood of a point $y_0$ in $\lSG^{(-k-1)}$. For convenience, we only consider the case $k=0$ and a point $y_0\in \lSG^{(-1)}$ with four neighbouring vertices, noticing that the boundary vertices and $k\geq 1$ cases can be dealt with in an essentially same way. Let $\{x_i\}_{i=1}^4$ be the neighbouring vertices of $y_0$ in $\lSG^{(-1)}$, and let $\{y_i\}_{i=1}^6$ be the vertices in $\widetilde{\SG}$ bounded by $\{x_i\}_{i=1}^4$. The induced subgraph in $\widetilde{\SG}$ is denoted by $\Gamma$ in the following context, see Figure \[fig1\]. Clearly, the definition of $\Delta$ and $\Delta_{(-1)}$ on $\Gamma$ are naturally inherited from those on the graphs $\lSG$ and $\lSG^{(-1)}$ as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn21}\Delta f(y_i)=\sum_{z\sim y_i}f(z)-4f(y_i),&0\leq i\leq 6,\\
\label{eqn22}\Delta_{(-1)} f(y_0)=\sum_{i=1}^4f(x_i)-4f(y_0).&\end{aligned}$$
![The graph $\Gamma$.[]{data-label="fig1"}](gammat.pdf){width="5cm"}
(0,0) (-4,0)[$x_2$]{} (-154,0)[$x_1$]{} (-114,64)[$x_4$]{} (-44,64)[$x_3$]{}
(-80,-4)[$y_0$]{} (-68,34)[$y_3$]{} (-44,-4)[$y_2$]{} (-114,-4)[$y_1$]{} (-90,34)[$y_4$]{} (-136,34)[$y_5$]{} (-22,34)[$y_6$]{}
\[decimation\] Let $\lambda\notin \{2,5,6\}$ and $R(\lambda)=\lambda(5-\lambda)$. Let $\Delta$ and $\Delta_{(-1)}$ on $\Gamma$ be defined in (\[eqn21\]) and (\[eqn22\]).
(a). Let $f\in l(\Gamma)$ and $-\Delta f(y_i)=\lambda f(y_i),\forall 0\leq i\leq 6$. Then $-\Delta_{(-1)}f(y_0)=R(\lambda)f(y_0)$.
(b). Given any values $f(x_i),i=1,2,3,4$ and $f(y_0)$ such that $-\Delta_{(-1)}f(y_0)=R(\lambda)f(y_0)$, there is a unique extension $f\in l(\Gamma)$ such that $f$ satisfies the eigenvalue equations $-\Delta f(y_i)=\lambda f(y_i),\forall 0\leq i\leq 6$.
*Proof.* This can be done by direct computation. See Section 3.2 in the book [@S1] for details.$\square$
Proposition \[decimation\] can be easily applied to the eigenvalue problems on the Sierpinski lattices. However, to deal with the spectrum, we need somewhat stronger versions. We will do this in the following two lemmas.
![The $4$-Dirichlet eigenfunction and $1$-Dirichlet eigenfunction on $\Gamma$ (with only non-zero values marked).[]{data-label="fig2"}](gammat.pdf "fig:"){width="5cm"} ![The $4$-Dirichlet eigenfunction and $1$-Dirichlet eigenfunction on $\Gamma$ (with only non-zero values marked).[]{data-label="fig2"}](gammat.pdf "fig:"){width="5cm"}
(0,0) (-78,-5)[$4$]{} (-68,34)[$3$]{} (-44,-5)[$3$]{} (-114,-5)[$3$]{} (-90,34)[$3$]{} (-136,33)[$2$]{} (-22,33)[$2$]{}
(-240,-5)[$1$]{} (-305,31)[$-1$]{} (-187,31)[$-1$]{}
\[Q1lemma1\] Consider the Dirichlet eigenvalue problem on $\Gamma$: $$\begin{cases}
f(x_i)=0,&1\leq i\leq 4,\\
-\Delta f(y_i)=\lambda f(y_i),&1\leq i\leq 6.
\end{cases}$$ All the Dirichlet eigenvalues are $\{1,2,4,5,6\}$.
*Proof.* We can easily find one $2$-eigenfunction, three $5$-eigenfunctions and one $6$-eigenfunction, see Section 3.2, 3.3 in [@S1] for an illustration of such eigenfunctions. In addition, we find one $4$-eigenfunction and one $1$-eigenfunction as shown in Figure 2. All the above give $7$ linearly independent eigenfunctions. $\square$
\[Q1lemma2\] Let $\lambda\notin\{1,2,4,5,6\}$. There exist constants $\{c_{i,\lambda}\}_{i=0}^6$ such that for any $f\in \l(\Gamma)$ we have $$(R(\lambda)+\Delta_{(-1)})f(y_0)=\sum_{i=0}^6 c_{i,\lambda}(\lambda+\Delta)f(y_i).$$ In addition, $c_{0,\lambda}\neq 0$.
*Proof.* Let $f\in l(\Gamma)$. By the assumption and using Lemma \[Q1lemma1\], we know that $\lambda$ is not a Dirichlet eigenvalue. So there is a unique solution to each of the following boundary value problems. $$\label{Q1eqn1}
\begin{cases}
u(x_i)=0,&1\leq i\leq 4,\\
(\lambda+\Delta) u(y_i)=(\lambda+\Delta) f(y_i),&0\leq i\leq 6,
\end{cases}$$ $$\begin{cases}
v(x_i)=f(x_i),&1\leq i\leq 4\\
(\lambda+\Delta) v(y_i)=0,&0\leq i\leq 6.
\end{cases}$$ Clearly, we have $$f=u+v.$$ In addition, since $v$ is an eigenfunction of $\Delta$, we have $$(R(\lambda)+\Delta_{(-1)})v(y_0)=0,$$ by using Proposition \[decimation\]. As a consequence, we get $(R(\lambda)+\Delta_{(-1)})f(y_0)=(R(\lambda)+\Delta_{(-1)})u(y_0)$. On the other hand, since $u$ is uniquely determined by the linear equations (\[Q1eqn1\]), we conclude there are constants $c_{i,\lambda}$ such that $$(R(\lambda)+\Delta_{(-1)})f(y_0)=(R(\lambda)+\Delta_{(-1)})u(y_0)=\sum_{i=0}^6c_{i,\lambda}(\lambda+\Delta) f(y_i).$$
Lastly, we prove $c_{0,\lambda}\neq 0$ by contradiction. Assume $c_{0,\lambda}=0$, then we have $$f(y_0)=\big(R(\lambda)-4\big)^{-1}\big(-\sum_{i=1}^4f(x_i)+\sum_{i=1}^6 c_{i,\lambda}(\lambda+\Delta)f(y_i)\big).$$ In addition, it is easy to see that $\{f(y_i)\}_{i=1}^6$ are uniquely determined by $\{f(x_i)\}_{i=1}^4,\{(\Delta+\lambda)f(y_i)\}_{i=1}^6$ and $f(y_0)$. As a consequence, $f$ is uniquely determined by the $10$ numbers $\{f(x_i)\}_{i=1}^4,\{(\Delta+\lambda)f(y_i)\}_{i=1}^6$, which contradicts the fact that $l(\Gamma)$ is $11$ dimensional. $\square$\
Now, we return to investigate the Sierpinski lattice $\widetilde{\SG}$, applying the above two lemmas locally.
\[Q1lemma3\] Let $\lambda\notin\{1,2,4,5,6\}$, and consider $\Delta_{(-k)}:\ell^p(\lSG^{(-k)})\to \ell^p(\lSG^{(-k)})$, $1\leq p\leq \infty$. Then $\lambda+\Delta_{(-k)}$ is invertible if and only if $R(\lambda)+\Delta_{(-k-1)}$ is invertible.
*Proof.* Without loss of generality, we consider the $k=0$ case. Fix any point $y_0\in \lSG^{(-1)}$, and choose a neighbourhood of $y_0$ in $\widetilde{\SG}$ that is isomorphic to $\Gamma$. For each $g\in l(\lSG)$, we define $$Tg(y_0)=\sum_{i=0}^6 c_{i,\lambda}g(y_i),$$ where $c_{i,\lambda}$ is defined in Lemma \[Q1lemma2\]. It is clear that $T$ is bounded from $\ell^p(\lSG)$ to $\ell^p(\lSG^{(-1)})$. In addition, since $c_{0,\lambda}\neq 0$, $T$ is surjective.
Then by using Lemma \[Q1lemma2\] at each point of $\lSG^{(-1)}$, the following two systems of equations give the same solutions on $\lSG$, $$\label{Q1eqn2}
(\lambda+\Delta) f(x)=g(x)\text{, on }\lSG,$$ and $$\label{Q1eqn3}
\begin{cases}
(\lambda+\Delta) f(x)=g(x),&\text{ for }x\in \lSG\setminus \lSG^{(-1)},\\
(R(\lambda)+\Delta_{(-1)}) f(x)=Tg(x), &\text{ for }x\in \lSG^{(-1)},
\end{cases}$$ where $g\in \ell^p(\lSG)$. But (\[Q1eqn3\]) has a unique solution in $\ell^p(\lSG)$ if and only if $$\label{Q1eqn4}
(R(\lambda)+\Delta_{(-1)}) f(x)=Tg(x) \text{, on }\lSG^{(-1)},$$ has a unique solution in $\ell^{p}(\lSG^{(-1)})$. The lemma follows immediately from the equivalence of solvabilty and uniqueness of solutions to (\[Q1eqn2\]) and (\[Q1eqn4\]).$\square$\
In fact, in Lemma \[Q1lemma3\], the only exceptions are $\lambda=\{2,6\}$. The cases for $\lambda=1,4,5,6$ are easy to check, while the case $\lambda=2$ needs a little more work. Luckily, by a same idea as the proof of Lemma \[Q1lemma1\], \[Q1lemma2\] and \[Q1lemma3\]. We will get the following lemma.
\[Q1lemma4\] Let $\lambda\notin\{1,3,4,5,6\}\cup R^{\circ-1}\{1,2,5\}$, and consider $\Delta_{(-k)}:\ell^p(\lSG^{(-k)})\to \ell^p(\lSG^{(-k)})$,$1\leq p\leq \infty$. Then $(\lambda+\Delta_{(-k)})^{-1}$ is invertible if and only if $(R^{\circ 2}(\lambda)+\Delta_{(-k-2)})^{-1}$ is invertible.
In particular, $(2+\Delta_{(-k)})^{-1}$ is invertible if and only if $(-6+\Delta_{(-k-2)})^{-1}$ is invertible.
We end this section with the proof of Theorem \[Q1\].
*Proof of Theorem \[Q1\].* Clearly, $\Sigma_6=\{6\}\cup (\bigcup_{m=0}^\infty R^{\circ -m}\{3\})\subset \sigma(\Delta)$. See [@T] for the eigenfunctions for $\lambda\in \Sigma_6$. Thus, it is easy to see that $$\mathcal{J}\cup \Sigma_6=\overline{\Sigma_6}\subset \sigma(\Delta).$$
It remains to show that $\sigma(\Delta)\subset\mathcal{J}\cup \Sigma_6$. It suffices to show that if $\lambda \notin \mathcal{J}\cup \Sigma_6$, then $\lambda+\Delta$ is invertible. We consider two cases below.
First, consider $\lambda\notin \mathcal{J}\cup \Sigma_6\cup (\bigcup_{m=0}^\infty R^{\circ-m}\{2\})$. It is easy to see that $$\|\Delta_{(-k)}\|_{op}\leq 8.$$ On the other hand, by the definition of $\mathcal{J}$, there exists $k\geq 0$ such that $$|R^{\circ k}(\lambda)|>8\geq \|\Delta_{(-k)}\|_{op},$$ which implies that $R^{\circ k}(\lambda)+\Delta_{(-k)}$ is invertible. By using Lemma \[Q1lemma3\] repeatedly, we see that $\lambda+\Delta$ is invertible.
Second, if $\lambda\in \bigcup_{m=0}^\infty R^{\circ-m}\{2\}$, by using Lemma \[Q1lemma3\] and \[Q1lemma4\], and a same argument as the first case, we can show that $\lambda+\Delta$ is also invertible.$\square$
A spectral analysis on lattices with one boundary
=================================================
In this section, we focus on characterizing each point in the spectrum. We will point out that the $\ell^p,1<p<\infty$ cases and $\ell^1$ case are very different. A full description of the spectral points in the $\ell^p,1<p<\infty$ cases is easy with the method developed by A. Teplyaev [@T], while the $\ell^1$ case is much complicated and we only give a full answer for the lattices with a boundary point.
As preparation, we define the *inner product* of real functions on $\lSG$ as follows, $$<f,g>=\sum_{x\in \lSG}\mu_xf(x)g(x),$$ where $\mu_x=\begin{cases}
1, &\text{ if $x$ is not a boundary point}, \\
1/2, &\text{ if $x$ is a boundary point}.
\end{cases}$
\[Q2lemma1\] Let $f\in \ell^p(\lSG)$ and $g\in \ell^q(\lSG)$ with $\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q}=1$, $1\leq p<\infty$, then we have $<\Delta f,g>=<f,\Delta g>$.
*Proof.* It is easy to see that the summation below converges absolutely, so we can rearrange the order, $$\sum_{x\in \lSG}\sum_{y:y\sim x}g(x)f(y)=\sum_{x\in \lSG}\sum_{y:y\sim x}f(x)g(y).$$ As a result, $$\quad\qquad\qquad\begin{aligned}
<\Delta f,g>&=\sum_{x\in \lSG} \mu_x g(x)\sum_{y:y\sim x}\frac{1}{\mu_x}\big(f(y)-f(x)\big)\\
&=-4<f,g>+\sum_{x\in \lSG}\sum_{y:y\sim x}g(x)f(y)\\
&=-4<f,g>+\sum_{x\in \lSG}\sum_{y:y\sim x}f(x)g(y)=<f,\Delta g>.\qquad\qquad\qquad\square
\end{aligned}$$
In the following, we use $\sigma_c(\Delta)$ to denote the continuous spectrum of the Laplacian, and $\sigma_p(\Delta)$ for the point spectrum, $\sigma_r(\Delta)$ for the residue spectrum. As a consequence of Lemma \[Q2lemma1\], we have the following criterion for $\lambda$ to be a residue spectral point.
\[Q2lemma2\] Let $1\leq p<\infty$, $\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q}=1$, and assume $\lambda\notin\sigma_p(\Delta)$ for $\Delta:\ell^p(\lSG)\to \ell^p(\lSG)$. Then $\lambda\in \sigma_r(\Delta)$ for $\Delta:\ell^p(\lSG)\to \ell^p(\lSG)$ if and only if $\lambda\in \sigma_p(\Delta)$ for $\Delta:\ell^q(\lSG)\to \ell^q(\lSG)$.
*Proof.* The lemma is an easy application of Lemma \[Q2lemma1\]. In fact, if $(\lambda+\Delta)(\ell^p(\lSG))$ is not dense in $\ell^p(\lSG)$, there exists a non-zero $f_\lambda\in \ell^q(\lSG)$ such that $<f,(\lambda+\Delta)f_\lambda>=<(\lambda+\Delta)f,f_\lambda>=0$ for any $f\in \ell^p(\lSG)$. This shows that $(\lambda+\Delta)f_\lambda=0$. Conversely, it is clear that if $\lambda$ is an eigenvalue of $\Delta:\ell^q(\lSG)\to \ell^q(\lSG)$ with a corresponding eigenfunction $f_\lambda\in \ell^q(\lSG)$, then $<(\lambda+\Delta)f,f_\lambda>=0$ for any $f\in \ell^p(\lSG)$. $\square$
Lattices with a boundary point
------------------------------
In this part, we will characterize each spectral point for $\Delta:\ell^p(\lSG)\to\ell^p(\lSG)$, given the condition that $\lSG$ is a lattice with a boundary point. The result is stated as follows.
\[Q2thm3\] Write $$\Sigma_4=\bigcup_{m=0}^\infty R^{\circ-m}\{4\},\quad \Sigma_5=\bigcup_{m=0}^\infty R^{\circ-m}\{5\} \quad \text{and} \quad \Sigma_6=\{6\}\bigcup\big(\bigcup_{m=0}^\infty R^{\circ-m}\{3\}\big).$$
(a). For $\Delta:\ell^p(\lSG)\to \ell^p(\lSG)$ with $1<p<\infty$, we have $\sigma_p(\Delta)=\Sigma_5\cup\Sigma_6$ and $\sigma_c(\Delta)=\mathcal{J}\setminus \Sigma_5$. There is no residue spectral point.
(b). For $\Delta:\ell^1(\lSG)\to \ell^1(\lSG)$, we have all three types of spectral points as follows, $$\sigma_p(\Delta)=\Sigma_5\cup\Sigma_6,\quad\sigma_c(\Delta)=\mathcal{J}\setminus (\Sigma_4\cup \Sigma_5\cup\{0\}),\quad \sigma_r(\Delta)=\{0\}\cup\Sigma_4.$$
By Lemma \[Q2lemma2\], Theorem \[Q2thm3\] is an immediate consequence of the following proposition.
\[Q2prop4\] For $\Delta:\ell^\infty(\lSG)\to \ell^\infty(\lSG)$, we have $\sigma_p(\Delta)=\{0\}\cup\Sigma_4\cup\Sigma_5\cup\Sigma_6$.
*Proof.* Without loss of generality, we take $\omega=0000\cdots$ and $\lSG=\bigcup_{m=0}^\infty F_0^{-m}V_m$, since any two lattices with a boundary point are isomorphic to each other [@T]. The following proof relies on Lemma \[Q2lemma5\] and Lemma \[Q2lemma6\], which will be stated later.
The existence of $5$-series and $6$-series eigenfunctions is a well-known result of the spectral decimation, see [@T]. See Appendix for the existence of the $4$-series eigenfunctions. So it suffices to show that there are no other $\ell^\infty$ eigenvalues.
Take $\lambda\in \mathcal{J}\setminus \big(\{0\}\cup\Sigma_4\cup\Sigma_5\big)$, and let $f$ be a $\lambda$-eigenfunction. For convenience, we write $q_i^{(-m)}=F_0^{-m}q_i,i=0,1,2$. By direct computation, and using the decimation method, we get $$\label{eqn31}
\begin{aligned}
\begin{pmatrix}f(q_0)\\f(q_1)\\f(q_2)\end{pmatrix}&=
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0\\
\frac{4-\lambda}{(2-\lambda)(5-\lambda)} & \frac{4-\lambda}{(2-\lambda)(5-\lambda)} & \frac{2}{(2-\lambda)(5-\lambda)}\\
\frac{4-\lambda}{(2-\lambda)(5-\lambda)} & \frac{2}{(2-\lambda)(5-\lambda)} & \frac{4-\lambda}{(2-\lambda)(5-\lambda)}
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}f(q_0)\\f(q^{(-1)}_1)\\f(q^{(-1)}_2)\end{pmatrix}
\\
&=f(q_0)\begin{pmatrix}1\\1-\frac{\lambda}{4}\\1-\frac{\lambda}{4}\end{pmatrix}
+\frac{\lambda\big(f(q^{(-1)}_1)-f(q^{(-1)}_2)\big)}{2R(\lambda)}
\begin{pmatrix}0\\1\\-1\end{pmatrix}\\
&+\big(\frac{f(q_1^{(-1)})+f(q_2^{(-1)})}{2}-(1-\frac{R(\lambda)}{4})f(q_0)\big)\frac{6-\lambda}{(2-\lambda)(5-\lambda)}
\begin{pmatrix}0\\1\\1\end{pmatrix},
\end{aligned}$$ as $f$ is an $R(\lambda)$-eigenfunction on $\lSG^{(-1)}$. In addition,
$$\label{eqn32}
f(q_1^{(-m)})+f(q_2^{(-m)})-(2-\frac{R^{\circ m}(\lambda)}{2})f(q_0)=0, \forall m\geq 0.$$
By using (\[eqn31\]) and (\[eqn32\]) repeatedly and using symmetry, we get $$\label{eqn33}
\begin{pmatrix}f(q_0)\\f(q_1)\\f(q_2)\end{pmatrix}=
f(q_0)\begin{pmatrix}1\\1-\frac{\lambda}{4}\\1-\frac{\lambda}{4}\end{pmatrix}
+\frac{\lambda\big(f(q^{(-m)}_1)-f(q^{(-m)}_2)\big)}{2R^{\circ m}(\lambda)}
\begin{pmatrix}0\\1\\-1\end{pmatrix},$$ and $$\label{eqn34}
\begin{aligned}
\begin{pmatrix}f(F_0^{-m}F^m_1q_0)\\f(q^{(-m)}_1)\\f(F_0^{-m}F^m_1q_2)\end{pmatrix}=
f(q^{(-m)}_1)\begin{pmatrix}1-\frac{\lambda}{4}\\1\\1-\frac{\lambda}{4}\end{pmatrix}
+\frac{\lambda\big(f(q_0)-f(q^{(-m)}_2)\big)}{2R^{\circ m}(\lambda)}
\begin{pmatrix}1\\0\\-1\end{pmatrix}\\
+\big(\frac{f(q_0)+f(q_2^{(-m)})}{2}-(1-\frac{R^{\circ m}(\lambda)}{4})f(q_1^{(-m)})\big)\prod_{l=0}^{m-1}\frac{6-R^{\circ l}(\lambda)}{(2-R^{\circ l}(\lambda))(5-R^{\circ l}(\lambda))}\begin{pmatrix}1\\0\\1\end{pmatrix}.
\end{aligned}$$ As a consequence of (\[eqn32\]) and (\[eqn33\]), we get the estimate $$\label{eqn35}
\max\{|f(q_0)|,|f(q_1)|,|f(q_2)|\}\leq C (1\vee \frac{\lambda}{R^{\circ m}(\lambda)})\cdot\max\{|f(q^{(-m)}_1)|,|f(q^{(-m)}_2)|\}.$$ On the other hand, by using (\[eqn32\]) and (\[eqn34\]), we get the equation $$\begin{aligned}
f(F_0^{-m}F^m_1q_0)+f(F_0^{-m}&F^m_1q_2)=(2-\frac{\lambda}{2})f(q_1^{(-m)})\\
+\big((\frac{2}{4-R^{\circ m}(\lambda)}&-2+\frac{R^{\circ m}(\lambda)}{2})f(q_1^{(-m)})+(\frac{2}{4-R^{\circ m}(\lambda)}+1)f(q_2^{(-m)})\big)P_m\\
&=(2-\frac{\lambda}{2})f(q_1^{(-m)})+P_m(\lambda)(a_mf(q_1^{(-m)})+b_mf(q_2^{(-m)})).
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{pm}
P_m(\lambda)=\prod_{l=0}^{m-1}\frac{6-R^{\circ l}(\lambda)}{(2-R^{\circ l}(\lambda))(5-R^{\circ l}(\lambda)},$$ $a_m=\frac{2}{4-R^{\circ m}(\lambda)}-2+\frac{R^{\circ m}(\lambda)}{2}$ and $b_m=\frac{2}{4-R^{\circ m}(\lambda)}+1$. By symmetry, we also have $$\begin{aligned}
f(F_0^{-m}F^m_2q_0)&+f(F_0^{-m}F^m_2q_1)\\
&=(2-\frac{\lambda}{2})f(q_2^{(-m)})+P_m(\lambda)(a_mf(q_2^{(-m)})+b_mf(q_1^{(-m)})).
\end{aligned}$$
It is easy to check that $a_m^2\neq b_m^2$ if $R^{\circ m}(\lambda)\in \mathcal{J}\setminus \{0,4\}$. By using Lemma \[Q2lemma5\] below, we can find an increasing sequence $\{m_k\}_{k=1}^\infty$ such that $R^{\circ m_k}(\lambda)$ is bounded away from $0$ and $4$. Thus, we have $$\label{eqn38}
\begin{aligned}
&\max\{|f(F_0^{-m_k}F^{m_k}_1q_0)+f(F_0^{-m_k}F^{m_k}_1q_2)|,|f(F_0^{-m_k}F^{m_k}_2q_0)+f(F_0^{-m_k}F^{m_k}_2q_1)|\}\\
\geq & (2C |P_{m_k}(\lambda)|-|2-\frac{\lambda}{2}|)\max \{|f(q^{(-m_k)}_1)|,|f(q^{(-m_k)}_2)|\},
\end{aligned}$$ where $C$ is independent of $k$. However, according to Lemma \[Q2lemma6\], we can see that $\lim\limits_{k\to\infty}|P_{m_k}(\lambda)|=+\infty$. Combining the estimates (\[eqn35\]) and (\[eqn38\]), and letting $k\to\infty$, we see that $f$ is unbounded. $\square$
At the end of this subsection, we prove the lemmas that are used in the proof of Proposition \[Q2prop4\].
First, let’s recall some basic facts about the totally disconnected Julia set, which can be found in many textbooks, see for example [@M]. Denote $\varphi_-(x)=\frac{5-\sqrt{25-4x}}{2}$ and $\varphi_+(x)=\frac{5+\sqrt{25-4x}}{2}$. There is a natural homeomorphism $\pi$ from the Cantor set $\mathcal{C}=\{-,+\}^{\mathbb{N}}$ to $\mathcal{J}$ defined as follows $$\pi(\eta)=\bigcap_{m=1}^\infty \varphi_{\eta_1}\varphi_{\eta_2}\cdots \varphi_{\eta_m}(\mathcal{J}),$$ for $\eta=\eta_1\eta_2\cdots\in \mathcal{C}$. In particular, $\pi(---\cdots )=0$ and $\pi(+++\cdots)=4$. In addition, define the left shift operator $\iota: \mathcal{C}\rightarrow \mathcal{C}$ by $\iota(\eta_1\eta_2\eta_3\cdots)=\eta_2\eta_3\cdots$. Then $$R\circ \pi(\eta)=\pi\circ \iota (\eta), \forall \eta\in \mathcal{C}.$$
\[Q2lemma5\] Let $\lambda\in \mathcal{J}\setminus \big(\{0\}\cup\Sigma_4\cup\Sigma_5\big)$.
(a). There is a sequence $m_1<m_2<\cdots $ such that $\min\{|R^{\circ m_k}(\lambda)|,|R^{\circ m_k}(\lambda)-4|\}>C$, where $C$ is a positive constant independent of $\lambda$.
(b). There is an infinite sequence $n_1<n_2<\cdots $ such that $R^{\circ n_k}(\lambda)\in \varphi_-(\mathcal{J})$.
*Proof.* (a). Clearly, we can find countably infinite different positive integers $m$ such that $\iota^{\circ m}\pi^{-1}(\lambda)$ are of the form $+-\cdots$ or $-+\cdots$. This means $R^{\circ m}(\lambda)\in \varphi_{-}\varphi_{+}(\mathcal{J})\cup \varphi_{+}\varphi_{-}(\mathcal{J})$, and thus $R^{\circ m}(\lambda)$ is bounded away from $\{0,4\}$.
(b). Clearly, we can find countably infinite different integers $n$ such that $\big(\iota^{\circ n}\pi^{-1}(\lambda)\big)_1=-$.$\square$
Next, we give an estimate for $P_m(\lambda)$ in $(\ref{pm})$.
\[Q2lemma6\] For $\lambda\in \mathcal{J}\setminus \Sigma_4$, we have $$\lim_{m\to\infty} |P_m(\lambda)|=\lim\limits_{m\to\infty}\prod_{l=0}^{m-1}|\frac{6-R^{\circ l}(\lambda)}{(2-R^{\circ l}(\lambda))(5-R^{\circ l}(\lambda)}|=\infty.$$
*Proof.* Using the fact that $R(x)=x(5-x)$ and by direct computation, we can show $$|P_{m}(\lambda)|=\big|\frac{\lambda(6-\lambda)}{R^{\circ m}(\lambda)\big(2-R^{\circ m-1}(\lambda)\big)}\big|\cdot \prod_{l=0}^{m-2}|3-R^{\circ l}(\lambda)|.$$ Thus it suffices to show $\lim\limits_{m\to\infty}\prod_{l=0}^{m}|3-R^{\circ l}(\lambda)|=\infty$.
![An illustration of the $A,B,C$ areas and approximated values of the end points.[]{data-label="fig4"}](decomposition.png){width="12cm"}
(0,0) (-300,10)[$A$]{} (-93,10)[$B$]{} (-41,10)[$C$]{}
(-343,-3)[$0$]{} (-253,-3)[$1.38$]{} (-113,-3)[$3.62$]{} (-77,-3)[$4$]{} (-10,-3)[$5$]{}
Let $A=\varphi_{-}(\mathcal{J})$, $B=\varphi_{+}(\mathcal{J})\cap (0,4]$ and $C=\varphi_+(\mathcal{J})\cap (4,5]$, so that $\mathcal{J}=A\cup B\cup C$. See Figure \[fig4\] for an illustration. For $x \in A$, we have $|3-x|>1.5$; for $x \in C$, we have $|3-x|>1$; For $x\in B$, we have $R(x)\in C$ and $(3-x)\big(3-R(x)\big)>1$ by an easy estimate.
As a consequence, we have the estimates $$\begin{aligned}
\prod_{l=0}^{m}|3-R^{\circ l}(\lambda)|&\geq c\big(\prod_{l\in I_{m,A}}|3-R^{\circ l}(\lambda)|\big)\cdot \big(\prod_{l\in I_{m,B}}|(3-R^{\circ l}(\lambda)\big)\big(3-R^{\circ l+1}(\lambda)\big)|\big)\\
&\geq c (\frac{3}{2})^{\# I_{m,A}},
\end{aligned}$$ where $c=\min\{|x-3|:x\in\mathcal{J}\}$, $I_{m,A}=\{0\leq l\leq m:R^{\circ l}(\lambda)\in A\}$ and $I_{m,B}=\{0\leq l\leq m-1:R^{\circ l}(\lambda)\in B\}$. The lemma follows immediately from Lemma \[Q2lemma5\] (b).$\square$
Lattices with no boundary
-------------------------
In A. Teplyaev’s work [@T], it was shown that the localized eigenfunctions form a complete basis of the $\ell^2(\lSG)$ space. The basic idea is to find a localized eigenfunction $f_\lambda$ such that $<f,f_\lambda>\neq 0$ for each nonzero $f\in \ell^2(\lSG)$. This same proof can be easily extended to $C_0(\lSG)$ case, where $C_0(\lSG)=\{f\in \ell^\infty(\lSG):\lim_{x\to\infty} f(x)=0\}$. We state the result as follows.
\[Q2lemma7\] For any $f\in C_0(\lSG)$, there exists a localized eigenfunction $f_\lambda$ of $\Delta$ such that $<f_\lambda,f>\neq 0$.
As an immediate consequence, there is no eigenvalue of $\Delta$ on $C_0(\lSG)$ other than the $5$ or $6$ series.
\[Q2prop8\] Let $\Delta:C_0(\lSG)\to C_0(\lSG)$, we have $\sigma_p(\Delta)=\Sigma_5\cup\Sigma_6$.
*Proof.* Assume there exists an eigenvalue $\lambda\notin \Sigma_5\cup\Sigma_6$, and let $f_{\lambda}$ be the corresponding eigenfunction. By Lemma \[Q2lemma7\], there is a localized eigenfunction $f_{\lambda'}$ such that $<f_\lambda,f_{\lambda'}>\neq 0$. On the other hand, $\lambda\neq 0$, and $$\lambda^{-1}<-\Delta f_\lambda,f_{\lambda'}>=<f_\lambda, f_{\lambda'}>={\lambda'}^{-1}< f_\lambda,-\Delta f_{\lambda'}>.$$ Then by Lemma \[Q2lemma1\], this implies that $<f_\lambda,f_{\lambda'}>=0$, a contradiction. $\square$
For $1<p<\infty$, $\Delta:\ell^p(\lSG)\to \ell^p(\lSG)$ has point spectrum $\sigma_p(\Delta)=\Sigma_5\cup\Sigma_6$, and continuous spectrum $\sigma_c(\Delta)=\mathcal{J}\setminus \Sigma_5$. There is no residue spectrum.
*Proof.* As a direct consequence of Proposition \[Q2prop8\], $\sigma_p(\Delta)=\Sigma_5\cup\Sigma_6$. In addition, we see that there is no residue spectral point by Lemma \[Q2lemma2\].$\square$
However, the $\ell^1$ spectrum of the Laplacian is much complicated on the lattices without boundary, and it seems possible that the eigenvalues for $\Delta:\ell^\infty(\lSG)\to \ell^\infty(\lSG)$ depend on the generating sequence $\omega$ of the lattice. Further researches are suggested in the future.
Appendix
========
In this appendix, we construct the $4$-eigenfunctions on $\widetilde{\SG}$. Note that this induces a class of eigenvalues $\Sigma_4=\bigcup_{m=0}^\infty R^{\circ-m}\{4\}$.
We introduce the following orthogonal matrices $$\label{extend}
A_1=
\begin{pmatrix}
1&0&0\\
0&0&-1\\
0&-1&0
\end{pmatrix},\quad
A_2=
\begin{pmatrix}
0&0&-1\\
0&1&0\\
-1&0&0
\end{pmatrix},
\quad
A_3=
\begin{pmatrix}
0&-1&0\\
-1&0&0\\
0&0&1
\end{pmatrix}.$$
Recall that if we fix an infinite word $\omega=\omega_1\omega_2\cdots$, then there is a Sierpinski lattice defined by $\lSG=\bigcup_{m=0}^\infty F_{\omega_1}^{-1}F^{-1}_{\omega_2}\cdots F^{-1}_{\omega_m} V_m$. For convenience, we write $$q_i^{(-m)}=F_{\omega_1}^{-1}F^{-1}_{\omega_2}\cdots F^{-1}_{\omega_m}(q_i),\quad i=0,1,2,$$ and we write $$q_{li}^{(-m)}=F_{\omega_1}^{-1}F^{-1}_{\omega_2}\cdots F^{-1}_{\omega_m}(F_lq_i),\quad l\in W_m=\{0,1,2\}^m.$$ Clearly $q_i=q_{\omega_m\omega_{m-1}\cdots\omega_1 i}^{(-m)}$.
(a). If $\lSG$ has no boundary, then there is a three dimensional $\ell^\infty$ eigenspace of $\Delta$ corresponding to $4$. (b). If $\lSG$ has a boundary point, then there is a two dimensional $\ell^\infty$ eigenspace of $\Delta$ corresponding to $4$.
*Proof.* (a). Let $f(q_0)=a,f(q_1)=b,f(q_2)=c$, where $a,b,c$ are arbitrary real number. Define $$\begin{pmatrix}
f(q^{(-m)}_0)\\
f(q^{(-m)}_1)\\
f(q^{(-m)}_2)
\end{pmatrix}=
A^{-1}_{\omega_{m}}\cdots A^{-1}_{\omega_{2}}A^{-1}_{\omega_1}\begin{pmatrix}
f(q_0)\\
f(q_1)\\
f(q_2)
\end{pmatrix},$$ and $$\begin{pmatrix}
f(q^{(-m)}_{l0})\\
f(q^{(-m)}_{l1})\\
f(q^{(-m)}_{l2})
\end{pmatrix}=
A_{l_1}A_{l_2}\cdots A_{l_m}\begin{pmatrix}
f(q^{(-m)}_0)\\
f(q^{(-m)}_1)\\
f(q^{(-m)}_2)
\end{pmatrix},\quad\forall l\in W_m.$$ See Figure \[fig3\] for an example of the extension of $f$. One can easily check that $f$ is a $4$-eigenfunction of $\Delta$ on $\widetilde{\SG}$ and $f$ is bounded. By the above construction, we get a three dimensional eigenspace to $4$.
![An illustration for extending $f$ to be a $4$-eigenfunction.(We take $\omega_1=2,\omega_2=1$ as shown in the left picture.) []{data-label="fig3"}](gamma2.pdf "fig:"){width="4cm"} ![An illustration for extending $f$ to be a $4$-eigenfunction.(We take $\omega_1=2,\omega_2=1$ as shown in the left picture.) []{data-label="fig3"}](gamma2.pdf "fig:"){width="4cm"}
(0,0) (-73,24)[$a$]{} (-91,-6)[$b$]{} (-63,-6)[$c$]{}
(-130,-1)[$-a$]{} (-103,48)[$-b$]{} (-116,24)[$-c$]{}
(-4,-1)[$b$]{} (-67,98)[$-c$]{} (-32,48)[$a$]{}
(-4,-1)[$b$]{} (-67,98)[$-c$]{} (-32,48)[$a$]{}
(-89,71)[$-a$]{} (-46,71)[$b$]{} (-63,43)[$c$]{}
(-42,-6)[$-a$]{} (-61,24)[$-b$]{} (-22,24)[$-c$]{}
(-210,26)[$q_0$]{} (-228,-5)[$q_1$]{} (-198,-5)[$q_2$]{}
On the other hand, noticing that $4$ is not a forbidden eigenvalue, a $4$-eigenfunction $f$ is unqiuely determined by $f|_{V_0}$.
(b). The proof of (b) is essentially the same. The eigenspace is $2$ dimensional as a consequence of the eigenvalue equation at the boundary point.$\square$
[10]{} M. Fukushima and T. Shima, [*On a spectral analysis for the Sierpiński gasket,*]{} Potential Anal., 1 (1992) 1-–35.
J. Milnor, [*Dynamics in one complex variable,*]{} Third edition. Annals of Mathematics Studies, 160. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2006.
L. Malozemov and A. Teplyaev, [*Pure point spectrum of the Laplacians on fractal graphs,*]{} J. Funct. Anal., 129 (1995) 390–405.
F. Przytycki and M. Urbanski, [*Conformal Fractals: Ergodic Theory Methods,*]{} vol. 371 of London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010.
T. Shima, [*On eigenvalue problems for Laplacians on p.c.f. self-similar sets,*]{} Japan J. Indust. Appl. Math., 13 (1996) 1-–23.
R.S. Strichartz, [*Differential equations on fractals. A tutorial.*]{} Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2006.
R.S. Strichartz, [*Fractafolds based on the Sierpiński gasket and their spectra,*]{} Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 355 (2003) 4019–4043.
R.S. Strichartz and A. Teplyaev, [*Spectral analysis on infinite Sierpiński fractafolds.*]{} J. Anal. Math., 116 (2012) 255–297.
A. Teplyaev, [*Spectral analysis on infinite [S]{}ierpiński gaskets,*]{} J. Funct. Anal., 159 (1998) 537–667.
[^1]:
[^2]:
[^3]: The research of Qiu was supported by the NSFC grant 11471157
[^4]:
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Let $\Gamma$ be a finite rank subgroup of the linear torus or an elliptic curve defined over a number field with complex multiplication. We prove that the group of points which are rational over the field generated by all elements in the divisible hull of $\Gamma$, is free abelian modulo this divisible hull. This proves that a necessary condition for Rémond’s generalized Lehmer conjecture is satisfied.'
address: 'Fakultät für Mathematik, Universität Duisburg-Essen, 45117 Germany'
author:
- Lukas Pottmeyer
title: Fields Generated by Finite Rank Subgroups of Tori and Elliptic Curves
---
Introduction
============
We fix once and for all an algebraic closure $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}$ of the rational numbers and assume that all algebraic extensions of $\mathbb{Q}$ are contained in this closure. The absolute logarithmic Weil-height $h$ on $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}$ can be defined as follows: For $\alpha_1\in\overline{\mathbb{Q}}$ let $f(x)=a_d (x-\alpha_1)\cdot\ldots\cdot(x-\alpha_d)\in\mathbb{Z}[x]$ be irreducible, then $$h(\alpha_1)=\frac{1}{d}\log\left( \vert a_d \vert \cdot \prod_{i=1}^d \max\{1,\vert \alpha_i\vert \}\right).$$ This function satisfies $h(\alpha^r)=\vert r \vert h(\alpha)$ for all $\alpha \in \overline{\mathbb{Q}}^*$ and all $r\in\mathbb{Q}$, and vanishes precisely at $0$ and roots of unity. It follows that for any $\alpha \in \overline{\mathbb{Q}}^*$ which is not a root of unity, the sequence $\alpha^{\nicefrac{1}{n}}$, $n\in\mathbb{N}=\{1,2,3,\ldots\}$, contains algebraic numbers of arbitrarily small positive height.
Let us denote the set of roots of unity by $\mu$. We can ask the following question: Are there elements of arbitrarily small positive height in $$\mathbb{Q}(\mu,\alpha, \alpha^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}, \alpha^{\nicefrac{1}{3}},\ldots)^*$$ which are not of the form $\zeta \cdot \alpha^q$ for some $\zeta \in \mu$ and some $q\in\mathbb{Q}$? Conjecturally the answer is “no”. To formulate this conjecture in full generality, we need some further notation.
Let ${\mathcal{G}}=A\times \mathbb{G}_m^N$ for some $N\in\mathbb{N}_0$ and an abelian variety $A$ defined over a number field $K$ equipped with an ample symmetric line bundle $\mathcal{L}$. The choice of this line bundle defines a Néron-Tate height $h_{\mathcal{L}}$ on $A(\overline{\mathbb{Q}})$.
The canonical height $\widehat{h}_{{\mathcal{G}}}$ on ${\mathcal{G}}(\overline{\mathbb{Q}})$ is given as the sum of the Néron-Tate height and the Weil-height on each component. This means, for $(P,\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_N)\in{\mathcal{G}}(\overline{\mathbb{Q}})$ we set $$\widehat{h}_{{\mathcal{G}}}(P,\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_N)=h_{\mathcal{L}}(P)+\sum_{i=1}^N h(\alpha_i).$$ For definitions, properties and applications of these height functions we refer to [@BG].
If $G$ is any divisible group with a subgroup $\Gamma$, then we define the *divisible hull* of $\Gamma$ to be the group $$\Gamma_{\operatorname{div}}:=\{\gamma \in G \vert n\gamma \in \Gamma \text{ for some } n \in \mathbb{N}\}.$$
Let $\Gamma$ be a subgroup of ${\mathcal{G}}(\overline{\mathbb{Q}})$. Then we denote by $\operatorname{End}({\mathcal{G}})\cdot \Gamma$ the subgroup of ${\mathcal{G}}(\overline{\mathbb{Q}})$ generated by all elements of the form $\varphi(\gamma)$ with $\varphi\in\operatorname{End}({\mathcal{G}})=\operatorname{End}_{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}}({\mathcal{G}})$ and $\gamma\in\Gamma$. Moreover we define $$\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}:= (\operatorname{End}({\mathcal{G}})\cdot \Gamma)_{\operatorname{div}}.$$ Note that $\operatorname{End}({\mathcal{G}})\cdot \Gamma = \Gamma$ if $\operatorname{End}({\mathcal{G}})=\mathbb{Z}$. In this case $\Gamma_{\operatorname{div}} = \Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}$. Note that in all cases $\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}$ is a divisible group of finite rank, whenever the rank of $\Gamma$ is finite. By the *rank* of $\Gamma$, we mean the rational rank; this is the maximal number of linearly independent elements in $\Gamma$. Moreover, if $\Gamma$ has rank zero then $\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}=\Gamma_{\operatorname{div}}$ is precisely given by the torsion subgroup ${\mathcal{G}}_{\operatorname{tors}}$. Now we can formulate Rémond’s generalized Lehmer conjecture [@Re11], Conjecture 3.4.
\[conj\] Let ${\mathcal{G}}$ be either a torus or an abelian variety and let $\Gamma$ be a finite rank subgroup of ${\mathcal{G}}(\overline{\mathbb{Q}})$. An element $\alpha \in {\mathcal{G}}(\overline{\mathbb{Q}})$ is called $\Gamma$-transversal, if it is contained in some translate $\gamma + B$, where $\gamma\in\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}$ and $B$ is a connected proper algebraic subgroup of ${\mathcal{G}}$.
- There exists a positive constant $c$ such that $$\widehat{h}_{{\mathcal{G}}}(\alpha)\geq \frac{c}{[K(\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}})(\alpha):K(\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}})]^{\nicefrac{1}{\dim({\mathcal{G}})}}} \quad \forall ~ \alpha \in {\mathcal{G}}(\overline{\mathbb{Q}}) \text{ which are not } \Gamma\text{-transversal}.$$
- For any $\varepsilon>0$ there is a positive constant $c_{\varepsilon}$ such that $$\widehat{h}_{{\mathcal{G}}}(\alpha)\geq \frac{c_{\varepsilon}}{[K(\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}})(\alpha):K(\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}})]^{\nicefrac{1}{\dim({\mathcal{G}})}+\varepsilon}} \quad \forall ~ \alpha \in {\mathcal{G}}(\overline{\mathbb{Q}}) \text{ which are not } \Gamma\text{-transversal}.$$
- For all finite extensions $L/K(\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}})$ there is a positive constant $c_L$ such that $$\widehat{h}_{{\mathcal{G}}}(\alpha)\geq c_L \quad \forall ~ \alpha \in {\mathcal{G}}(L)\setminus \Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}.$$
Conjecture \[conj\] is weaker than Rémond’s original conjecture in two points. Firstly, Conjecture 3.4 from [@Re11] predicts lower bounds for the height of subvarieties of ${\mathcal{G}}$, not just for the height of points. Secondly, the exponent on the right hand side of (a) and (b) is smaller than our exponents $\frac{1}{\dim({\mathcal{G}})}$, resp. $\frac{1}{\dim({\mathcal{G}})}+\varepsilon$. Since the focus of this paper lies solely on part (c), we did not introduce the necessary notation to present the exponents conjectured by Rémond. On the other hand, this conjecture could be generalized to cover also semi-abelian varieties of the form $A\times \mathbb{G}_m^N$. For part (c) this generalization of the conjecture can be found in [@Pl19], Conjecture 1.2.
Obviously, part (a) of Conjecture \[conj\] implies part (b). It is also true that part (b) implies part (c). If $\dim({\mathcal{G}})=1$, this follows since in this case $\alpha$ is $\Gamma$-transversal if and only if $\alpha \in \Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}$. For general ${\mathcal{G}}$ the implication (b) $\Rightarrow$ (c) follows as a very special case from the strong result [@Re11], Theorem 3.7.
Part (a) of Conjecture \[conj\] is much stronger than the famous Lehmer conjecture which has its origin in [@Le33]. This conjecture predicts the existence of a positive constant $c$ such that $h(\alpha)\geq \frac{c}{[\mathbb{Q}(\alpha):\mathbb{Q}]}$ for all $\alpha \in \overline{\mathbb{Q}}^*\setminus \mu$.
There are some results on this conjecture in the case that the rank of $\Gamma$ is zero. Delsinne [@Del09] proved Conjecture \[conj\] (b) in the case that ${\mathcal{G}}=\mathbb{G}^N$ and $\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}={\mathcal{G}}_{\operatorname{tors}}$. Also under the assumption $\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}={\mathcal{G}}_{\operatorname{tors}}$, Carrizosa [@Ca09] proved Conjecture \[conj\] (b) in the case that ${\mathcal{G}}$ is an abelian variety with complex multiplication. (Previously, Delsinne’s result for $N=1$ has been proven in [@AZ00], and part (c) for ${\mathcal{G}}$ an abelian variety with complex multiplication and $\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}={\mathcal{G}}_{\operatorname{tors}}$ has been proven in [@BS04]).
Amoroso [@Am14] could achieve the following result towards the seemingly most easiest case of a group of positive rank: Let $\Gamma=\langle 2 \rangle$ be the subgroup of ${\mathcal{G}}=\mathbb{G}_m$ generated by $2$, and define $\Gamma_{3\operatorname{div}}=\{\alpha \in \mathbb{G}_m \vert 3^n \cdot \alpha \in \Gamma\}$. Then there is an effective constant $c>0$ such that $h(\alpha)\geq c$ for all $\alpha \in \mathbb{G}_m(\mathbb{Q}(\Gamma_{3\operatorname{div}}))\setminus \Gamma_{3\operatorname{div}}$. Under certain technical restrictions, a similar result for groups ${\mathcal{G}}=A\times \mathbb{G}_m$ and $\Gamma=\{0\} \times \langle b \rangle$, where $A$ is an elliptic curve and $b$ is an integer, has recently been announced in [@Pl19].
We will give some group theoretic support for the validity of Conjecture \[conj\] (c). In the next section we will see that Conjecture \[conj\] (c) implies that the group $\nicefrac{{\mathcal{G}}(L)}{\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}}$ is free abelian for all finite extensions $L/K(\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}})$. Hence, the following theorem shows that a necessary condition for the truth of Conjecture \[conj\] (c) is fulfilled.
\[thm:freeab\] Let ${\mathcal{G}}$ be either $\mathbb{G}_m$ or an elliptic curve with complex multiplication defined over a number field $K$, and let $\Gamma$ be a subgroup of ${\mathcal{G}}(\overline{\mathbb{Q}})$ of finite rank. Then the group $\nicefrac{{\mathcal{G}}(L)}{\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}}$ is free abelian for all finite extensions $L/K(\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}})$.
If the rank of $\Gamma$ is zero (i.e. if $\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}={\mathcal{G}}_{\operatorname{tors}}$), then the statement of Theorem \[thm:freeab\] is true for all semi-abelian varieties of the form $A\times \mathbb{G}_m^N$. This was proved by Bays, Hart and Pillay in the appendix of [@BHP]. Their result is used in our proof, as it provides a kind of *base case* (see Proposition \[prop:firstclaim\]).
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we will clarify the connection between Rémond’s conjecture and free abelian groups. In Section 3 we recall a criterion due to Pontryagin for a group to be free abelian. We apply this criterion to show that the group $\nicefrac{{\mathcal{G}}(L)}{\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}}$ is free abelian if the torsion group of $$\label{eq:gr}
\nicefrac{{\mathcal{G}}(L)}{{\mathcal{G}}(K({\mathcal{G}}_{\operatorname{tors}}))+\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}} \quad \text{ or } \quad \nicefrac{{\mathcal{G}}(L)}{{\mathcal{G}}(K)+\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}}$$ has finite exponent (this reduction step is true in the general case ${\mathcal{G}}=A\times \mathbb{G}_m^N$). Next we prove Theorem \[thm:freeab\] in the case that ${\mathcal{G}}$ is the linear torus, by showing that the first group from is torsion free. This follows quite elementary by basic facts on cyclic field extensions.
We collect some facts on elliptic curves in Section 4. The proof that the exponent of the torsion part of the second group from is finite if ${\mathcal{G}}$ is an elliptic curve with complex multiplication is proven in Sections 6. The final Section 7 provides a result towards a proof of Theorem \[thm:freeab\] for ${\mathcal{G}}$ an elliptic curves without complex multiplication. In this case we prove that for all but finitely many prime numbers $\ell$ the second group from has trivial $\ell$-torsion.
In the case where ${\mathcal{G}}$ is an elliptic curve, we use some Kummer theory. In particular, we need that the rank of the Galois group of $K({\mathcal{G}}_{\operatorname{tors}},\frac{1}{\ell^m}\Gamma)/K({\mathcal{G}}_{\operatorname{tors}})$ is as large as possible for all primes $\ell$ and some integer $m$ which is equal to $1$ for all but finitely many primes. For ${\mathcal{G}}_{\operatorname{tors}}$ replaced by the $\ell$-torsion of ${\mathcal{G}}$ this result is due to Bashmakov ([@Ba], Theorem 6). As we could not find a reference for the precise statement used in this paper, we will present a proof of this result following the outline of V.§5 of [@La]. A main ingredient in this proof is Serre’s famous open image theorem [@Se].
Some group theory and Rémond’s Lemma
====================================
All abelian groups in this section will be written additively. A *norm* on an abelian group $G$ is a function ${\lVert\cdot\rVert}: G \longrightarrow \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$ satisfying
(i) ${\lVertg\rVert} = 0 ~ \Longleftrightarrow ~ g = 0$ is the neutral element,
(ii) ${\lVert g + f\rVert} \leq {\lVert g \rVert} + {\lVert f \rVert}$ for all $g,f \in G$, and
(iii) ${\lVert n\cdot g \rVert} = \vert n \vert \cdot {\lVert g \rVert}$ for all $g\in G$ and all $n \in \mathbb{Z}$.
By (i) and (iii), a group norm can only exist for torsion-free groups. If ${\lVert\cdot\rVert}$ only satisfies (ii) and (iii), then it is called a *semi-norm*. A norm ${\lVert\cdot\rVert}$ is called *discrete* on $G$ if and only if $0$ is not an accumulation point in the set $\{{\lVertg\rVert} \vert g\in G\}$.
One of the main properties of $\widehat{h}_{{\mathcal{G}}}$ is that it is well-defined on $\nicefrac{{\mathcal{G}}(\overline{\mathbb{Q}})}{{\mathcal{G}}_{\operatorname{tors}}}$, where ${\mathcal{G}}_{\operatorname{tors}}$ is the torsion subgroup of ${\mathcal{G}}$. Moreover, the map $$(P,\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_N) \mapsto \sqrt{h_{\mathcal{L}}(P)}+\sum_{i=1}^N h(\alpha_i)$$ is a norm on $\nicefrac{{\mathcal{G}}(\overline{\mathbb{Q}})}{{\mathcal{G}}_{\operatorname{tors}}} = \nicefrac{A(\overline{\mathbb{Q}})\times\mathbb{G}_m^N(\overline{\mathbb{Q}})}{{\mathcal{G}}_{\operatorname{tors}}}$. We will denote this norm on $\nicefrac{{\mathcal{G}}(\overline{\mathbb{Q}})}{{\mathcal{G}}_{\operatorname{tors}}}$ by $\Vert \cdot \Vert_h$.
Let ${\lVert.\rVert}$ be a norm on a divisible group $G$ and let $\Gamma$ be a subgroup of $G$. Then we define the function $${\lVert.\rVert}_{\Gamma}: \nicefrac{G}{\Gamma_{\operatorname{div}}} \longrightarrow \mathbb{R}_{\geq0} \quad ; \quad {\lVert[\alpha]\rVert}_{\Gamma}= \inf\{{\lVert\alpha+\gamma\rVert} \vert \gamma \in \Gamma_{\operatorname{div}}\} .$$ Since this map is well-defined we will simply write ${\lVert\alpha\rVert}_{\Gamma}$ for ${\lVert[\alpha]\rVert}_{\Gamma}$.
The following lemma is along the lines of [@Re11], Lemma 3.5. The proof is also due to Gaël Rémond, who presented a special case of it at the workshop on “Heights in Diophantine geometry, group theory and additive combinatorics” at the ESI in Vienna in November 2013. See also [@Gr17] for a quantitative version in the $G=\mathbb{G}_m$ case.
\[Bogomolov\] Let $G$ be a divisible group such that there is a norm ${\lVert.\rVert}$ on $\nicefrac{G}{G_{\operatorname{tors}}}$. Let $\Gamma$ be a subgroup of $G$ of rank $r <\infty$ with $\gamma_1,\dots,\gamma_r \in \Gamma$ linearly independent. Moreover, let $H$ be another subgroup of $G$ with $\gamma_1,\dots,\gamma_r \in H$ and such that ${\lVertg\rVert}\geq \kappa$ for all $g\in \nicefrac{H}{H_{\operatorname{tors}}}\setminus \nicefrac{\Gamma_{\operatorname{div}}\cap H}{H_{\operatorname{tors}}}$, for some constant $\kappa >0$. Then there exists a positive constant $c$ only depending on $H$ and $\Gamma$ such that ${\lVertg\rVert}_{\Gamma} \geq c$ for all $g\in H\setminus \Gamma_{\operatorname{div}}$.
Let $g \in H\setminus \Gamma_{\operatorname{div}}$, and let $\underline{a}=(a_1,\dots,a_r)$ and $\underline{b}=(b_1,\dots,b_r)$ be elements in $\mathbb{Q}^r$. Then properties (ii) and (iii) of ${\lVert.\rVert}$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lipschitz} \big\vert {\lVertg+a_1 \gamma_1+ \dots + a_r\gamma_r\rVert} - {\lVertg + b_1 \gamma_1 + \dots + b_r \gamma_r\rVert} \big\vert &\leq {\lVert(a_1 - b_1) \gamma_1 + \dots + (a_r - b_r)\gamma_r\rVert} \nonumber \\ &\leq \max_{1\leq i \leq r} \{{\lVert\gamma_i\rVert}\} \cdot \sum_{i=1}^r \vert a_i - b_i \vert.\end{aligned}$$ We have to bound ${\lVertg + b_1 \gamma_1 + \dots + b_r \gamma_r\rVert}$ from below, independently of $\underline{b}$. If $\underline{a}\in \frac{1}{m}\mathbb{Z}^{r}$, then $mg+ ma_1 \gamma_1 + \dots + ma_r \gamma_r\in H$ and ${\lVertg+ a_1 \gamma_1 + \dots + a_r \gamma_r\rVert} = \frac{1}{m}{\lVertmg + ma_1\gamma_1 + \dots + ma_r \gamma_r\rVert}$. Since $g$ is not an element in $\Gamma_{\operatorname{div}}$, we can apply our assumption on ${\lVert.\rVert}$ restricted to $\nicefrac{H}{H_{\operatorname{tors}}}\setminus\nicefrac{H \cap \Gamma_{\operatorname{div}}}{H_{\operatorname{tors}}}$ to conclude $$\label{bound}
{\lVertg + a_1 \gamma_1 + \dots + a_r \gamma_r\rVert} \geq \frac{\kappa}{m},$$ Let again $\underline{b}\in \mathbb{Q}^r$ be arbitrary and let $Q\geq 2r\max_{1\leq i \leq r} {\lVert\gamma_i\rVert} \kappa^{-1}$ be an integer. By Dirichlet’s approximation theorem, there is a positive integer $m$ and $\underline{a}\in\frac{1}{m}\mathbb{Z}^r$ such that $$\label{fin}
m\leq Q^r \text{ and } \vert a_i - b_i \vert \leq \frac{1}{mQ} \text{ for all } i \in \{1,\ldots,r\}.$$ Combining and yields that ${\lVertg + b_1 \gamma_1 + \dots + b_r \gamma_r\rVert}$ is bounded from below by $$\begin{aligned}
\geq &{\lVertg + a_1 \gamma_1+ \dots + a_r \gamma_r\rVert} - \big\vert {\lVertg+a_1 \gamma_1+ \dots + a_r\gamma_r\rVert} - {\lVertg + b_1 \gamma_1 + \dots + b_r \gamma_r\rVert} \big\vert \\
\geq & \frac{\kappa}{m} - \max_{1\leq i \leq r} \{{\lVert\gamma_i\rVert}\} \cdot \sum_{i=1}^n \vert a_i - b_i \vert\overset{\eqref{fin}}{\geq} \frac{\kappa}{m} - \frac{\max_{1\leq i \leq r} \{{\lVert\gamma_i\rVert}\} \cdot r}{mQ}\\ = & \frac{\kappa Q - \max_{1\leq i \leq r} \{{\lVert\gamma_i\rVert}\} \cdot r}{mQ} \geq \frac{\max_{1\leq i \leq r} \{{\lVert\gamma_i\rVert}\} \cdot r}{Q^{r+1}}.\end{aligned}$$ The latter is the postulated positive constant which only depends on $H$ and $\Gamma$.
As a corollary we will state the statement explicitly for $G={\mathcal{G}}(\overline{\mathbb{Q}})$, where ${\mathcal{G}}=A\times \mathbb{G}_m^N$ is a semi-abelian variety, and $H={\mathcal{G}}(F)$ for some field $F\subseteq\overline{\mathbb{Q}}$.
\[cor:mcG\] Let $\Gamma \subseteq {\mathcal{G}}(\overline{\mathbb{Q}})$ be a subgroup of finite rank, and let $\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}=\langle \gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_r\rangle_{\operatorname{div}}$. Let $F$ be a subfield of $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}$ satisfying
(i) $\gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_r \in {\mathcal{G}}(F)$, and
(ii) there is a positive constant $\kappa$ such that $\widehat{h}_{{\mathcal{G}}}(\alpha) \geq \kappa$ for all $\alpha \in {\mathcal{G}}(F)\setminus \Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}$.
Then there is a positive constant $c$ only depending on $F$ and $\Gamma$ such that ${\lVert\alpha\rVert}_{h,\Gamma}\geq c$ for all $\alpha \in {\mathcal{G}}(F)\setminus \Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}$.
\[heightisnorm\] Let $\Gamma$ be a subgroup of ${\mathcal{G}}(\overline{\mathbb{Q}})$ and ${\lVert.\rVert}$ a norm on $\nicefrac{{\mathcal{G}}(\overline{\mathbb{Q}})}{{\mathcal{G}}_{\operatorname{tors}}}$. Then the function ${\lVert.\rVert}_{\Gamma}$ is a seminorm on $\nicefrac{{\mathcal{G}}(\overline{\mathbb{Q}})}{\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}}$. If $\Gamma$ has finite rank, then the particular function ${\lVert.\rVert}_{h,\Gamma}$ is a norm.
First we will show that ${\lVert.\rVert}_{\Gamma}$ is a semi-norm, without additional assumptions on the group $\Gamma$. In order to do so, we have to check the properties (ii) and (iii) from the beginning of this section. These properties follow from the respective properties of the norm ${\lVert.\rVert}$.
The triangular inequality follows from $$\begin{aligned}
{\lVert\alpha\rVert}_{\Gamma}+{\lVert\beta\rVert}_{\Gamma} &=\inf\{{\lVert\alpha+\gamma\rVert} \vert \gamma \in \Gamma_{\operatorname{div}}\}+\inf\{{\lVert\beta+\gamma'\rVert} \vert \gamma' \in \Gamma_{\operatorname{div}}\}\\
&=\inf\{{\lVert\alpha+\gamma\rVert} + {\lVert\beta+\gamma'\rVert} \vert \gamma,\gamma' \in \Gamma_{\operatorname{div}}\}\\
&\geq \inf\{{\lVert\alpha+\beta+\gamma+\gamma'\rVert} \vert \gamma,\gamma' \in \Gamma_{\operatorname{div}}\} \\
&=\inf\{{\lVert\alpha+\beta+\gamma''\rVert} \vert \gamma'' \in \Gamma_{\operatorname{div}}\} = {\lVert\alpha+\beta\rVert}_{\Gamma},\end{aligned}$$ and the last statement follows similarly from the equation $$\begin{aligned}
{\lVertn\alpha\rVert}_{\Gamma} &=\inf\{{\lVertn\alpha + \gamma\rVert} \vert \gamma \in \Gamma_{\operatorname{div}}\} =\inf\{{\lVertn(\alpha+\gamma')\rVert} \vert \gamma' \in \Gamma_{\operatorname{div}}\}\\
&=\inf\{n{\lVert\alpha+\gamma'\rVert} \vert \gamma' \in \Gamma_{\operatorname{div}}\} =n{\lVert\alpha\rVert}_{\Gamma}.\end{aligned}$$ From now on we assume that $\Gamma$ is of rank $r<\infty$ and that the norm ${\lVert.\rVert}={\lVert.\rVert}_h$ is induced by the canonical height $\widehat{h}_{{\mathcal{G}}}$ on ${\mathcal{G}}$. Let $\gamma_1,\dots,\gamma_r$ be linearly independent elements in $\Gamma$. We are left to prove property (i); i.e. ${\lVert\alpha\rVert}_{h,\Gamma}=0 \Longleftrightarrow \alpha\in \Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}$. Obviously it is ${\lVert\alpha\rVert}_{h,\Gamma}=0$ for all $\alpha \in \Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}$. By Northcott’s theorem, ${\lVert.\rVert}_{h}$ is discrete on $\nicefrac{{\mathcal{G}}(F)}{{\mathcal{G}}_{\operatorname{tors}}(F)}$ for all number fields $F$. Hence, if $\alpha \in {\mathcal{G}}(\overline{\mathbb{Q}})\setminus \Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}$ is arbitrary we set $F=\mathbb{Q}(\gamma_1,\dots,\gamma_r,\alpha)$ and apply Corollary \[cor:mcG\]. This yields ${\lVert\alpha\rVert}_{h,\Gamma} \neq 0$ and concludes the proof.
We use the notation from Conjecture \[conj\]. Since $\Gamma$ and $\operatorname{End}({\mathcal{G}})$ are of finite rank, the same is true for $\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}$. Hence, Lemma \[heightisnorm\] tells us that ${\lVert\cdot\rVert}_{h,\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}}$ is a norm on $\nicefrac{{\mathcal{G}}(L)}{\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}}$. This norm is discrete if and only if the statement of Conjecture \[conj\] (c) is true. Therefore, Conjecture \[conj\] (c) is true if and only if ${\lVert\cdot\rVert}_{h,\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}}$ is a discrete norm on $\nicefrac{{\mathcal{G}}(L)}{\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}}$.
Note that there exists a discrete norm on an abelian group if and only if this group is free abelian. This result was proved independently by Lawrence [@La84] and Zorzitto [@Zo85] for countable groups, and by Steprāns [@St85] in the general case. As this result is the bridge between Conjecture \[conj\] and our main theorem, we state it as a proposition.
\[LSZ\] An abelian group $G$ is free if and only if there is a discrete norm on $G$.
We conclude
$$\begin{aligned}
\text{Conjecture \ref{conj} (c) is true } &\Longleftrightarrow ~ {\lVert\cdot\rVert}_{h,\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}} \text{ is a discrete norm on } \nicefrac{{\mathcal{G}}(L)}{\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}}\\
&\Longrightarrow ~ \nicefrac{{\mathcal{G}}(L)}{\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}} \text{ is free abelian}\end{aligned}$$
Hence, Theorem \[thm:freeab\] tells us, that at least there exists *some* discrete norm on $\nicefrac{{\mathcal{G}}(L)}{\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}}$ if ${\mathcal{G}}$ is either the linear torus or an elliptic curve with complex multiplication.
Pontryagin’s criterion
======================
The results of this section are valid in a more general setting, than needed for the proof of Theorem \[thm:freeab\]. Hence, in this section ${\mathcal{G}}= A\times \mathbb{G}_m^N$ is defined over a number field $K$, where $A$ is an abelian variety and $N \in \mathbb{N}_0$.
\[freemodgamma\] Let $F$ be any subfield of $K(\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}})$. The group $\nicefrac{{\mathcal{G}}(K(\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}))}{\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}}$ is free abelian if for every field $E$, with $F\subseteq E \subseteq K(\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}})$ and $[E:F]< \infty$, we have
(i) $\nicefrac{{\mathcal{G}}(E)}{(\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}\cap {\mathcal{G}}(E))}$ is free abelian, and
(ii) the torsion group of $\nicefrac{{\mathcal{G}}(K(\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}))}{{\mathcal{G}}(E) + \Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}}$ has finite exponent.
This is mainly an application of a classification result of Pontryagin. The proof follows very closely the proofs of [@Ma72], Lemma 1, and [@GHP], Proposition 2.3.
By a theorem of Pontryagin, cf. [@EM], Theorem VI.2.3, an abelian group $G$ is free abelian, if every finite subset of $G$ is contained in a free abelian subgroup $H\subseteq G$ such that $\nicefrac{G}{H}$ is torsion free.
Therefore, let $S=\{[\alpha_1],\ldots,[\alpha_s]\}\subseteq \nicefrac{{\mathcal{G}}(K(\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}))}{\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}}$ and set $E:=K({\mathcal{G}}_{\operatorname{tors}},\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_s)$. Obviously $E$ is a finite extension of $K({\mathcal{G}}_{\operatorname{tors}})$ and it is $$S \subseteq \nicefrac{{\mathcal{G}}(E)+\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}}{\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}}\cong \nicefrac{{\mathcal{G}}(E)}{{\mathcal{G}}(E)\cap \Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}}.$$ Let $m\in\mathbb{N}$ be the exponent of the torsion subgroup of $$\nicefrac{\left( \nicefrac{{\mathcal{G}}(K(\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}))}{\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}} \right)}{\left( \nicefrac{{\mathcal{G}}(E)+\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}}{\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}} \right)}\cong \nicefrac{{\mathcal{G}}(K(\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}))}{{\mathcal{G}}(E)+\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}}.$$ Note, that this exponent is indeed an element of $\mathbb{N}$, by assumption (ii) of the lemma. Now define $$H:=\left\{[\alpha]\in \nicefrac{{\mathcal{G}}(K(\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}))}{\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}} \vert m\cdot [\alpha] \in \nicefrac{{\mathcal{G}}(E)+\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}}{\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}} \right\}.$$ By assumption (i) the group $\nicefrac{{\mathcal{G}}(E)+\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}}{\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}}\cong \nicefrac{{\mathcal{G}}(E)}{{\mathcal{G}}(E)\cap \Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}}$ is free abelian, and hence $H$ is free abelian. Moreover, by construction the quotient of $\nicefrac{{\mathcal{G}}(K(\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}))}{\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}}$ by $H$ is torsion free. Hence, $S \subseteq H$ and $H$ satisfies the hypothesis of Pontryagins theorem. It follows that under the assumptions (i) and (ii) $\nicefrac{{\mathcal{G}}(K(\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}))}{\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}}$ is free abelian.
As stated in the introduction, we will use the result from Bays, Hart, and Pillay that $\nicefrac{{\mathcal{G}}(K({\mathcal{G}}_{\operatorname{tors}}))}{{\mathcal{G}}_{\operatorname{tors}}}$ is free abelian. The case ${\mathcal{G}}=\mathbb{G}_m$ is originally due to Iwasawa [@Iw53], and the case ${\mathcal{G}}=A$ is originally due to Larsen [@La05]. We will sketch a proof of this result.
\[thm:BHP\] Let ${\mathcal{G}}$ and $K$ be as above and let $K'/K$ be finite. Then
(i) $\nicefrac{{\mathcal{G}}(K')}{{\mathcal{G}}(K')\cap{\mathcal{G}}_{\operatorname{tors}}}$ is free abelian, and
(ii) the exponent of the torsion group of $\nicefrac{{\mathcal{G}}(K'({\mathcal{G}}_{\operatorname{tors}}))}{{\mathcal{G}}(K')+{\mathcal{G}}_{\operatorname{tors}}}$ is finite.
In particular, $\nicefrac{{\mathcal{G}}(K({\mathcal{G}}_{\operatorname{tors}}))}{{\mathcal{G}}_{\operatorname{tors}}}$ is a free abelian group.
In this proof we use the language of continuous group cohomology. The field $K'$ is a number field. Hence the norm ${\lVert\cdot\rVert}_h$ induced by the canonical height of ${\mathcal{G}}$ is discrete on $\nicefrac{{\mathcal{G}}(K')}{{\mathcal{G}}(K')\cap{\mathcal{G}}_{\operatorname{tors}}}$. Statement (i) follows from Proposition \[LSZ\]. In order to prove (ii), let $\alpha \in {\mathcal{G}}(K'({\mathcal{G}}_{\operatorname{tors}}))$ be such that $n\cdot \alpha \in {\mathcal{G}}(K')+{\mathcal{G}}_{\operatorname{tors}}$ for some $n \in \mathbb{N}$. Then, the map $\tau \mapsto \tau(\alpha)-\alpha$ represents an element in $H^1(\operatorname{Gal}(K'({\mathcal{G}}_{\operatorname{tors}})/K'),{\mathcal{G}}[n])$. By Lemma A.3 from [@BHP], there is a constant $c$ only depending on ${\mathcal{G}}$ and $K'$ such that $\tau \mapsto c\cdot(\tau(\alpha)-\alpha)$ is equivalent to the zero map in $H^1(\operatorname{Gal}(K'({\mathcal{G}}_{\operatorname{tors}})/K'),{\mathcal{G}}[n])$. Hence, there is an element $P\in{\mathcal{G}}[n]$ such that $$c\cdot(\tau(\alpha)-\alpha)=\tau(P)-P \quad \forall ~ \tau \in \operatorname{Gal}(K'({\mathcal{G}}_{\operatorname{tors}})/K').$$ It follows $$\tau(c\cdot \alpha - P) = c\cdot \alpha - P \quad \forall ~ \tau \in \operatorname{Gal}(K'({\mathcal{G}}_{\operatorname{tors}})/K'),$$ and hence $c\cdot \alpha -P \in {\mathcal{G}}(K')$, respectively $c\cdot \alpha \in {\mathcal{G}}(K') + {\mathcal{G}}_{\operatorname{tors}}$. This means that the order of the residue class of $\alpha \in \nicefrac{{\mathcal{G}}(K'({\mathcal{G}}_{\operatorname{tors}}))}{{\mathcal{G}}_{\operatorname{tors}}}$ divides $c$, which proves statement (ii).
If we apply Lemma \[freemodgamma\] with $\Gamma=\{0\}$ and $F=K$, it follows from (i) and (ii) that $\nicefrac{{\mathcal{G}}(K({\mathcal{G}}_{\operatorname{tors}}))}{{\mathcal{G}}_{\operatorname{tors}}}$ is free abelian.
\[prop:firstclaim\] Let $K'/K$ be finite and let $\Gamma$ be a finite rank subgroup of ${\mathcal{G}}(\overline{\mathbb{Q}})$. For any field $K \subseteq E \subseteq K'({\mathcal{G}}_{\operatorname{tors}})$, the group $\nicefrac{{\mathcal{G}}(E)}{{\mathcal{G}}(E)\cap \Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}}$ is free abelian.
We have just seen that $\nicefrac{{\mathcal{G}}(K'({\mathcal{G}}_{\operatorname{tors}}))}{{\mathcal{G}}_{\operatorname{tors}}}$ is free abelian. Therefore $\nicefrac{{\mathcal{G}}(E)}{{\mathcal{G}}(E)_{\operatorname{tors}}}$ is, as a subgroup, free abelian. Hence by Proposition \[LSZ\] there is a discrete norm ${\lVert.\rVert}$ on $\nicefrac{{\mathcal{G}}(E)}{{\mathcal{G}}(E)_{\operatorname{tors}}}$.
Set $\tilde{\Gamma}=\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}\cap {\mathcal{G}}(E)$ which is a finite rank subgroup, since $\operatorname{End}({\mathcal{G}})$ and $\Gamma$ are of finite rank. The discrete norm ${\lVert.\rVert}$ extends uniquely to a norm on $\nicefrac{{\mathcal{G}}(E)_{\operatorname{div}}}{{\mathcal{G}}_{\operatorname{tors}}}$. Hence we can apply Lemma \[Bogomolov\] to deduce the existence of a constant $c > 0$ such that $$\label{eq:firstpart}
{\lVert\alpha\rVert}_{\tilde{\Gamma}} = \inf \{{\lVert\alpha+\gamma\rVert} \vert \gamma\in \tilde{\Gamma}_{\operatorname{div}} \} \geq c \text{ for all } \alpha \in {\mathcal{G}}(E)\setminus \tilde{\Gamma}_{\operatorname{div}}.$$ By Lemma \[heightisnorm\] we already know that ${\lVert.\rVert}_{\tilde{\Gamma}}$ is a seminorm on $\nicefrac{{\mathcal{G}}(E)}{\tilde{\Gamma}}$. Therefore tells us that ${\lVert.\rVert}_{\tilde{\Gamma}}$ is actually a discrete norm. If we apply Proposition \[LSZ\] once more, we achieve that $\nicefrac{{\mathcal{G}}(E)}{\tilde{\Gamma}}$ is free abelian.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:freeab\] for the linear torus
====================================================
In this subsection we work with ${\mathcal{G}}=\mathbb{G}_m$; i.e. we work in the multiplicative group of a field. Recall that we denote by $\mu$ the set of all roots of unity.
\[prop:gmtorsionfree\] Let $\Gamma=\langle \gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_r \rangle$ be a subgroup of $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}^*$, and let $K$ be a number field. We set $L=K(\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}})$ and let $E\subseteq L$ be a finite extension of $K(\mu,\gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_r)$. Then the group $\nicefrac{L^*}{E^* \Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}}$ is torsion free.
Let $[\alpha]\in \nicefrac{L^*}{E^* \Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}}$ be a torsion point. Then there exists a natural number $n$ with $\alpha^n \in E$.
Since $\alpha$ is in $L=K(\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}})$, it is $E(\alpha)\subseteq E(\gamma_1^{\nicefrac{1}{m_1}},\dots,\gamma_r^{\nicefrac{1}{m_r}})$ for some $m_1,\dots,m_r \in \mathbb{N}$. We set $E_0 = E$ and define for every $i\in\{1,\dots,r\}$ the field $$E_i = E(\gamma_1^{\nicefrac{1}{m_1}},\dots,\gamma_i^{\nicefrac{1}{m_i}}).$$ Every extension $E_i / E_{i-1}$ in the chain $$E=E_0 \subseteq E_1 \subseteq E_2 \subseteq \cdots \subseteq E_r$$ is cyclic of some order $k_i \mid m_i$. Note, that $\gamma_i \in E$, for all $i\in \{1,\dots,r\}$. By the classic theory of cyclic extensions (cf. [@La02], Chapter VI), every intermediate field of $E_{i}=E_{i-1}(\gamma_i^{\nicefrac{1}{m_i}})/E_{i-1}$ is given by $E_{i-1}(\gamma_i^{\nicefrac{d}{m_i}})$ for some $d\in\mathbb{N}$. Hence, $E_{r-1}(\alpha)=E_{r-1}(\gamma_r^{\nicefrac{d_r}{m_r}})$. Assume, that the degree of $\alpha$ over $E_{r-1}$ is $n_r$ and that $\sigma$ is a generator of $\operatorname{Gal}(E_{r-1}(\alpha)/E_{r-1})$. Then, since $\alpha^n \in E \subseteq E_{r-1}$, we have $$\sigma(\gamma_r^{\nicefrac{d_r}{m_r}})=\zeta_{n_r}\gamma_r^{\nicefrac{d_r}{m_r}} \quad \text{ and } \quad \sigma(\alpha)=\zeta_{n_r}^{l_r} \alpha,$$ where $\zeta_{n_r}$ is a primitive $n_r$-th root of unity and $l_r \in \mathbb{N}$. We can conclude that $\sigma$, and hence $\operatorname{Gal}(E_{r-1}(\alpha)/E_{r-1})$, acts trivial on the element $\nicefrac{\alpha}{\gamma_r^{\nicefrac{d_r l_r}{m_r}}}$. It follows $$\frac{\alpha}{\gamma_r^{\nicefrac{d_r l_r}{m_r}}} \in E_{r-1} \quad \text{ and } \quad \left(\frac{\alpha}{\gamma_r^{\nicefrac{d_r l_r}{m_r}}}\right)^{n m_r} \in E.$$ Thus we can repeat this argument with $n$ replaced by $n m_r$, and $\alpha$ replaced by $\nicefrac{\alpha}{\gamma_r^{\nicefrac{d_r l_r}{m_r}}}$. Induction yields $$\frac{\alpha}{\prod_{i=1}^{r}\gamma_i^{\nicefrac{d_i l_i}{m_i}}} \in E_0^*$$ which is equivalent to $\alpha \in E^* \Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}$. Hence the residue class of $\alpha$ in the group $\nicefrac{L^*}{E^* \Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}}$ is trivial, meaning that the group is torsion free.
Now let $L$ be a finite extension of $K(\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}})$; say $L=K'(\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}})$ for a finite extension $K'/K$. Set $F=K'(\gamma_{1},\ldots,\gamma_{r},\mu)$ and let $E/F$ be any finite extension such that $E\subseteq L$. By Proposition \[prop:firstclaim\] we know that $\nicefrac{E^*}{E^*\cap \Gamma_{\operatorname{div}}}$ is free abelian and we have just seen that $\nicefrac{L^*}{E^* \Gamma_{\operatorname{div}}}$ is torsion free. Hence, the assumptions from Lemma \[freemodgamma\] are met, which proves Theorem \[thm:freeab\] for ${\mathcal{G}}=\mathbb{G}_m$.
Preliminaries on elliptic curves
================================
In this section $K$ denotes a number field and we fix an elliptic curve $A$ defined over $K$. We also fix a finite rank subgroup $\Gamma \subseteq A(\overline{\mathbb{Q}})$. There are $\mathbb{Z}$-linearly independent elements $\gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_s$ such that $\Gamma_{\operatorname{div}} = \langle \gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_s\rangle_{\operatorname{div}}$. If $\gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_s$ are $\operatorname{End}(A)$-linearly dependent (which can only occur if $A$ has complex multiplication), then there are $\phi_1,\ldots,\phi_s \in \operatorname{End}(A)$ not all constantly zero such that $\phi_1(\gamma_1)+\ldots+\phi_s(\gamma_s) = 0$. We may assume that $\phi_s\neq 0$, and that $\hat{\phi_s}$ is the dual of $\phi_s$. Then $$-(\hat{\phi_s}\circ\phi_1(\gamma_1)+\ldots+\hat{\phi_s}\circ\phi_{s-1}(\gamma_{s-1})) = \hat{\phi_s}\circ\phi_s(\gamma_s)=\deg(\phi_s)\gamma_s.$$ We find that $\gamma_s \in (\operatorname{End}(A)\cdot \gamma_1+\ldots+\operatorname{End}(A)\cdot \gamma_{s-1})_{\operatorname{div}}$, and hence in $\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}=(\operatorname{End}(A)\cdot \gamma_1+\ldots+\operatorname{End}(A)\cdot \gamma_{s-1})_{\operatorname{div}}$. Therefore, after possibly shrinking the set of generators $\gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_s$, we may assume $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Endlinin}
\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}} &=(\operatorname{End}(A)\cdot \Gamma)_{\operatorname{div}}=(\operatorname{End}(A)\cdot \gamma_1 + \ldots + \operatorname{End}(A)\cdot \gamma_r)_{\operatorname{div}} \\ &\text{ with } \gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_r ~ \operatorname{End}(A)\text{-linearly independent}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The group $\nicefrac{A(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}}))}{A_{\operatorname{tors}}}$ is free abelian (see Theorem \[thm:BHP\]). Hence, after replacing $\gamma_i$ by some division point of $\gamma_i$, we may assume that for all prime numbers $\ell$ it is $$\label{eq:divisionprop}
\gamma_i \in A(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}})) \text{ and } \frac{1}{\ell}\gamma_i \notin A(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}})) \quad \forall ~ i\in\{1,\ldots,r\}.$$ Moreover we assume, that $\gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_r\in A(K)_{\operatorname{div}}$ and $\operatorname{End}(A)$ is defined over $K$, which is always possible after replacing $K$ by a finite extension. In particular, we assume $$\label{eq:alloverK}
\Gamma':=(\operatorname{End}(A)\cdot \gamma_1 + \ldots + \operatorname{End}(A)\cdot \gamma_r) \subseteq A(K)_{\operatorname{div}}.$$
For $n\in\mathbb{N}$ denote the group of $n$-torsion points of $A$ by $A[n]$. We start with collecting some basic facts:
- For any $n\in\mathbb{N}$ it is $A[n]\cong \left(\nicefrac{\mathbb{Z}}{n\mathbb{Z}}\right)^{2}$.
- Let $F$ be a subfield of $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}$, with $A_{\operatorname{tors}}\subseteq A(F)$, and let $\gamma \in A(F)$. Then, $F(\frac{1}{n}\gamma)/F$ is a Galois extension and independent on the choice of the $n$-th division point of $\gamma$. Moreover, the map $$\operatorname{Gal}(F(\frac{1}{n}\gamma)/F)\longrightarrow A[n]\quad ; \quad \sigma \mapsto \sigma(\frac{1}{n}\gamma)-\frac{1}{n}\gamma$$ is an injective group homomorphism.
- In the situation above, let $n=k\cdot m$ with $k$ and $m$ coprime. Then $F(\frac{1}{n}\gamma)=F(\frac{1}{k}\gamma,\frac{1}{m}\gamma)$.
We will use these facts freely for the remainder of this paper. If $\ell$ is a prime, $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and $G$ is any subgroup of $A(\overline{\mathbb{Q}})$, then we set $$\frac{1}{\ell^n} G=\{\gamma \in {\mathcal{G}}(\overline{\mathbb{Q}}) \vert \ell^n \gamma \in G\} \quad \text{ and } \quad \frac{1}{\ell^{\infty}} G= \bigcup_{n\in\mathbb{N}} \frac{1}{\ell^n} G$$ Moreover, we define $$G_{\operatorname{tors}}=\operatorname{Gal}(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}})/K).$$
Throughout this section we use the notation from above. In particular, we assume that the assumptions , and are met.
\[lem:intersection\] For any prime number $\ell$ and any $n\in\mathbb{N}$ it is $$\Gamma' + A_{\operatorname{tors}} = \left( \frac{1}{\ell^{n}}\Gamma' \cap A(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}}))\right) + A_{\operatorname{tors}}.$$
We set $\widetilde{\Gamma_n}= \left( \frac{1}{\ell^{n}}\Gamma' \cap A(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}}))\right)$. By , $\nicefrac{\widetilde{\Gamma_n}+A_{\operatorname{tors}}}{A_{\operatorname{tors}}}$ is a free $\operatorname{End}(A)$-module of rank $r$. Moreover, it is $$\nicefrac{\Gamma'+A_{\operatorname{tors}}}{A_{\operatorname{tors}}}\subseteq \nicefrac{\widetilde{\Gamma_n}+A_{\operatorname{tors}}}{A_{\operatorname{tors}}} \subseteq \nicefrac{\frac{1}{\ell^n}\Gamma'+A_{\operatorname{tors}}}{A_{\operatorname{tors}}}.$$ Now, implies $\nicefrac{\Gamma'+A_{\operatorname{tors}}}{A_{\operatorname{tors}}} = \nicefrac{\widetilde{\Gamma_n}+A_{\operatorname{tors}}}{A_{\operatorname{tors}}}$.
\[lem:fellinjective\] For any prime number $\ell$ and any $n\in\mathbb{N}$ the map $$f_{\ell^n} : \nicefrac{\Gamma'}{\ell^n \Gamma'}\longrightarrow \operatorname{Hom}(\operatorname{Gal}(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}},\frac{1}{\ell^n}\Gamma')/K(A_{\operatorname{tors}})),A[\ell^n]) \quad ; \quad [\gamma] \mapsto \left[ \varphi_\gamma : \sigma \mapsto \sigma(\frac{1}{\ell^n}\gamma) - \frac{1}{\ell^n}\gamma\right]$$ is an injective group-homomorphism.
Let $\gamma \in \Gamma'$ be arbitrary. From the facts collected above, it is clear that $\varphi_\gamma$ is indeed a well-defined group homomorphism. Moreover, for any $\gamma' \in \Gamma'$, it is $$\varphi_{\gamma+\ell^n\gamma'}(\sigma) = \sigma(\frac{1}{\ell^n}\gamma + \gamma')-(\frac{1}{\ell^n}\gamma + \gamma') =\sigma(\frac{1}{\ell^n}\gamma) + \sigma(\gamma') -\gamma' -\frac{1}{\ell^n}\gamma =\sigma(\frac{1}{\ell^n}\gamma)-\frac{1}{\ell^n}\gamma =\varphi_{\gamma}(\sigma)$$ for all $\sigma \in \operatorname{Gal}(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}},\frac{1}{\ell^n}\Gamma')/K(A_{\operatorname{tors}}))$. Hence, the map $f_{\ell^n}$ is well-defined and visibly an homomorphism. Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
[\gamma] \in \ker(f_{\ell^n}) ~ & \Longrightarrow ~ \sigma(\frac{1}{\ell^n}\gamma)=\frac{1}{\ell^n}\gamma \quad \forall ~\sigma \in \operatorname{Gal}(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}},\frac{1}{\ell^n}\Gamma')/K(A_{\operatorname{tors}})) \\
& \Longrightarrow ~ \frac{1}{\ell^n}\gamma \in \frac{1}{\ell^{n}}\Gamma'\cap A(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}})) \overset{\ref{lem:intersection}}{\subseteq} \Gamma' + A_{\operatorname{tors}} $$ By and , the group $\Gamma'$ is torsion-free. Hence, if $\frac{1}{\ell^n}\gamma=\gamma'+T$ for some $\gamma'\in\Gamma'$ and some $T\in A_{\operatorname{tors}}$, then $T\in \frac{1}{\ell^n}\Gamma' \cap A_{\operatorname{tors}}=A[\ell^n]$. This implies $\gamma = \ell^n \gamma' + \ell^n T=\ell^n\gamma' \in\ell^n \Gamma'$; i.e. $[\gamma]=[0]$. Hence $f_{\ell^n}$ is injective, which proves the lemma.
\[lem:imageisGstable\] For any $\gamma \in \Gamma'$, the map $\varphi_{\gamma}$ from Lemma \[lem:fellinjective\] is a $G_{\operatorname{tors}}$-module homomorphism.
Let $\tau\in G_{\operatorname{tors}}$ and $\sigma \in \operatorname{Gal}(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}},\frac{1}{\ell^n}\Gamma')/K(A_{\operatorname{tors}}))$ be arbitrary, and chose an extension of $\tau$ to an element from $\operatorname{Gal}(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}},\frac{1}{\ell^n}\Gamma')/K)$ which we will again denote by $\tau$. Using the canonical isomorphism $$\nicefrac{\operatorname{Gal}(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}},\frac{1}{\ell^n}\Gamma')/K)}{\operatorname{Gal}(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}},\frac{1}{\ell^n}\Gamma')/K(A_{\operatorname{tors}}))}\cong G_{\operatorname{tors}},$$ there is a well-defined element $\tau\circ\sigma\circ\tau^{-1}\in\operatorname{Gal}(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}},\frac{1}{\ell^n}\Gamma')/K(A_{\operatorname{tors}}))$. Indeed, the group $\operatorname{Gal}(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}},\frac{1}{\ell^n}\Gamma')/K(A_{\operatorname{tors}}))$ is abelian and hence for any $\tau'\in \operatorname{Gal}(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}},\frac{1}{\ell^n}\Gamma')/K(A_{\operatorname{tors}}))$ it is $$(\tau\circ\tau')\circ\sigma\circ(\tau\circ\tau')^{-1}=\tau\circ\sigma\circ\tau^{-1}.$$ This conjugation gives $\operatorname{Gal}(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}},\frac{1}{\ell^n}\Gamma')/K(A_{\operatorname{tors}}))$ the structure of a $G_{\operatorname{tors}}$-module. Since $\frac{1}{\ell^n}\gamma\in\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}$, assumptions and imply that some multiple of $\frac{1}{\ell^n}\gamma$ is defined over $K$. In particular, $\tau^{-1}(\frac{1}{\ell^n}\gamma)-\frac{1}{\ell^n}\gamma \in A_{\operatorname{tors}}$, and hence $$\sigma\circ\tau^{-1}(\frac{1}{\ell^n}\gamma) - \sigma(\frac{1}{\ell^n}\gamma)=\sigma(\tau^{-1}(\frac{1}{\ell^n}\gamma)-\frac{1}{\ell^n}\gamma)=\tau^{-1}(\frac{1}{\ell^n}\gamma)-\frac{1}{\ell^n}\gamma.$$ Applying $\tau$ on both sides implies $$\tau(\varphi_{\gamma}(\sigma))=\tau(\sigma(\frac{1}{\ell^n}\gamma)-\frac{1}{\ell^n}\gamma)=\tau\circ\sigma\circ\tau^{-1}(\frac{1}{\ell^n}\gamma)-\frac{1}{\ell^n}\gamma = \varphi_{\gamma}(\tau\sigma\tau^{-1}),$$ which proves the lemma.
\[cor:Galois\] The following properties hold true:
(i) $\operatorname{Gal}(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}},\frac{1}{\ell^n}\Gamma')/K(A_{\operatorname{tors}}))$ is isomorphic to $$\{(\varphi_{\gamma_1}(\tau),\ldots,\varphi_{\gamma_r}(\tau)) \vert \tau \in \operatorname{Gal}(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}},\frac{1}{\ell^n}\Gamma')/K(A_{\operatorname{tors}}))\} \subseteq A[\ell^n]^r$$ as $G_{\operatorname{tors}}$-modules, and
(ii) the maps $\varphi_{\gamma_1},\ldots,\varphi_{\gamma_r}$ are $\nicefrac{\operatorname{End}(A)}{\ell^n\operatorname{End}(A)}$-linearly independent.
The map $\tau \mapsto (\varphi_{\gamma_1}(\tau),\ldots,\varphi_{\gamma_r}(\tau))$ is obviously surjective, and it is a $G_{\operatorname{tors}}$-module homomorphism by Lemma \[lem:imageisGstable\]. An element $\tau$ in the kernel must fix all of the points $\frac{1}{\ell^n}\gamma_1,\ldots,\frac{1}{\ell^n}\gamma_r$. Since $\operatorname{End}(A)$ is defined over $K$, this element fixes all elements in $\frac{1}{\ell^n} \Gamma'$. Hence, such $\tau$ is the identity on $K(A_{\operatorname{tors}},\frac{1}{\ell^n}\Gamma')$. Therefore, the kernel is trivial, which concludes the proof of part (i).
Let $a_1\cdot \varphi_{\gamma_1} + \ldots + a_r\cdot \varphi_{\gamma_r}=0$, with $a_1,\ldots,a_r\in\operatorname{End}(A)$. Then $\gamma=a_1\cdot\gamma_1 + \ldots + a_r\cdot \gamma_r$ satisfies $$\begin{gathered}
\varphi_{\gamma}(\sigma) =\sigma(\frac{1}{\ell^n}\gamma)-\frac{1}{\ell^n}\gamma = a_1\cdot \varphi_{\gamma_1}(\sigma) + \ldots + a_r\cdot \varphi_{\gamma_r}(\sigma) =0 \nonumber \\ \text{ for all } \sigma \in \operatorname{Gal}(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}},\frac{1}{\ell^n}\Gamma')/K(A_{\operatorname{tors}})).\end{gathered}$$ By Lemma \[lem:fellinjective\], it follows $\gamma\in\ell^n\Gamma'$. Since $\gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_r$ are $\operatorname{End}(A)$-linearly independent, it is $a_i\in \ell^n \cdot \operatorname{End}(A)$ for all $i\in\{1,\ldots,r\}$, proving part (ii).
If $M$ and $N$ are two $G_{\operatorname{tors}}$-modules, then as usual $\operatorname{Hom}_{G_{\operatorname{tors}}}(M,N)$ is the set of all $G_{\operatorname{tors}}$-module homomorphisms from $M$ to $N$. Hence, the combination of Lemmas \[lem:fellinjective\] and \[lem:imageisGstable\] gives $$\label{eq:lowerboundhom}
\ell^{n\cdot r} = \left\vert \nicefrac{\Gamma'}{\ell^n \Gamma'}\right\vert \leq \vert\operatorname{Hom}_{G_{\operatorname{tors}}}(\operatorname{Gal}(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}},\frac{1}{\ell^n}\Gamma')/K(A_{\operatorname{tors}})),A[\ell^n])\vert$$
\[lem:restriction\] Assume that $\alpha\in A(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}},\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}))$ satisfies $\ell^n \alpha \in A(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}}))$. Then $\alpha \in A(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}},\frac{1}{\ell^{\infty}}\Gamma'))$.
For any $k\in\mathbb{N}$ it is (since $\operatorname{End}(A)$ is defined over $K$) $$\label{eq:generator}
K(A_{\operatorname{tors}},\frac{1}{\ell^k}\Gamma')=K(A_{\operatorname{tors}},\frac{1}{\ell^k}\gamma_1,\ldots,\frac{1}{\ell^k}\gamma_k).$$ Let $n_1,\ldots,n_r \in \mathbb{N}$ be such that $$\alpha\in A(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}},\frac{1}{n_1}\gamma_1 ,\ldots ,\frac{1}{n_r}\gamma_r)).$$ For all $i \in \{1,\ldots,r\}$ we write $n_i=\ell^{e_i} m_i$ with $\ell\nmid m_i$, and set $$K_i:=K(A_{\operatorname{tors}},\frac{1}{n_1}\gamma_1,\ldots,\frac{1}{n_{i-1}}\gamma_{i-1},\frac{1}{\ell^{e_i}}\gamma_i,\frac{1}{n_{i+1}}\gamma_{i+1},\ldots,\frac{1}{n_r}\gamma_r).$$ Then
- $G_i:=\operatorname{Gal}(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}},\frac{1}{n_1}\gamma_1,\ldots ,\frac{1}{n_r}\gamma_r)/ K_i) \hookrightarrow A[m_i]$, and
- $G_{i,\alpha}:= \operatorname{Gal}(K_i(\alpha)/ K_i) \hookrightarrow A[\ell^{n}]$, and
- $G_{i,\alpha}$ is isomorphic to a quotient of $G_i$.
Since $\gcd(\vert A[\ell^{e_i}] \vert , \vert A[m_i]\vert)=1$, this is only possible if $G_{i,\alpha}$ is trivial and hence $\alpha \in A(K_i)$. Therefore, we can assume $m_i=1$. This is true for all $i\in\{1,\ldots,r\}$ and hence, we have $$\alpha\in A(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}},\frac{1}{\ell^{e_1}}\gamma_1,\ldots,\frac{1}{\ell^{e_r}}\gamma_r))\subseteq A(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}},\frac{1}{\ell^{\infty}}\Gamma')).$$
Proof of Theorem \[thm:freeab\] for elliptic curves with complex multiplication
===============================================================================
From now on let $A$ be an elliptic curve defined over a number field $K$ with complex multiplication. Let $\mathcal{O}$ be the order in an imaginary quadratic field $\kappa$ such that $\operatorname{End}(A)\cong \mathcal{O}$. By enlarging $K$ we may assume $\kappa\subseteq K$. For any prime number $\ell$ and any $m\in\mathbb{N}$ it is $A[\ell^m]\cong \nicefrac{\mathcal{O}}{\ell^m \mathcal{O}}$ and $\operatorname{Gal}(K(A[\ell^m])/K)$ acts on $A[\ell^m]\cong \nicefrac{\mathcal{O}}{\ell^m \mathcal{O}}$ as multiplication by units in $\nicefrac{\mathcal{O}}{\ell^m \mathcal{O}}$. Therefore, we can regard $\operatorname{Gal}(K(A[\ell^m])/K)$ as a subgroup of $\left(\nicefrac{\mathcal{O}}{\ell^m \mathcal{O}}\right)^*$.
Up to this restriction, the fields generated by torsion points are almost as large as possible. Namely, $$\label{eq:serreCM}
(\left(\nicefrac{\mathcal{O}}{\ell^m \mathcal{O}}\right)^*:\operatorname{Gal}(K(A[\ell^m])/K))\leq M,$$ for some absolute constant $M$ only depending on $A$ and $K$ (cf. [@Se], Section 4.5).
Let $f$ be the conductor of $\mathcal{O}$ and define for all primes $\ell$ the positive integer $$m_{\ell} \text{ minimal such that } \ell^{m_{\ell}} > 4 \ell^{\operatorname{ord}_\ell (f)} M.$$ It is obvious that $m_\ell=1$ for all but finitely many primes $\ell$.
\[lem:indexCM\] We use the notation from above. Then it is $$(\nicefrac{\mathcal{O}}{\ell^m \mathcal{O}}:\nicefrac{\mathbb{Z}}{\ell^m \mathbb{Z}}[\operatorname{Gal}(K(A[\ell^m])/K)]) \leq 4 \ell^{\operatorname{ord}_\ell (f)} M < \ell^{m_l}.$$ Here we identify $\operatorname{Gal}(K(A[\ell^m])/K)$ with a subgroup of $\left(\nicefrac{\mathcal{O}}{\ell^m \mathcal{O}}\right)^*$.
We denote by $\mathcal{O}_{\kappa}$ the ring of integers of $\kappa$. Then the map $$\nicefrac{\mathcal{O}}{\ell^m \mathcal{O}} \longrightarrow \nicefrac{\mathcal{O}_{\kappa}}{\ell^m \mathcal{O}_{\kappa}} \quad ; \quad a+\ell^m \mathcal{O} \mapsto a +\ell^m\mathcal{O}_{\kappa}$$ is a $\ell^{\operatorname{ord}_\ell (f)}$-to-$1$ ring-homomorphism. In particular we have $$\label{eq:CM1}
\vert \left(\nicefrac{\mathcal{O}}{\ell^m \mathcal{O}}\right)^* \vert \geq \frac{\vert \left(\nicefrac{\mathcal{O}_{\kappa}}{\ell^m \mathcal{O}_{\kappa}}\right)^* \vert}{\ell^{\operatorname{ord}_\ell (f)}}.$$ This last quantity can be explicitly calculated and it is $$\label{eq:CM2}
\vert \left(\nicefrac{\mathcal{O}_{\kappa}}{\ell^m \mathcal{O}_{\kappa}}\right)^* \vert = \ell^{2m} (1-\ell^{-1}) (1-\left(\frac{\operatorname{disc}_{\kappa}}{\ell}\right) \ell^{-1}),$$ where $\operatorname{disc}_{\kappa}$ is the discriminant of $\kappa/\mathbb{Q}$ and $\left(\frac{\operatorname{disc}_{\kappa}}{\ell}\right)$ is the Legendre symbol (this follows from solving exercise 7.29 from [@Cox]). Using , and the definition of $M$ we get $$\vert \nicefrac{\mathbb{Z}}{\ell^m \mathbb{Z}}[\operatorname{Gal}(K(A[\ell^m])/K)] \vert \geq \vert \operatorname{Gal}(K(A[\ell^m])/K) \vert \geq \frac{\vert\left(\nicefrac{\mathcal{O}}{\ell^m \mathcal{O}}\right)^*\vert}{M} \geq \frac{\ell^{2m} (1-\ell^{-1})^2}{M \ell^{\operatorname{ord}_\ell (f)}}.$$ It immediately follows $$(\nicefrac{\mathcal{O}}{\ell^m \mathcal{O}}:\nicefrac{\mathbb{Z}}{\ell^m \mathbb{Z}}[\operatorname{Gal}(K(A[\ell^m])/K)]) \leq \frac{\ell^{2m} \ell^{\operatorname{ord}_\ell (f)} M}{\ell^{2m} (1-\ell^{-1})^2} \leq 4 \ell^{\operatorname{ord}_\ell (f)} M.$$
In order to prove Theorem \[thm:freeab\] for elliptic curves with complex multiplication, let $\Gamma \subseteq A(\overline{\mathbb{Q}})$ be a subgroup of finite rank.
We have to prove that $\nicefrac{A(L)}{\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}}$ is free abelian for any finite extension $L$ of $K(\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}})$. Since the property of being free abelian is inherited by subgroups, we may enlarge the field $L$ as we please. In particular, we may assume $\gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_r\in A(L)$.
After replacing our base field $K$ by a finite extension, we can also assume $L=K(\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}})$. Thanks to Lemma \[freemodgamma\] and Proposition \[prop:firstclaim\] it is enough to prove that the torsion group of $\nicefrac{A(L)}{A(K')+\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}}$ has finite exponent for all finite extensions $K'/K$. This is surely the case if the statement is true for $\nicefrac{A(K'L)}{A(K')+\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}}$. Hence we have to prove that the torsion group of $$\nicefrac{A(K(\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}))}{A(K)+\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}}$$ has finite exponent for all sufficiently large number fields $K$ over which $A$ is defined. Hence, we fix a number field $K$, with $A$ is defined over $K$, and such that there are $\gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_r$ satisfying properties , and (in particular it is $\kappa\subseteq K$).
Let $c$ be the exponent of the torsion group of $\nicefrac{A(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}}))}{A(K)+A_{\operatorname{tors}}}$ (cf. Theorem \[thm:BHP\]).
Let $[\alpha] \in \nicefrac{A(K(\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}))}{A(K)+\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}}$ be of order $\ell^{m_\ell+ \operatorname{ord}_{\ell}(c)}$, where $\ell$ is a prime number. By possible changing the representative of $[\alpha]$, we can assume that $\ell^{m_\ell+ \operatorname{ord}_{\ell}(c)} \alpha \in A(K)$. By definition of $c$, it is $\ell^{m_{\ell}-1}\alpha \notin A(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}}))$, since otherwise $\ell^{m_{\ell}-1}\alpha$ would be an element of order $\ell^{\operatorname{ord}_{\ell}(c)+1}\nmid c$ in $\nicefrac{A(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}}))}{A(K)+A_{\operatorname{tors}}}$. Hence, $$\ell^m \alpha \in A(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}})) \quad \text{ and } \quad \ell^{m-1}\alpha \notin A(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}})) \text{ for some } m\geq m_{\ell}.$$
If $\gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_r,\alpha$ would be $\mathcal{O}$-linearly dependent, then – as seen in Section 3 – $\alpha \in \Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}$ which is not the case. Hence $\gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_r,\ell^m \alpha$ are $\mathcal{O}$-linearly independent and satisfy , and with $\Gamma$ replaced by $\Gamma_{\alpha}=\langle\Gamma,\alpha\rangle$ and $\Gamma'$ replaced by $\Gamma_{\alpha}'=\mathcal{O}\cdot \langle\gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_r,\ell^m \alpha\rangle$.
Therefore, Corollary \[cor:Galois\] tells us that $\operatorname{Gal}(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}},\frac{1}{\ell^m}\Gamma_{\alpha}')/K(A_{\operatorname{tors}}))$ is a $\nicefrac{\mathbb{Z}}{\ell^m\mathbb{Z}}[\operatorname{Gal}(K(A[\ell^m])/K)]$-submodule of $A[\ell^{m}]^{r+1} \cong \left(\nicefrac{\mathcal{O}}{\ell^{m} \mathcal{O}}\right)^{r+1}$.
Let $W\subseteq \left(\nicefrac{\mathcal{O}}{\ell^{m} \mathcal{O}}\right)^{r+1}$ be the $\mathcal{O}$-module generated by $\operatorname{Gal}(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}},\frac{1}{\ell^{m}}\Gamma_{\alpha}')/K(A_{\operatorname{tors}}))$. Hence, any element in $W$ is the sum of elements of the form $a \sigma$ with $\sigma \in \operatorname{Gal}(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}},\frac{1}{\ell^{m}}\Gamma_{\alpha}')/K(A_{\operatorname{tors}}))$ and $a \in \mathcal{O}$. By Lemma \[lem:indexCM\] we find that $$\label{eq:Wexponent}
\text{the exponent of } \nicefrac{W}{\operatorname{Gal}(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}},\frac{1}{\ell^{m}}\Gamma_{\alpha}')/K(A_{\operatorname{tors}}))} \text{ is at most } 4M\ell^{ord_{\ell}(f)}.$$ Assume that $W\neq \left(\nicefrac{\mathcal{O}}{\ell^{m} \mathcal{O}}\right)^{r+1}$, then there are $a_1,\ldots,a_{r+1} \in \mathcal{O}$, not all congruent to zero modulo $\ell^{m}\mathcal{O}$, such that $$a_1 w_1 + \ldots + a_{r+1} w_{r+1} \equiv 0 \mod{\ell^{m}\mathcal{O}} \text{ for all } (w_1,\ldots,w_{r+1})\in W$$ (see Lemma 3 in V§5 of [@La]). In particular, for all $\sigma \in \operatorname{Gal}(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}},\frac{1}{\ell^{m}}\Gamma_{\alpha}')/K(A_{\operatorname{tors}}))$ it is $$a_1 \varphi_{\gamma_1}(\sigma) + \ldots + a_r \varphi_{\gamma_r}(\sigma) + a_{r+1} \varphi_{\ell^{m}\alpha}(\sigma) \equiv 0 \mod{\ell^{m}\mathcal{O}},$$ where $\varphi_{\gamma}(\sigma)=\sigma(\frac{1}{\ell^{m}}\gamma)-\frac{1}{\ell^{m}}\gamma$. This is a contradiction, since the maps $\varphi_{\gamma_1},\ldots,\varphi_{\gamma_r},\varphi_{\ell^{m}\alpha}$ are $\nicefrac{\mathcal{O}}{\ell^{m}\mathcal{O}}$-linearly independent by Corollary \[cor:Galois\].
We conclude, that $W=\left(\nicefrac{\mathcal{O}}{\ell^{m} \mathcal{O}}\right)^{r+1}$.
If it were not possible to embed $A[\ell]^{r+1}\cong\left(\nicefrac{\mathcal{O}}{\ell\mathcal{O}}\right)^{r+1}$ into $\operatorname{Gal}(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}},\frac{1}{\ell^{m}}\Gamma_{\alpha}')/K(A_{\operatorname{tors}}))$, then the exponent of $$\nicefrac{A[\ell^{m}]^{r+1}}{\operatorname{Gal}(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}},\frac{1}{\ell^{m}}\Gamma_{\alpha}')/K(A_{\operatorname{tors}}))} \cong \nicefrac{W}{\operatorname{Gal}(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}},\frac{1}{\ell^{m}}\Gamma_{\alpha}')/K(A_{\operatorname{tors}}))}$$ would be equal to $\ell^{m}$. Then implies that $\ell^m \leq 4M\ell^{ord_{\ell}(f)} \overset{\eqref{eq:serreCM}}{<} \ell^{m_\ell}$ in contradiction to the fact $m\geq m_{\ell}$. Therefore, $A[\ell]^{r+1}$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of $\operatorname{Gal}(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}},\frac{1}{\ell^{m_\ell}}\Gamma_{\alpha}')/K(A_{\operatorname{tors}}))$.
By the classification of finite abelian groups, there is a surjective group homomorphism $$\label{eq:surjectionm}
\operatorname{Gal}(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}},\frac{1}{\ell^{m}}\Gamma_{\alpha}')/K(A_{\operatorname{tors}})) \twoheadrightarrow A[\ell]^{r+1}.$$ On the other hand, $\alpha$ is in $A(K(\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}))=A(K(\mathcal{O}\cdot \langle \gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_r\rangle)_{\operatorname{div}})$ and hence there is an $N\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $\alpha \in A(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}},\frac{1}{\ell^N} (\mathcal{O}\cdot \langle \gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_r\rangle))$ by Lemma \[lem:restriction\]. Therefore, there is a surjective group homomorphism $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{Gal}(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}},\frac{1}{\ell^N} (\mathcal{O}\cdot \langle \gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_r\rangle))/K(A_{\operatorname{tors}})) &\twoheadrightarrow \operatorname{Gal}(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}},\frac{1}{\ell^m} (\mathcal{O}\cdot \langle \gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_r,\ell^m\alpha\rangle))/K(A_{\operatorname{tors}})) \\ &\overset{\eqref{eq:surjectionm}}{\twoheadrightarrow} A[\ell]^{r+1}.\end{aligned}$$ This is a contradiction to the fact that $\operatorname{Gal}(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}},\frac{1}{\ell^N} (\mathcal{O}\cdot \langle \gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_r\rangle))/K(A_{\operatorname{tors}}))$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of $A[\ell^N]^r$. We conclude that there is no point of order $\ell^{m_{\ell}+\operatorname{ord}_{\ell}(c)}$ in $\nicefrac{A(K(\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}))}{A(K)+\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}}}$. It follows that the exponent of the torsion subgroup of this group is a divisor of $$c\cdot \prod_{\ell \text{ prime}} \ell^{m_{\ell}-1}$$ and hence finite, since $m_{\ell}=1$ for all but finitely many primes $\ell$.
Fields generated by finite rank subgroups of elliptic curves without complex multiplication
===========================================================================================
From now on let $A/K$ be an elliptic curve without complex multiplication and let $\ell$ be a prime number. We will use Serre’s famous open image theorem [@Se], Section 4.4. This implies that there exists an absolute constant $M$ only depending on $A$ and $K$, such that $$\label{eq:serre}
(GL_2(\nicefrac{\mathbb{Z}}{\ell^n\mathbb{Z}}):\operatorname{Gal}(K(A[\ell^n])/K))\leq M.$$ With this constant we define $$\label{eq:ml}
m_\ell\in \mathbb{N} \text{ minimal such that } M! < \ell^{m_\ell}.$$ Obviously, for all but finitely many prime numbers it is $m_\ell =1$.
\[lem:fullorbit\] Let $m\geq m_\ell$ and $P\in A[\ell^{m}]$ be of exact order $\ell^{m}$. Then $\nicefrac{A[\ell^m]}{\mathbb{Z}[G_{\operatorname{tors}}]\cdot P}$ is cyclic of order dividing $\ell^{m_\ell-1}$. In particular, $A[\ell]$ is a simple $\mathbb{Z}[G_{\operatorname{tors}}]$-module for all but finitely many prime numbers $\ell$.
Let $P$ be of order $\ell^m$ and let $P' \in A[\ell^m]$ be such that $\{P,P'\}$ is a $\nicefrac{\mathbb{Z}}{\ell^m \mathbb{Z}}$-basis of $A[\ell^m]$. We represent the elements of $GL_2(\nicefrac{\mathbb{Z}}{\ell^m \mathbb{Z}})$ in this basis and regard $\operatorname{Gal}(K(A[\ell^m])/K)$ as a subset of $GL_2(\nicefrac{\mathbb{Z}}{\ell^m \mathbb{Z}})$.
Let $N\leq M!$ be the index of the normal core of $\operatorname{Gal}(K(A[\ell^m])/K)$ in $GL_2(\nicefrac{\mathbb{Z}}{\ell^m \mathbb{Z}})$. Then $$\sigma=\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 \\ 1 & 1
\end{pmatrix}^N = \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 \\ N & 1
\end{pmatrix} \in \operatorname{Gal}(K(A[\ell^m])/K).$$ Now $\sigma(P)-P=N\cdot P' \in \mathbb{Z}[G_{\operatorname{tors}}]\cdot P$. Let $\ell^n$ be the largest $\ell$-power dividing $N$, then $\nicefrac{N}{\ell^n}\in\left(\nicefrac{\mathbb{Z}}{\ell^m\mathbb{Z}}\right)^*$ and hence $\ell^n \cdot P' \in \mathbb{Z}[G_{\operatorname{tors}}]\cdot P$. Therefore, $\nicefrac{A[\ell^m]}{\mathbb{Z}[G_{\operatorname{tors}}]\cdot P}$ is a cyclic group of order dividing $\ell^n \leq \ell^{m_\ell -1}$. This proves the first statement of the lemma. The second statement follows, since for all but finitely many primes $\ell$ it is $m_{\ell}=1$.
\[cor:homsmall\] We use the notation from the previous lemma. Then $\vert \operatorname{Hom}_{G_{\operatorname{tors}}}(A[\ell^m],A[\ell^m])\vert \leq \ell^m \cdot \ell^{3(m_{\ell} -1)}$. In particular, $\operatorname{Hom}_{G_{\operatorname{tors}}}(A[\ell],A[\ell]) \cong \nicefrac{\mathbb{Z}}{\ell \mathbb{Z}}$ for all but finitely many prime numbers $\ell$.
Let $P\in A[\ell^m]$ be of exact order $\ell^m$ and let $\varphi \in \operatorname{Hom}_{G_{\operatorname{tors}}}(\mathbb{Z}[G_{\operatorname{tors}}]\cdot P,A[\ell^m])$. We take any $P'\in A[\ell^m]$ such that $A[\ell^m] = \langle P , P' \rangle$. As in the proof of Lemma \[lem:fullorbit\] there is an element $\sigma \in G_{\operatorname{tors}}$ such that $\sigma(P)=P$ and $\sigma(P')=N\cdot P+ P'$ for some $0< N < \ell^{m_\ell}$.
Let $\varphi(P)=a\cdot P + b \cdot P'$ for some $a,b \in \mathbb{Z}$. Since $\varphi$ is a $G_{\operatorname{tors}}$-module homomorphism, it is $\varphi(\sigma(P))=\sigma(\varphi(P))$. This means that the following equality must hold $$a\cdot P + b \cdot P' = (a+bN)\cdot P + b \cdot P'.$$ Hence, $\ell^m \mid bN$ implying $\ell^{m-m_{\ell}+1} \mid b$. Therefore, there are at most $\ell^m \cdot \ell^{m_{\ell} -1}$ possible choices for $\varphi(P)$, and hence $\vert \operatorname{Hom}_{G_{\operatorname{tors}}}(\mathbb{Z}[G_{\operatorname{tors}}]\cdot P,A[\ell^m]) \vert \leq \ell^m \cdot \ell^{m_{\ell} -1}$. By Lemma \[lem:fullorbit\], there are at most $\ell^{2(m_{\ell} -1)}$ possibilities to extend an element from $\operatorname{Hom}_{G_{\operatorname{tors}}}(\mathbb{Z}[G_{\operatorname{tors}}]\cdot P,A[\ell^m])$ to an element in $\operatorname{Hom}_{G_{\operatorname{tors}}}(A[\ell^m],A[\ell^m])$. This proves the first statement of the Corollary.
Again the the second statement follows by noting that $m_{\ell}=1$ for almost all primes $\ell$.
Let $\Gamma \subseteq A(\overline{\mathbb{Q}})$ be a subgroup of rank $r$, with $r$ linearly independent elements $\gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_r$. In sight of Theorem \[thm:freeab\] the goal is to prove that $\nicefrac{A(L)}{\Gamma_{\operatorname{div}}}$ is free abelian for any finite extension $L$ of $K(\Gamma_{\operatorname{div}})$. Note, that $\Gamma_{\operatorname{sat}} =\Gamma_{\operatorname{div}}$ in the present situation. Since the property of being free abelian is inherited by subgroups, we may enlarge the field $L$ as we please. In particular, we may assume $\gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_r\in A(L)$.
After replacing our base field $K$ by a finite extension, we can also assume $L=K(\Gamma_{\operatorname{div}})$. Thanks to Lemma \[freemodgamma\] and Proposition \[prop:firstclaim\] it would be enough to prove that the torsion group of $\nicefrac{A(L)}{A(K')+\Gamma_{\operatorname{div}}}$ has finite exponent for all finite extensions $K'/K$. This is surely the case if the statement is true for $\nicefrac{A(K'L)}{A(K')+\Gamma_{\operatorname{div}}}$. Hence we would have to prove that the torsion group of $$\label{eq:group}
\nicefrac{A(K(\Gamma_{\operatorname{div}}))}{A(K)+\Gamma_{\operatorname{div}}}$$ has finite exponent for all sufficiently large number fields $K$ over which $A$ is defined. Hence, we fix an arbitrary number field $K$ such that $A$ is defined over $K$, and such that assumptions , and are satisfied.
\[prop:aaone\] For all but finitely many prime numbers $\ell$ the $\ell$-torsion part of the group from is trivial.
For all but finitely many prime numbers it is $A[\ell]$ a simple $G_{\operatorname{tors}}$-module with $$\operatorname{Hom}_{G_{\operatorname{tors}}}(A[\ell],A[\ell]) \cong \nicefrac{\mathbb{Z}}{\ell\mathbb{Z}}$$ (cf. Lemma \[lem:fullorbit\] and Corollary \[cor:homsmall\]). Let $\ell$ be such a prime number with the additional assumption that $\ell$ does not divide the exponent of the torsion group of $\nicefrac{A(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}}))}{A(K)+A_{\operatorname{tors}}}$. We denote this exponent (which is an integer by Theorem \[thm:BHP\]) by $c$.
For the sake of contradiction we assume that there is some $[\alpha]\in \nicefrac{A(K(\Gamma_{\operatorname{div}}))}{A(K)+\Gamma_{\operatorname{div}}}$ of order $\ell$. In particular, $\alpha \notin \Gamma_{\operatorname{div}}$. After replacing $\alpha$ by some element in $\alpha+ \Gamma_{\operatorname{div}}$, we may assume $\ell \cdot \alpha \in A(K)$. Since we assume $\ell \nmid c$, it is $\alpha \notin A(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}}))$. Hence $\gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_r,\ell\cdot\alpha$ satisfy the properties , and , with $\Gamma$ replaced by $\langle\Gamma,\ell\cdot\alpha\rangle$. Hence, by Corollary \[cor:Galois\] it is $\operatorname{Gal}(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}},\frac{1}{\ell}\langle \gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_r,\ell\cdot\alpha \rangle)/K(A_{\operatorname{tors}}))$ isomorphic to a $G_{\operatorname{tors}}$-submodule of $A[\ell]^{r+1}$. Since $A[\ell]$ is simple by assumption, it follows $$\operatorname{Gal}(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}},\frac{1}{\ell}\langle \gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_r,\ell\cdot\alpha \rangle)/K(A_{\operatorname{tors}}))\cong A[\ell]^{r'}$$ with $r'\leq r+1$. Now Corollary \[cor:homsmall\] implies $$\vert \operatorname{Hom}_{G_{\operatorname{tors}}}(\operatorname{Gal}(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}},\frac{1}{\ell}\langle \gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_r,\ell\cdot\alpha\rangle)/K(A_{\operatorname{tors}})),A[\ell]) \vert = \ell^{r'}.$$ Since we also have $\ell^{r+1} \leq \vert \operatorname{Hom}_{G_{\operatorname{tors}}}(\operatorname{Gal}(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}},\frac{1}{\ell}\langle \gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_r,\ell\cdot\alpha\rangle)/K(A_{\operatorname{tors}})),A[\ell]) \vert$ by , it is $r'=r+1$. On the other hand, $\alpha$ is is $A(K(\Gamma_{\operatorname{div}}))$ and hence there is an $N\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $\alpha \in A(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}},\frac{1}{\ell^N} \langle\gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_r\rangle))$ by Lemma \[lem:restriction\]. In particular, $\operatorname{Gal}(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}},\frac{1}{\ell}\langle \gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_r,\ell\cdot\alpha \rangle)/K(A_{\operatorname{tors}}))\cong A[\ell]^{r+1}$ is isomorphic to a quotient of $\operatorname{Gal}(K(A_{\operatorname{tors}},\frac{1}{\ell^N}\langle \gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_r\rangle)/K(A_{\operatorname{tors}}))\subseteq A[\ell^N]^{r}$. This is a contradiction, and therefore there is no element of order $\ell$ in $\nicefrac{A(K(\Gamma_{\operatorname{div}}))}{A(K)+\Gamma_{\operatorname{div}}}$.
In order to give a full proof of Theorem \[thm:freeab\] for elliptic curves without complex multiplication, one needs the additional result that for all prime numbers $\ell$ the $\ell$-torsion part of the group from has finite exponent. This result remains open in this paper.
[*Acknowledgements:*]{} I would like to thank Gaël Rémond for providing the proof of Lemma \[Bogomolov\], which initiated this project, and for invaluable comments on an early version of this manuscript. Moreover, special thanks go to Arno Fehm for many interesting discussions on this topic, for pointing out the relevance of Bashmakov’s theorem, and for his patience reading first drafts of this manuscript.
[24]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Two-meson-exchange nucleon-nucleon potentials are derived where either one or both nucleons contains a pair vertex. Physically, the meson-pair vertices are meant to describe in an effective way (part of) the effects of heavy-meson exchange and meson-nucleon resonances. From the point of view of “duality,” these two kinds of contribution are roughly equivalent. The various possibilities for meson pairs coupling to the nucleon are inspired by the chiral-invariant phenomenological Lagrangians that have appeared in the literature. The coupling constants are fixed using the linear $\sigma$ model. We show that the inclusion of these two-meson exchanges gives a significant improvement over a potential model including only the standard one-boson exchanges.'
address:
- 'Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands'
- 'Department of Physics, The Flinders University of South Australia, Bedford Park, South Australia 5042, Australia'
author:
- 'Th.A. Rijken'
- 'V.G.J. Stoks[^1]'
date: 'version of: '
title: |
Soft two-meson-exchange nucleon-nucleon potentials.\
II. One-pair and two-pair diagrams
---
=1000
INTRODUCTION {#sec:chap1}
============
In this second paper on two-meson-exchange potentials, we derive the contributions to the nucleon-nucleon potentials when either one or both nucleons contains a pair vertex. The corresponding “seagull” diagrams are labeled as one-pair and two-pair diagrams, and are depicted in Fig. \[pap2fig1\]. They are in a different class than the planar and crossed-box diagrams. The latter can be understood as the second-order contributions in a series expansion of multi-meson exchanges and were calculated in the previous paper [@Rij95a]. The two types of two-meson-exchange potentials presented here and in the previous paper [@Rij95a] are part of our program to study the effect of two-meson exchanges in potential models, and to extend the Nijmegen soft-core one-boson-exchange potential [@Nag78] to arrive at a new extended soft-core nucleon-nucleon model, hereafter referred to as the ESC potential.
Our motivation for deriving the pair-meson potentials comes from “duality” [@Dol68; @Swa89]. Since we do not explicitly include any contributions to the potentials coming from intermediate states with nucleon resonances, we have indicated in Fig. \[pap2fig2\] how these resonances can be included via meson-pair contributions. According to “duality,” the resonance contributions to the various meson-nucleon amplitudes can be described approximately by heavy-meson exchanges. Treating the heavy-meson propagators as constants, which should be adequate at low energies, leads directly to pair-meson exchanges. Hence, the pair-meson potentials can be viewed as the result of integrating out the heavy-meson and resonance degrees of freedom. We are less radical than Weinberg (see, e.g., Ref. [@Wei90]), in that we do not integrate out the degrees of freedom of the mesons with masses below 1 GeV.
The pairs we consider are $\pi\pi$, $\pi\rho$, $\pi\varepsilon$, and $\varepsilon\varepsilon$. They are inspired by the chiral-invariant phenomenological Lagrangians that have appeared in the literature, see for example [@Sch68; @Wei68]. Here the $\varepsilon(760)$ scalar meson is treated as a very broad meson with a width of $\Gamma_{\varepsilon}\sim640$ MeV [@remark]. The potential due to the exchange of a broad meson can be approximated by the sum of two potentials where each potential is due to the exchange of a stable meson [@Sch71; @Bin71]. Because of the large width of the $\varepsilon$(760), the low-mass pole in the two-pole approximation is rather small ($\sim500$ MeV). Hence, it is expected to contribute significantly to the two-meson potentials, which is the reason why we explicitly included the $\varepsilon\varepsilon$ pair potential. To emphasize the importance of the low-mass contribution, we will henceforth denote these scalar contributions to the pair potentials by $\pi\sigma$ and $\sigma\sigma$, where $\sigma$ stands for the low-mass pole.
We neglect the contributions from the negative-energy states of the nucleons. We assume that at low energies a strong “nucleon-pair suppression” mechanism (i.e., suppression of the nucleon-antinucleon $N\!\overline{N}$ pairs) is operative. This is due to the compositeness and the large mass of the nucleons. Obviously, this is only valid in the low-energy regime. From relativity we know that nucleon-pair suppression cannot be absolute. However, we mention that it is very plausible from the point of view [@Swa78] of the nonrelativistic quark model (NRQM). Also, in the chiral quark-model picture [@Man84] it is rather unlikely that $N\!\overline{N}$ pairs play a role in the low-energy region. Moreover, nucleon-pair suppression is substantiated by studies of the large $N_{c}$ limit in QCD [@Wit79]. In this case then, the Thomson limit is provided by the negative-energy contributions of the constituents, in particular the current quarks. A covariant description of this nucleon-pair suppression could very well be done by introducing off-mass-shell factors to the meson-nucleon-nucleon vertices. Instead of attempting such a covariant description in this paper, we simply neglect the transitions to the negative-energy states.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[sec:chap2\] the meson-pair-exchange kernels are derived. We give the interaction Hamiltonians and the vertices in Pauli-spinor space, while the implementation of the Gaussian form factors is briefly indicated. In Sec. \[sec:chap3\] we derive the one-pair and two-pair potentials. We then extend the calculations by including the $1/M$ corrections from the pseudovector vertex and from the nonadiabatic expansion of the energy denominators. The strength of the pair interactions can be estimated using the saturation with one-boson exchanges, but this involves some ambiguity in how to approximate the intermediate-boson propagator. In Sec. \[sec:chap5\] we therefore choose to fix the pair coupling constants at their values as obtained in the linear $\sigma$ model [@Gel60]. These values do not have to be taken exactly, of course, but they clearly suffice to demonstrate the improvements that can be obtained when we include these pair interactions in a nucleon-nucleon potential model. Plots of the various pair potentials are then shown and discussed in Sec. \[sec:chap6\]. In this section we also compare this new ESC potential with the one-boson-exchange Nijm93 potential [@Sto94], demonstrating the significant improvement in the description of the scattering data that has been obtained by including the two-meson exchanges.
Finally, some details on parts of the calculation are collected in two appendices, while the coordinate-space pair potentials are given explicitly in Appendix \[app:appC\].
THE PAIR-MESON-EXCHANGE KERNEL {#sec:chap2}
==============================
The fourth-order two-meson-exchange kernel is derived following the procedure as discussed in the previous paper [@Rij95a], which closely follows an earlier publication [@Rij91], where we derived the soft two-pion-exchange potential. For details and definitions we refer to these two references.
Rather than repeating the derivation again, we here immediately proceed to give the one-pair and two-pair kernels. Introducing subscripts $1P$ and $2P$, the one-pair kernel is given by $$\begin{aligned}
K_{1P}({\bf p}',{\bf p}|W)_{a'b';ab}&=&-(2\pi)^{-2}
[W-{\cal W}({\bf p}')]\;[W-{\cal W}({\bf p})]
\nonumber\\ &\times&
\sum_{a'',b''}\int\!dp_{0}'\int\!dp_{0}\int\!dk_{10}\int\!dk_{20}
\int\!d{\bf k}_{1}\int\!d{\bf k}_{2} %\nonumber\\
\ i(2\pi)^{-4}\delta^{4}(p'-p-k_{1}-k_{2})
\nonumber\\ &\times&
[k^{2}_{2}-m^{2}_{2}+i\delta]^{-1}\left[F^{(a')}_{W}({\bf p}',p_{0}')
F^{(b')}_{W}(-{\bf p}',-p_{0}') \right]^{-1} \nonumber\\
&\times& \left\{ [\Gamma_{j,i}({\bf p}',p'_{0};{\bf p},p_{0})]
[\Gamma_{j} F_{W}^{-1}(-{\bf p}-{\bf k}_{1},-p_{0}-k_{10})
\Gamma_{i}]^{(b'')} \right. \nonumber\\
&& + \left. [\Gamma_{j} F_{W}^{-1}
({\bf p}+{\bf k}_{1}, p_{0}+k_{10}) \Gamma_{i}]^{(a'')}
[\Gamma_{j,i}(-{\bf p}',-p'_{0};-{\bf p},-p_{0})]\right\}
\nonumber\\
&\times& \left[F^{(a)}_{W}({\bf p},p_{0})F^{(b)}_{W}
(-{\bf p},-p_{0})\right]^{-1}[k^{2}_{1}-m^{2}_{1}+i\delta]^{-1},
\label{ker1P}\end{aligned}$$ whereas the two-pair kernel is given by $$\begin{aligned}
K_{2P}({\bf p}',{\bf p}|W)_{a'b';ab}&=&-(2\pi)^{-2}
[W-{\cal W}({\bf p}')]\;[W-{\cal W}({\bf p})]
\nonumber\\ &\times&
\int\!dp_{0}'\int\!dp_{0}\int\!dk_{10}\int\!dk_{20}
\int\!d{\bf k}_{1}\int\!d{\bf k}_{2} %\nonumber\\
\ i(2\pi)^{-4}\delta^{4}(p'-p-k_{1}-k_{2})
\nonumber\\ &\times&
[k^{2}_{2}-m^{2}_{2}+i\delta]^{-1}\left[F^{(a')}_{W}({\bf p}',p_{0}')
F^{(b')}_{W}(-{\bf p}',-p_{0}') \right]^{-1} \nonumber\\
&\times& \left\{ [\Gamma_{j,i}({\bf p}',p'_{0};{\bf p},p_{0})]
[\Gamma_{j,i}(-{\bf p}',-p'_{0};-{\bf p},-p_{0})]
\right\} \nonumber\\
&\times& \left[F^{(a)}_{W}({\bf p},p_{0})F^{(b)}_{W}
(-{\bf p},-p_{0})\right]^{-1}[k^{2}_{1}-m^{2}_{1}+i\delta]^{-1}.
\label{ker2P}\end{aligned}$$ Here $m_{1}$ and $m_{2}$ denote the two meson masses, $\Gamma_{i}$ and $\Gamma_{j}$ denote the nucleon-nucleon-meson vertices, and $\Gamma_{j,i}$ denotes the nucleon-nucleon-meson-meson vertex; they follow from the interaction Hamiltonians (see below). Because we only consider nucleons in the intermediate state, we have $a=a'=a''=N$ and $b=b'=b''=N$. Note that the first term between the curly brackets in the one-pair kernel corresponds to having the pair vertex on the first nucleon (hence, no label $a''$), and the second term to having the pair vertex on the other nucleon (no label $b''$).
From the explicit expressions (\[ker1P\]) and (\[ker2P\]), it is clear that one can perform the integration over the energy variables $p'_{0}$, $p_{0}$, $k_{10}$, and $k_{20}$. The execution of these integrals is quite similar to those worked-out explicitly in Ref. [@Rij91], and so are the results. Details are given in Appendix \[app:appA\]. In the case of the one-pair diagrams, we have taken the diagram where the meson-pair vertex is on line $a$.
In the adiabatic approximation, i.e., $E({\bf p})\approx M$, the energy denominators of the various time-ordered diagrams are $$\begin{aligned}
D^{(1)}_{a}(\omega_{1},\omega_{2}) &=& \frac{1}{2\omega_{1}\omega_{2}}
\,\frac{1}{\omega_{2}(\omega_{1}+\omega_{2})}, \nonumber\\
D^{(1)}_{b}(\omega_{1},\omega_{2}) &=&
\frac{1}{2\omega_{1}^{2}\omega_{2}^{2}}, \nonumber\\
D^{(1)}_{c}(\omega_{1},\omega_{2}) &=& \frac{1}{2\omega_{1}\omega_{2}}
\,\frac{1}{\omega_{1}(\omega_{1}+\omega_{2})}, \nonumber\\
D^{(2)}(\omega_{1},\omega_{2}) &=& -\frac{1}{2\omega_{1}\omega_{2}}
\,\frac{1}{\omega_{1}+\omega_{2}}. \label{Dpairs}\end{aligned}$$ Here we have labeled the three time-ordered one-pair graphs by $a,b,c$, which correspond, respectively, to the diagrams depicted in Fig. \[pap2fig3\]. However, since we always have to add the contribution from the “mirror” graphs anyway (i.e., with the pair vertex at line $b$), we have already included the resulting factor of 2 in the $D^{(1)}$ energy denominators of Eq. (\[Dpairs\]). The two time-ordered graphs for the two-pair diagrams are each other’s “mirror” graphs. In most cases the vertices do not explicitly depend on the time ordering and we can add the three time-ordered one-pair energy denominators to give $$D^{(1)}(\omega_{1},\omega_{2}) =
D^{(1)}_{a} + D^{(1)}_{b} + D^{(1)}_{c} =
\frac{1}{\omega_{1}^{2}\omega_{2}^{2}}. \label{D1pair}$$
Before we can proceed and calculate the pair-meson potentials, we have to define the nucleon-nucleon-meson ($N\!Nm$) and nucleon-nucleon-meson-meson ($N\!Nm_{1}m_{2}$) Hamiltonians. For point couplings the nucleon-nucleon-meson Hamiltonians are
$$\begin{aligned}
{\cal H}_{P} &=& \frac{f_{P}}{m_{\pi}}
\bar{\psi} \gamma_{5}\gamma_{\mu}\bbox{\tau}\psi
\!\cdot\!\partial^{\mu}\bbox{\phi}_{P}, \label{Lagpv}\\
{\cal H}_{V} &=& g_{V}\bar{\psi}\gamma_{\mu}\bbox{\tau}
\psi\!\cdot\!\bbox{\phi}^{\mu}_{V} - \frac{f_{V}}{2M}
\bar{\psi}\sigma_{\mu\nu}\bbox{\tau}\psi\!\cdot\!\partial^{\nu}
\bbox{\phi}^{\mu}_{V} \ , \label{Lagv}\\
{\cal H}_{S} &=& g_{S}\bar{\psi}\bbox{\tau}\psi
\!\cdot\!\bbox{\phi}_{S} \ , \label{Lags}\end{aligned}$$
where $\bbox{\phi}$ denotes the pseudovector-, vector-, and scalar-meson field, respectively. For the isospin $I=0$ mesons, the isospin Pauli matrices, $\bbox{\tau}$, are absent.
For the phenomenological meson-pair interactions, the Hamiltonians are
$$\begin{aligned}
{\cal H}_{S} &=& \bar{\psi}\psi
\left[g_{(\pi\pi)_{0}}\bbox{\pi}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\pi} +
g_{(\sigma\sigma)}\sigma^{2}\right] / m_{\pi}, \label{LPs}\\
{\cal H}_{V} &=& g_{(\pi\pi)_{1}}\bar{\psi}\gamma_{\mu}\bbox{\tau}\psi
\cdot(\bbox{\pi}\!\times\!\partial^{\mu}\bbox{\pi})
/ m^{2}_{\pi} \nonumber\\
& & -\frac{f_{(\pi\pi)_{1}}}{2M}\bar{\psi}\sigma_{\mu\nu}
\bbox{\tau}\psi\partial^{\nu}\cdot(\bbox{\pi}\!\times\!
\partial^{\mu}\bbox{\pi}) / m^{2}_{\pi}, \label{LPv}\\
{\cal H}_{A} &=& g_{(\pi\rho)_{1}}
\bar{\psi}\gamma_{5}\gamma_{\mu}\bbox{\tau}\psi\cdot
(\bbox{\pi}\times\bbox{\rho}^{\mu}) / m_{\pi}, \label{LPa}\\
{\cal H}_{P} &=& g_{(\pi\sigma)} \bar{\psi}\gamma_{5}\gamma_{\mu}
\bbox{\tau}\psi \cdot (\bbox{\pi}\partial^{\mu}\sigma
-\sigma\partial^{\mu}\bbox{\pi}) / m^{2}_{\pi} \label{LPp}\end{aligned}$$
The transition from Dirac spinors to Pauli spinors is reviewed in Appendix C of [@Rij91]. Following this reference and keeping only terms up to order $1/M$, we find that the vertex operators in Pauli-spinor space for the $N\!Nm$ vertices are given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\bar{u}({\bf p}')\Gamma^{(1)}_{P}u({\bf p}) &=&
-i\frac{f_{P}}{m_{\pi}}\!\left[ \bbox{\sigma}_{1}\!\cdot\!{\bf k}
\pm\frac{\omega}{2M}\bbox{\sigma}_{1}\!\cdot\!
({\bf p}'+{\bf p}) \right], \label{Gam1p}\\
\bar{u}({\bf p}')\Gamma^{(1)}_{V}u({\bf p}) &=&
g_{V}\left[ \phi^{0}_{V} - \frac{1}{2M}\biggl\{({\bf p}'+{\bf p})
+i(1+\kappa_{V})\bbox{\sigma}_{1}\!\times\!{\bf k}
\biggr\}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\phi}_{V}\right], \label{Gam1v}\\
\bar{u}({\bf p}')\Gamma^{(1)}_{S}u({\bf p}) &=& g_{S}, \label{Gam1s}\end{aligned}$$
where we defined ${\bf k}={\bf p}'-{\bf p}$ and $\kappa_{V}=f_{V}/g_{V}$. In the pseudovector vertex, the upper (lower) sign stands for creation (absorption) of the pion at the vertex. Similarly, the $N\!Nm_{1}m_{2}$ vertices result in
$$\begin{aligned}
\bar{u}({\bf p}')\Gamma^{(2)}_{S}u({\bf p}) &=&
g_{(\pi\pi)_{0}}/m_{\pi} \ \ \ {\rm and}\ \ \
g_{(\sigma\sigma)}/m_{\pi}, \label{Gam2s}\\
\bar{u}({\bf p}')\Gamma^{(2)}_{V}u({\bf p}) &=&
ig_{(\pi\pi)_{1}}\left[(\pm\omega_{1}\mp\omega_{2})
+\frac{1}{M}\biggl\{{\bf q}\!\cdot\!({\bf k}_{1}-{\bf k}_{2})
-(1+\kappa_{1})\bbox{\sigma}_{1}\!\cdot\!
({\bf k}_{1}\times{\bf k}_{2})\biggr\}\right] / m^{2}_{\pi},
\nonumber\\&
\label{Gam2v}\\
\bar{u}({\bf p}')\Gamma^{(2)}_{A}u({\bf p}) &=&
g_{(\pi\rho)_{1}}\left[\bbox{\sigma}_{1}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\rho}
-\frac{1}{M}\bbox{\sigma}_{1}\!\cdot\!{\bf q}\rho^{0}\right]
/ m_{\pi}, \label{Gam2a}\\
\bar{u}({\bf p}')\Gamma^{(2)}_{P}u({\bf p}) &=&
ig_{(\pi\sigma)}\left[\bbox{\sigma}_{1}\!\cdot\!
({\bf k}_{1}-{\bf k}_{2}) - \frac{1}{M}
\bbox{\sigma}_{1}\!\cdot\!{\bf q}(\pm\omega_{1}\mp\omega_{2})
\right] / m^{2}_{\pi}, \label{Gam2p}\end{aligned}$$
where ${\bf q}={\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}({\bf p}'+{\bf p})$ and $\kappa_{1}=(f/g)_{(\pi\pi)_{1}}$. Again, the upper (lower) sign in front of $\omega_{1}$ and $\omega_{2}$ refers to creation (absorption) of the meson at the vertex. For both the $N\!Nm$ and $N\!Nm_{1}m_{2}$ vertices, the expressions for $\bar{u}(-{\bf p}')\Gamma u(-{\bf p})$ are trivially obtained by substituting $({\bf p}',{\bf p},{\bf k}_{i},\omega_{i},\bbox{\sigma}_{1})
\rightarrow(-{\bf p}',-{\bf p},-{\bf k}_{i},\omega_{i},\bbox{\sigma}_{2})$.
The generalization of the interaction kernels to the case with a Gaussian (or any other) form factor has been treated and explained in [@Rij91]. We make the substitution $$[k^{2}-m^{2}+i\delta]^{-1} \longrightarrow
\int_{0}^{\infty}\!d\mu^{2} \frac{\rho(\mu^{2})}
{k^{2}-\mu^{2}+i\delta},$$ for each meson-exchange line in the Feynman diagrams. Here, $\rho(\mu^{2})$ is the spectral function, representing the form factors involved in meson exchange. At low and medium energy, we have to a very good approximation $t=k^{2}\approx-{\bf k}^{2}<0$, and so for space-like momentum transfers we can use Gaussian form factors $F({\bf k}^{2})=\exp(-{\bf k}^{2}/\Lambda^{2})$, where $\Lambda$ denotes the cutoff mass. The Gaussian form factor is introduced by the substitution $$\int_{0}^{\infty}\!d\mu^{2} \frac{\rho(\mu^{2})}
{{\bf k}^{2}+\mu^{2}} \longrightarrow
\frac{F({\bf k}^{2})}{{\bf k}^{2}+m^{2}}.$$ The $N\!Nm$ and $N\!Nm_{1}m_{2}$ vertices have different form factors. We will use $$\begin{aligned}
&&F_{N\!Nm_{1}m_{2}}({\bf k}_{1},{\bf k}_{2}) =
\exp(-{\bf k}_{1}^{2}/2\Lambda_{1}^{2})\,
\exp(-{\bf k}_{2}^{2}/2\Lambda_{2}^{2}), \nonumber\\
&&F_{N\!Nm}({\bf k}^{2}) = \exp(-{\bf k}^{2}/2\Lambda_{m}^{2}),
\label{formf}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Lambda_{1}$ and $\Lambda_{2}$ are the form factor masses for mesons $m_{1}$ and $m_{2}$, respectively. A motivation for this prescription could be that in “duality” the structure of the $N\!Nm_{1}m_{2}$ vertex is either saturated by heavy mesons or meson-nucleon resonances. In this last case, assuming that the meson-nucleon resonance transitions all have roughly the same (inelastic) form factor, the form (\[formf\]) is a natural one.
MESON-PAIR POTENTIALS {#sec:chap3}
=====================
In this paper we restrict ourselves mainly to the pion-meson pair potentials. The only exception is the $\sigma\sigma$-pair potential, but the derivation of the potential for any other combination of two mesons will be straight forward. Here $\sigma$ stands for the low-mass pole in the two-pole approximation [@Sch71; @Bin71] of the broad $\varepsilon$(760) scalar meson. (At this point it might be worthwhile to mention that in the previous paper [@Rij95a] we refrained from evaluating the $\sigma\sigma$ planar and crossed-box contributions. The reason for this is that the leading-order contribution of a potential due to the exchange of two isoscalar-scalar mesons is identically zero.) In the description of the pion-meson pair potentials we always assign the index 1 to the pion, and the index 2 to the other meson, which can be a pion as well.
Armed with the Pauli-spinor vertices given in the previous section, it is now straight forward to derive the one-pair and two-pair potentials. They can be succinctly written as $$\begin{aligned}
V^{(n)}_{\rm pair}(\alpha\beta) &=&
C^{(n)}(\alpha\beta) g^{(n)}(\alpha\beta)
\int\!\!\int\!\frac{d^{3}k_{1}d^{3}k_{2}}{(2\pi)^{6}} \nonumber\\
&& \times e^{i({\bf k}_{1}+{\bf k}_{2})\cdot{\bf r}}
F_{\alpha}({\bf k}_{1}^{2})F_{\beta}({\bf k}_{2}^{2}) \nonumber\\
&& \times \sum_{p}O^{(n)}_{\alpha\beta,p}({\bf k}_{1},\omega_{1};
{\bf k}_{2},\omega_{2})D_{p}^{(n)}(\omega_{1},\omega_{2}),
\nonumber\\
&& \label{Vpairmom}\end{aligned}$$ where the index $n$ distinguishes one-pair ($n=1$) and two-pair ($n=2$) meson-pair exchange, and ($\alpha\beta$) refers to the particular meson pair that is being exchanged. The product of the coupling constants in the two cases is given by $$\begin{aligned}
g^{(1)}(\alpha\beta) &=& g_{(\alpha\beta)}
g_{N\!N\alpha}g_{N\!N\beta}, \nonumber\\
g^{(2)}(\alpha\beta) &=& g^{2}_{(\alpha\beta)},\end{aligned}$$ with appropriate powers of $m_{\pi}$, depending on the definition of the Hamiltonians. The energy denominators $D^{(n)}_{p}$ are given in Eq. (\[Dpairs\]), with the index $p$ labeling the different time-ordered processes. Finally, the momentum-dependent operators $O^{(n)}_{\alpha\beta,p}$ are given in Tables \[O1pair\] and \[O2pair\]. For completeness, these Tables also contain the isospin factors $C^{(n)}(\alpha\beta)$ as derived in Appendix \[app:appB\]. The momentum operators for $(\pi\pi)_{0}$ and $(\pi\pi)_{1}$ both contain a term antisymmetric in ${\bf k}_{1}\leftrightarrow{\bf k}_{2}$. They only contribute when we make the nonadiabatic expansion (see Sec. \[sec:chap4\]). In the leading-order potential (\[Vpairmom\]) they drop out when we integrate over ${\bf k}_{1}$ and ${\bf k}_{2}$.
The time-ordering label $p$ in Eq. (\[Vpairmom\]) is only of interest for the $(\pi\pi)_{1}$ one-pair potential, where we have an explicit $(\omega_{1},\omega_{2})$ dependence in $O^{(1)}_{\pi\pi,p}$. For all other one-pair potentials we have the same energy denominator $D^{(1)}(\omega_{1},\omega_{2})$ as given in Eq. (\[D1pair\]), and we can drop the $p$ index in $O^{(1)}_{\alpha\beta,p}$. For $(\alpha\beta)=(\pi\pi)_{1}$, the three time-ordered diagrams contribute as $$\begin{aligned}
&& (-\omega_{1}+\omega_{2})D^{(1)}_{a}+
(\omega_{1}+\omega_{2})D^{(1)}_{b}+
(\omega_{1}-\omega_{2})D^{(1)}_{c} \nonumber\\
&& \hspace*{1cm} = \frac{2}{\omega_{1}\omega_{2}
(\omega_{1}+\omega_{2})}.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, the two-pair potentials are all seen to have the energy denominator $D^{(2)}$ of Eq. (\[Dpairs\]), where the additional $(\omega_{1}-\omega_{2})^{2}$ dependence in $O^{(2)}_{\alpha\beta}$ for $(\pi\pi)_{1}$ can be rewritten as $$(\omega_{1}-\omega_{2})^{2}D^{(2)} =-\frac{1}{2\omega_{1}}
-\frac{1}{2\omega_{2}}
+\frac{2}{\omega_{1}+\omega_{2}}.$$
The evaluation of the momentum integrations can now readily be performed using the methods given in [@Rij95a; @Rij91]. There it was shown that the full separation of the ${\bf k}_{1}$ and ${\bf k}_{2}$ dependence of the Fourier integrals can be achieved in all cases using the $\lambda$-integral representation. Starting-out from Eq. (\[Vpairmom\]), this procedure gives the following generic form of the potentials in coordinate space: $$\begin{aligned}
V^{(n)}_{\rm pair}(\alpha\beta) &=&
C^{(n)}(\alpha\beta) g^{(n)}(\alpha\beta)
\lim_{{\bf r}_{1},{\bf r}_{2}\rightarrow{\bf r}} \nonumber\\
&&\times O^{(n)}_{\alpha\beta}(-i\bbox{\nabla}_{1},\omega_{1};
-i\bbox{\nabla}_{2},\omega_{2})
B^{(n)}_{\alpha\beta}(r_{1},r_{2}). \nonumber\\
& & \label{Vpaircor}\end{aligned}$$ The different functions $B_{\alpha\beta}(r_{1},r_{2})$ that occur in this expression involve the functions $I_{2}(m,r)$ as defined in Ref. [@Rij91], $I_{0}(\Lambda,r)$ as defined in Ref. [@Rij95a], and the integrals $$\begin{aligned}
B_{0,0}(m_{\alpha},r_{1};m_{\beta},r_{2}) &\!=\!& \frac{2}{\pi}
\int_{0}^{\infty}\!d\lambda\,\lambda^{2}F_{\alpha}(\lambda,r_{1})
F_{\beta}(\lambda,r_{2}), \nonumber\\
B_{1,1}(m_{\alpha},r_{1};m_{\beta},r_{2}) &\!=\!& \frac{2}{\pi}
\int_{0}^{\infty}\!d\lambda F_{\alpha}(\lambda,r_{1})
F_{\beta}(\lambda,r_{2}),\end{aligned}$$ where $$F_{\alpha}(\lambda,r)=e^{-\lambda^{2}/\Lambda_{\alpha}^{2}}
I_{2}(\sqrt{m_{\alpha}^{2}+\lambda^{2}},r).$$ The differentiation operations needed in Eq. (\[Vpaircor\]) are listed in Appendix A of the previous paper [@Rij95a], and the resulting coordinate-space potentials are here given explicitly in Appendix \[app:appC\].
1/M CORRECTIONS {#sec:chap4}
===============
The nonadiabatic correction from the $1/M$ expansion of the energy denominators is explained in Ref. [@Rij91]. The expansion of the energy denominator involves a momentum dependence which can be rewritten in the form $[{\bf k}_{1}\!\cdot\!{\bf k}_{2}-
{\bf q}\!\cdot\!({\bf k}_{1}-{\bf k}_{2})]/2M$.
Taking out the momentum-dependent factor, the one-pair energy denominators of Eq. (\[Dpairs\]) give rise to the energy denominators $$\begin{aligned}
D^{\rm na}_{a}(\omega_{1},\omega_{2})&=&\frac{1}{2\omega_{1}\omega_{2}}
\,\frac{1}{\omega^{2}_{2}(\omega_{1}+\omega_{2})}, \nonumber\\
D^{\rm na}_{b}(\omega_{1},\omega_{2})&=&\frac{1}{2\omega_{1}\omega_{2}}
\left(\frac{1}{\omega_{1}^{2}\omega_{2}}
+\frac{1}{\omega_{1}\omega_{2}^{2}}\right), \nonumber\\
D^{\rm na}_{c}(\omega_{1},\omega_{2})&=&\frac{1}{2\omega_{1}\omega_{2}}
\,\frac{1}{\omega^{2}_{1}(\omega_{1}+\omega_{2})}. \label{Dnadia}\end{aligned}$$ Again, the time ordering is only of importance in the $(\pi\pi)_{1}$ potential, where the contributions sum up to $$D^{\rm na}_{(\pi\pi)_{1}} = \frac{2}{\omega_{1}^{2}\omega_{2}^{2}}.$$ In all other cases the three energy denominators of Eq. (\[Dnadia\]) can be summed directly, yielding $$D^{\rm na} = \frac{1}{\omega_{1}^{2}\omega_{2}^{2}}
\left[\frac{1}{\omega_{1}}+\frac{1}{\omega_{2}}
-\frac{1}{\omega_{1}+\omega_{2}}\right],$$ which gives rise to a coordinate-space function of the form $$\begin{aligned}
B^{\rm na}_{\alpha\beta}(r_{1},r_{2}) = \frac{2}{\pi}
\int_{0}^{\infty}\!\frac{d\lambda}{\lambda^{2}} &&
\biggl[I_{2}(m_{\alpha},r_{1})I_{2}(m_{\beta},r_{2}) \nonumber\\
&& -F_{\alpha}(\lambda,r_{1})F_{\beta}(\lambda,r_{2})\biggr].
\label{Bna}\end{aligned}$$
The energy denominators $D^{\rm na}(\omega_{1},\omega_{2})$ are symmetric under interchanges of labels 1 and 2, and so the term proportional to ${\bf q}\!\cdot\!({\bf k}_{1}-{\bf k}_{2})$ will only contribute in combination with the antisymmetric terms in $O^{(1)}({\bf k}_{1},\omega_{1};{\bf k}_{2}\omega_{2})$; i.e., in $(\pi\pi)_{0}$ and $(\pi\pi)_{1}$. We find $$\begin{aligned}
V^{\rm na}[(\pi\pi)_{0}] &=& -\frac{g_{(\pi\pi)_{0}}}{m_{\pi}}
\left(\frac{f_{N\!N\pi}}{m_{\pi}}\right)^{2}\frac{3}{M}
\int\!\!\int\!\frac{d^{3}k_{1}d^{3}k_{2}}{(2\pi)^{6}} \,
e^{i({\bf k}_{1}+{\bf k}_{2})\cdot{\bf r}}
F_{\pi}({\bf k}_{1}^{2})F_{\pi}({\bf k}_{2}^{2}) \nonumber\\
& & \times \biggl[ ({\bf k}_{1}\!\cdot\!{\bf k}_{2})^{2}+
{\textstyle\frac{i}{2}}{\bf q}\!\cdot\!({\bf k}_{1}-{\bf k}_{2})
(\bbox{\sigma}_{1}+\bbox{\sigma}_{2})\!\cdot\!
({\bf k}_{1}\times{\bf k}_{2}) \biggr]
D^{\rm na}(\omega_{1},\omega_{2}), \label{Vnapipi0}\\
V^{\rm na}[(\pi\pi)_{1}] &=&-(\bbox{\tau}_{1}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\tau}_{2})
\frac{g_{(\pi\pi)_{1}}}{m_{\pi}^{2}}
\left(\frac{f_{N\!N\pi}}{m_{\pi}}\right)^{2}\frac{1}{M}
\int\!\!\int\!\frac{d^{3}k_{1}d^{3}k_{2}}{(2\pi)^{6}} \,
e^{i({\bf k}_{1}+{\bf k}_{2})\cdot{\bf r}}
F_{\pi}({\bf k}_{1}^{2})F_{\pi}({\bf k}_{2}^{2}) \nonumber\\
& & \times \biggl[ ({\bf k}_{1}\!\cdot\!{\bf k}_{2})^{2}+
{\textstyle\frac{i}{2}}{\bf q}\!\cdot\!({\bf k}_{1}-{\bf k}_{2})
(\bbox{\sigma}_{1}+\bbox{\sigma}_{2})\!\cdot\!
({\bf k}_{1}\times{\bf k}_{2}) \biggr]
\frac{2}{\omega_{1}^{2}\omega_{2}^{2}}, \label{Vnapipi1}\\
V^{\rm na}[(\sigma\sigma)] &=& \frac{g_{(\sigma\sigma)}}{m_{\pi}}\,
\frac{g^{2}_{N\!N\sigma}}{M}
\int\!\!\int\!\frac{d^{3}k_{1}d^{3}k_{2}}{(2\pi)^{6}} \,
e^{i({\bf k}_{1}+{\bf k}_{2})\cdot{\bf r}}
F_{\sigma}({\bf k}_{1}^{2})F_{\sigma}({\bf k}_{2}^{2})
({\bf k}_{1}\!\cdot\!{\bf k}_{2})
D^{\rm na}(\omega_{1},\omega_{2}), \label{Vnasisi}\\
V^{\rm na}[(\pi\sigma)] &=&-(\bbox{\tau}_{1}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\tau}_{2})
\frac{g_{(\pi\sigma)}}{m_{\pi}^{2}}\,
\frac{f_{N\!N\pi}}{m_{\pi}}\, \frac{g_{N\!N\sigma}}{M}
\int\!\!\int\!\frac{d^{3}k_{1}d^{3}k_{2}}{(2\pi)^{6}}\,
e^{i({\bf k}_{1}+{\bf k}_{2})\cdot{\bf r}}
F_{\pi}({\bf k}_{1}^{2})F_{\sigma}({\bf k}_{2}^{2}) \nonumber\\
& & \times ({\bf k}_{1}\!\cdot\!{\bf k}_{2}) \biggl[
\bbox{\sigma}_{1}\!\cdot\!{\bf k}_{1}
\bbox{\sigma}_{2}\!\cdot\!{\bf k}_{1}-{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}
(\bbox{\sigma}_{1}\!\cdot\!{\bf k}_{1}
\bbox{\sigma}_{2}\!\cdot\!{\bf k}_{2}
+\bbox{\sigma}_{1}\!\cdot\!{\bf k}_{2}
\bbox{\sigma}_{2}\!\cdot\!{\bf k}_{1}) \biggr]
D^{\rm na}(\omega_{1},\omega_{2}), \label{Vnapisi}\end{aligned}$$ where we substituted the isospin dependence and the coupling constants.
The pseudovector vertex gives rise to $1/M$ terms as shown in Eq. (\[Gam1p\]). Taking into account the different time orderings and discarding the terms antisymmetric under interchange of ${\bf k}_{1}\leftrightarrow{\bf k}_{2}$, we find the following contributions $$\begin{aligned}
V^{\rm pv}[(\pi\pi)_{0}] &=& \frac{g_{(\pi\pi)_{0}}}{m_{\pi}}
\left(\frac{f_{N\!N\pi}}{m_{\pi}}\right)^{2}\frac{3}{M}
\int\!\!\int\!\frac{d^{3}k_{1}d^{3}k_{2}}{(2\pi)^{6}} \,
e^{i({\bf k}_{1}+{\bf k}_{2})\cdot{\bf r}}
F_{\pi}({\bf k}_{1}^{2})F_{\pi}({\bf k}_{2}^{2}) \nonumber\\
& & \times \biggl[ {\bf k}_{1}^{2}+{\bf k}_{2}^{2}-
i(\bbox{\sigma}_{1}+\bbox{\sigma}_{2})\!\cdot\!
({\bf k}_{1}+{\bf k}_{2})\times{\bf q} \biggr] \frac{1}
{\omega_{1}\omega_{2}(\omega_{1}+\omega_{2})}, \label{Vpvpipi0}\\
V^{\rm pv}[(\pi\pi)_{1}] &=& (\bbox{\tau}_{1}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\tau}_{2})
\frac{g_{(\pi\pi)_{1}}}{m_{\pi}^{2}}
\left(\frac{f_{N\!N\pi}}{m_{\pi}}\right)^{2}\frac{1}{M}
\int\!\!\int\!\frac{d^{3}k_{1}d^{3}k_{2}}{(2\pi)^{6}}\,
e^{i({\bf k}_{1}+{\bf k}_{2})\cdot{\bf r}}
F_{\pi}({\bf k}_{1}^{2})F_{\pi}({\bf k}_{2}^{2}) \nonumber\\
&& \times \left[\left(\frac{{\bf k}_{1}^{2}}{\omega_{1}^{2}}+
\frac{{\bf k}_{2}^{2}}{\omega_{2}^{2}}\right)
-i(\bbox{\sigma}_{1}+\bbox{\sigma}_{2})\!\cdot\!\left(
\frac{{\bf k}_{1}}{\omega_{1}^{2}}+
\frac{{\bf k}_{2}}{\omega_{2}^{2}}\right)
\!\times\!{\bf q}\right], \label{Vpvpipi1}\\
V^{\rm pv}[(\pi\sigma)] &=&-(\bbox{\tau}_{1}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\tau}_{2})
\frac{g_{(\pi\sigma)}}{m_{\pi}^{2}}\,
\frac{f_{N\!N\pi}}{m_{\pi}}\, \frac{g_{N\!N\sigma}}{M}
\int\!\!\int\!\frac{d^{3}k_{1}d^{3}k_{2}}{(2\pi)^{6}}\,
e^{i({\bf k}_{1}+{\bf k}_{2})\cdot{\bf r}}
F_{\pi}({\bf k}_{1}^{2})F_{\sigma}({\bf k}_{2}^{2}) \nonumber\\
& & \times \biggl[ \bbox{\sigma}_{1}\!\cdot\!{\bf k}_{2}
\bbox{\sigma}_{2}\!\cdot\!{\bf k}_{2}-{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}
(\bbox{\sigma}_{1}\!\cdot\!{\bf k}_{1}
\bbox{\sigma}_{2}\!\cdot\!{\bf k}_{2}
+\bbox{\sigma}_{1}\!\cdot\!{\bf k}_{2}
\bbox{\sigma}_{2}\!\cdot\!{\bf k}_{1}) \biggr]
\frac{1}{\omega_{1}\omega_{2}(\omega_{1}+\omega_{2})}.
\label{Vpvpisi}\end{aligned}$$
THEORETICAL CONSTRAINTS\
ON PAIR COUPLING CONSTANTS {#sec:chap5}
==========================
In principle, each of the pair-meson potentials contains a free parameter, the pair-meson coupling constant. A possible way to fix the values for the pair-meson coupling constants is to assume that the coupling of a meson pair $(\alpha\beta)$ to a nucleon is dominated by an intermediate boson $H$. We can then relate the pair coupling constant $g_{(\alpha\beta)}$ to the meson-decay and meson-nucleon coupling constants, $g_{H\alpha\beta}$ and $g_{N\!NH}$, respectively. The relevant nucleon-nucleon-meson and meson-decay Lagrangians can then be obtained by extending the linear $\sigma$ model [@Gel60] with vector and axial-vector mesons; see, for example, Refs. [@Gas69; @Lee72; @Ko94].
Meson saturation is graphically presented in Fig. \[pap2fig4\]. Because of the additional meson propagator and the meson-decay vertex, we find the relation $$g_{(\alpha\beta)} \approx -\frac{(-)^{S}}{m_{H}^{2}}
g_{N\!N\!H}g_{H\alpha\beta}, \label{gsatur}$$ with appropriate powers of meson masses, depending on the actual form of the meson-pair and meson-decay Hamiltonians. Here $S$ denotes the spin of the intermediate meson $H$ and we assumed that $m_{H}^{2}$ is much larger than the momentum-transfer squared. However, for the $(\pi\pi)_{1}$ and $(\pi\pi)_{0}$ pairs the decay can proceed via the $\rho$ and $\sigma$ mesons, respectively. These are substantially lighter than 1 GeV, and so we are faced with the difficult task of finding a suitable average momentum squared to approximate $({\bf k}^{2}+m_{H}^{2})$. Another problem is that a specific meson pair might be the decay product of a range of different mesons, and so Eq. (\[gsatur\]) becomes a sum over mesons $H_{i}$, confusing the issue even further. Alternatively, we can also use the linear $\sigma$ model to generate the pair vertices explicitly, which we shall do in the following.
The $\sigma$ model has been discussed extensively in the literature, and here we only briefly outline its contents to define the quantities we need. The model contains an isotriplet of pseudoscalars, $\bbox{\pi}$, and an isosinglet scalar, $\sigma$, grouped into $$\Sigma=\sigma-i\bbox{\tau}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\pi},$$ which transforms under global SU(2)$_{L}$$\times$SU(2)$_{R}$ as $$\Sigma \rightarrow L\Sigma R^{\dagger}.$$ The nucleon wave function $\psi$ has left and right components, $\psi_{L,R}={\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}(1\mp\gamma_{5})\psi$, transforming as $$\psi_{L}\rightarrow L\psi_{L}, \ \ \ \psi_{R}\rightarrow R\psi_{R}.$$ The transformations can be made local by introducing the left and right gauge fields, $$\begin{aligned}
l_{\mu}&\equiv&{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}\bbox{\tau}\!\cdot\!{\bf l}_{\mu}
={\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}\bbox{\tau}\!\cdot\!
(\bbox{\rho}_{\mu}-{\bf a}_{\mu}), \nonumber\\
r_{\mu}&\equiv&{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}\bbox{\tau}\!\cdot\!{\bf r}_{\mu}
={\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}\bbox{\tau}\!\cdot\!
(\bbox{\rho}_{\mu}+{\bf a}_{\mu}),\end{aligned}$$ and their field strength tensors $$l_{\mu\nu}=\partial_{\mu}l_{\nu}-\partial_{\nu}l_{\mu}
+ig_{V}[l_{\mu},l_{\nu}],$$ and similarly for $r_{\mu\nu}$. The vector and axial vector mesons are given a mass by introducing a chiral-symmetry breaking mass term $${\cal L}_{m}={\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}
m_{\rho}^{2}{\rm Tr}(l_{\mu}l^{\mu}+r_{\mu}r^{\mu}).$$ After the introduction of the gauge fields, the chiral symmetry can be restored by defining the following covariant derivatives for the nucleon and $(\sigma,\bbox{\pi})$ fields, $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal D}_{\mu}\psi &=& (\partial_{\mu}+
{\textstyle\frac{i}{2}}g_{V}\bbox{\tau}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\rho}_{\mu}
+{\textstyle\frac{i}{2}}g_{V}\bbox{\tau}\!\cdot\!{\bf a}_{\mu}
\gamma_{5})\psi, \nonumber\\
{\cal D}_{\mu}\Sigma &=& \partial_{\mu}\Sigma
+ig_{V}l_{\mu}\Sigma-ig_{V}\Sigma r_{\mu}.\end{aligned}$$
A possible chiral-invariant Lagrangian is now given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}_{0} &=& \bar{\psi}i\gamma^{\mu}{\cal D}_{\mu}\psi
-g_{1}(\bar{\psi}_{L}\Sigma\psi_{R}
+\bar{\psi}_{R}\Sigma^{\dagger}\psi_{L}) \nonumber\\
&& +g_{2}(\bar{\psi}_{L}\Sigma\Sigma^{\dagger}\Sigma\psi_{R}
+\bar{\psi}_{R}\Sigma^{\dagger}\Sigma\Sigma^{\dagger}\psi_{L})
\nonumber\\
&& +iC(\bar{\psi}_{L}\Sigma\gamma^{\mu}{\cal D}_{\mu}
\Sigma^{\dagger}\psi_{L}
+\bar{\psi}_{R}\Sigma^{\dagger}\gamma^{\mu}{\cal D}_{\mu}
\Sigma\psi_{R}) \nonumber\\
&& -{\textstyle\frac{1}{4}}{\rm Tr}(l_{\mu\nu}l^{\mu\nu}
+r_{\mu\nu}r^{\mu\nu})
+{\textstyle\frac{1}{4}}{\rm Tr}({\cal D}^{\mu}\Sigma^{\dagger}
{\cal D}_{\mu}\Sigma) \nonumber\\
&& -{\textstyle\frac{1}{4}}\mu^{2}{\rm Tr}(\Sigma^{\dagger}\Sigma)
-{\textstyle\frac{1}{8}}\lambda^{2}{\rm Tr}
(\Sigma^{\dagger}\Sigma)^{2}, \label{Lagchiralb}\end{aligned}$$ where $g_{1}$, $g_{2}$, $C$, $\mu$, and $\lambda$ are free parameters.
The symmetry can be spontaneously broken by adding a term linear in the $\sigma$ field, $${\cal L}_{SB}=f_{\pi}m_{\pi}^{2}\sigma,$$ with $f_{\pi}=92.4$ MeV the pion decay constant. Choosing the ground state as $\langle\sigma\rangle=v$, this spontaneous symmetry breaking introduces a mixing between the $\bbox{\pi}$ and ${\bf a}_{\mu}$ fields, which requires a redefinition of the fields, given by $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma &\rightarrow& \sigma+v, \nonumber\\
{\bf a}_{\mu} &\rightarrow& {\bf A}_{\mu}-\frac{g_{V}v}{m_{A}^{2}}
D_{\mu}\bbox{\pi}, \nonumber\\
\bbox{\pi} &\rightarrow& \frac{m_{A}}{m_{\rho}}\bbox{\pi},\end{aligned}$$ where we defined $m_{A}^{2}=m_{\rho}^{2}+(g_{V}v)^{2}$, $v=(m_{A}/m_{\rho})f_{\pi}$, and $D_{\mu}\bbox{\pi}=\partial_{\mu}
\bbox{\pi}+g_{V}\bbox{\pi}\times\bbox{\rho}_{\mu}$. The shift of the $\sigma$ field gives the nucleons a mass $M=(g_{1}-g_{2}v^{2})v$, which imposes a constraint on $g_{1}$ and $g_{2}$.
Comparing the various pieces of the full Lagrangian, ${\cal L}_{0}
+{\cal L}_{m}+{\cal L}_{SB}$, with the interaction Hamiltonians of Sec. \[sec:chap2\], we identify the following relations for the single-meson coupling constants: $$\begin{aligned}
g_{N\!N\sigma} &=& (g_{1}-3g_{2}v^{2})=M/v-2g_{2}v^{2}, \nonumber\\
f_{N\!N\pi} &=& \frac{m_{\pi}}{2f_{\pi}}
\left(2Cv^{2}-\frac{m_{\rho}^{2}}{m_{A}^{2}}\right), \nonumber\\
g_{N\!N\rho} &=& {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}g_{V}, \nonumber\\
g_{N\!NA} &=& \frac{m_{A}}{m_{\pi}}
\frac{\sqrt{m_{A}^{2}-m_{\rho}^{2}}}{m_{\rho}}f_{N\!N\pi}.\end{aligned}$$ The numerical value for $C$ is obtained by imposing the Goldberger-Treiman [@Gol58] relation, $$\frac{f_{N\!N\pi}}{m_{\pi}}=\frac{g_{A}}{2f_{\pi}},$$ with $g_{A}=1.2573$ the weak interaction axial-vector coupling constant. Similarly, the meson-pair coupling constants are found to be $$\begin{aligned}
g_{(\pi\pi)_{0}} &=& -\frac{m_{\pi}}{2f_{\pi}}\left(
\frac{M}{f_{\pi}}-g_{N\!N\sigma}\frac{m_{A}}{m_{\rho}}
\right), \nonumber\\
g_{(\sigma\sigma)} &=& 3g_{(\pi\pi)_{0}}\,
\frac{m_{\rho}^{2}}{m_{A}^{2}}, \nonumber\\
g_{(\pi\pi)_{1}} &=& \frac{m_{\pi}^{2}}{2f_{\pi}^{2}}\,
\frac{m_{\rho}^{2}}{m_{A}^{2}}
\left(g_{A}+\frac{m_{\rho}^{2}}{m_{A}^{2}}\right), \nonumber\\
g_{(\pi\rho)_{1}} &=& \frac{g_{N\!N\rho}}{2f_{\pi}}
(g_{A}+1), \nonumber\\
g_{(\pi\sigma)} &=& \frac{m_{\pi}^{2}}{2f_{\pi}^{2}}\,
\frac{m_{A}^{2}-2m_{\rho}^{2}}{m_{A}m_{\rho}}
\left(g_{A}+\frac{m_{\rho}^{2}}{m_{A}^{2}}\right).\end{aligned}$$
Working-out the various pieces of the Lagrangian we can also find relations for the meson-decay coupling constants. It is then found that the relation (\[gsatur\]) is indeed satisfied, although in some cases the approximation is rather crude, as we already suspected. However, the meson-saturation assumption is still very useful to suggest the obvious relation $$f_{(\pi\pi)_{1}} = g_{(\pi\pi)_{1}}\,(f_{N\!N\rho}/g_{N\!N\rho}).$$
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION {#sec:chap6}
======================
The complete one-pair and two-pair potential can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
V(\alpha\beta)&=&V^{(1)}(\alpha\beta)+V^{(2)}(\alpha\beta)\nonumber\\
&&+V^{\rm na}(\alpha\beta)+V^{\rm pv}(\alpha\beta),\end{aligned}$$ for the pairs $(\alpha\beta)$ discussed in this paper. To present the potentials in graphical form, we employ the meson-nucleon coupling constants and cutoff masses of a preliminary version of the Nijmegen extended soft-core (ESC) potential. The ESC potential is still under construction, but the present values for the coupling constants clearly suffice for illustrative purposes. The meson-nucleon coupling constants and cutoff masses are already listed in Table IV of the previous paper [@Rij95a], while the pair coupling constants are here given in Table \[gpair\]. All pair coupling constants are fixed at their theoretical values as given in Sec. \[sec:chap5\]. This constraint might be a bit too severe, but the values can at least be expected to be reasonable. Furthermore, in this way we can get a feeling about the importance of two-meson exchanges with respect to one-boson exchanges, because we do not introduce any new free parameters.
In Figs. \[pap2fig5\] and \[pap2fig6\], we compare the various types of one-pair and two-pair exchanges for $I=0$ and $I=1$, respectively. They consist of scalar $0^{++}$ exchanges \[$(\pi\pi)_{0}$ and $(\sigma\sigma)$\], vector $1^{--}$ exchange \[$(\pi\pi)_{1}$\], and axial $1^{++}$ exchanges \[$(\pi\rho)_{1}$ and $(\pi\sigma)$\]. The central $I=0$ potential is clearly dominated by the one-pair $(\pi\pi)_{1}$ potential, whereas the scalar and vector two-pair potentials largely cancel each other. For $I=1$, the scalar one-pair and two-pair potentials are the same, whereas the vector potentials change by a factor –3, resulting in a much smaller (but still attractive) central potential. For the spin-spin and tensor potentials the $I=0$ and $I=1$ cases differ by a simple factor of –3, where the two-pair axial tensor component turns out to be completely negligible.
In all cases, the $1/M$ corrections from the nonadiabatic expansion of the energy denominators and from the pseudovector-vertex correction in the pion vertex function have the opposite sign. In the $(\pi\pi)_{0}$ potential the cancelation is even exact. The $1/M$ corrections to the spin-spin and tensor potentials are only due to the $(\pi\sigma)$ potential, whereas the $(\pi\pi)_{0}$ and $(\pi\pi)_{1}$ potentials only contribute to the central and spin-orbit potentials.
In Fig. \[pap2fig7\] we compare the spin-orbit components from the one-pair potentials. They are all due to the $1/M$ nonadiabatic or pseudovector-vertex corrections in the $(\pi\pi)_{0}$ and $(\pi\pi)_{1}$ potentials. The $(\pi\pi)_{1}$ potential also has a spin-orbit potential due to the $1/M$ term in the $(\pi\pi)_{1}$ pair vertex (\[Gam2v\]), as given in Eq. (\[tmep7\]) of Appendix \[app:appC\]. This contribution is exactly the same as the nonadiabatic contribution, which means that in the $(\pi\pi)_{1}$ potential there is an even larger cancelation between the nonadiabatic (long-dashed line) and pseudovector-vertex (dash-dotted line) spin-orbit parts than Fig. \[pap2fig7\] might suggest. Note that in the $(\pi\pi)_{0}$ potential the cancelation between the nonadiabatic (solid line) and pseudovector-vertex (short-dashed line) spin-orbit parts is exact, and so there is no spin-orbit potential from $0^{++}$ pair exchange. Obviously, if we were to take the pseudoscalar coupling, $\bar{\psi}i\gamma_{5}\psi\phi$, for the pion, rather than the pseudovector coupling, $\bar{\psi}\gamma_{5}\gamma_{\mu}\psi
\partial^{\mu}\phi$, these cancelations do not occur, and we are left with the spin-orbit contribution from the nonadiabatic expansion.
Finally, we should mention that in some cases the two-pair diagrams are in principle included in the cases where we use the exchange of broad mesons. This is the case for the two-pair $(\pi\pi)_{0}$ and $(\pi\pi)_{1}$ potentials. Here we use in the Nijmegen work a broad $\varepsilon$ and $\rho$ one-boson-exchange potential. If such a broad meson exchange is included exactly, the two-pair $\pi\pi$ potentials should be omitted. When such broad mesons are included in a two-pole approximation [@Sch71; @Bin71], however, a two-pair contribution might still be useful. Whether these two-pair contributions in that case should be included in full or partially suppressed is presently under investigation.
Let us now return to a comparison of this new ESC potential with the one-boson-exchange Nijm93 potential [@Sto94]. It is important to realize that both models contain essentially the same set of parameters, and so the ESC model is a true extension of the Nijm93 model. Using the linear $\sigma$ model as a means to get a reasonable estimate for the various meson-pair coupling constants, however, the contributions from the two-meson exchange diagrams (the planar and crossed-box diagrams as evaluated in the previous paper [@Rij95a] as well as the one-pair and two-pair diagrams as evaluated in the present paper) are included without the introduction of any new parameters. The 14 free parameters of the ESC model are fitted to the 1993 Nijmegen representation of the $\chi^{2}$ hypersurface of the $N\!N$ scattering data below $T_{\rm lab}=350$ MeV [@Sto93], updated with the inclusion of new data which have been published since then.
The results for the 10 energy bins are given in Table \[tabchi2\], where we compare the results from the updated partial-wave analysis with the Nijm93 and ESC potentials. Clearly, the inclusion of the two-meson exchanges in the ESC model allows for a substantially better description of the $N\!N$ scattering data than what could be achieved with the one-boson-exchange Nijm93 model. At present, the ESC potential is the only meson-theoretical model which can give such a good description of the scattering data (using only a limited set of free parameters). The quality of the ESC potential is even better if we restrict its application to energies below $T_{\rm lab}\approx300$ MeV, giving $\chi^{2}/N_{\rm data}=1.137$ for the 0–290 MeV energy interval. This was to be expected, since the nonadiabatic expansion in principle is only valid below the pion-production threshold.
To summarize, the combined results of the present and the previous [@Rij95a] paper show that it is possible to construct a nucleon-nucleon potential model, based on a chiral-symmetric Lagrangian, that gives a good description of the nucleon-nucleon scattering data. Fine-tuning of the 14 parameters of this extended model allows for a substantially better description of the data than what was possible with the 14-parameter one-boson-exchange Nijm93 model [@Sto94].
We would like to thank Prof. J.J. de Swart, Prof. I.R. Afnan and the other members of the theory groups at Nijmegen and Flinders for their stimulating interest. The work of V.S. was financially supported by the Australian Research Council.
ENERGY INTEGRALS {#app:appA}
================
We discuss here the treatment of the energy integrals that occur in the evaluation of the meson-pair potentials. To prevent displaying all the indices, we introduce the following convenient notations $$\begin{aligned}
&& \omega=\sqrt{{\bf k}^{2}+m^{2}}, \ \ \
\omega'=\sqrt{{\bf k}'^{2}+m'^{2}}, %\ \ \
\nonumber\\ &&
A=E({\bf p})-{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} W, \ \ \
A'=E({\bf p}')-{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} W, \ \ \
A''=E({\bf p}'')-{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} W, \label{Adefpar}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bf p}'-{\bf p}={\bf k}+{\bf k}'$ and ${\bf p}''={\bf p}+{\bf k}$. Note that with this notation, ${\bf k}$ and ${\bf k}'$ correspond to ${\bf k}_{1}$ and ${\bf k}_{2}$, respectively, introduced in the main text.
\(i) [*The one-pair graph.*]{} Here we encounter the integral $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal J}_{1P}({\bf p}',{\bf p}|W) &=& -(2\pi)^{-2}
\left[ W-2E({\bf p}')\right]\left[W-2E({\bf p})\right]
\nonumber\\ && \times
\int\!dp'_{0}\int\!dp_{0}\int\!dk'_{0}\int\!dk_{0}\
\delta^{4}(p'-p-k-k') \nonumber\\
&& \times [k^{\prime 2}-m^{\prime 2}+i\delta]^{-1}\,
\left[F^{(a)}_{W}({\bf p}',p'_{0})^{-1}\
F^{(b)}_{W}(-{\bf p}',-p'_{0})\right]^{-1} \nonumber\\
&& \times \left[F^{(b)}_{W}(-{\bf p}-{\bf k},
-p_{0}-k_{0})\right]^{-1} \nonumber\\
&& \times [k^{2}-m^{2}+i\delta]^{-1}\,
\left[F^{(a)}_{W}({\bf p},p_{0})\
F^{(b)}_{W}(-{\bf p},-p_{0})\right]^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Similar integrals were treated in [@Rij91], to which we refer for the method of evaluation. We first bring the integral into the form $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal J}_{1P} = (2\pi)^{-4} [4A'A]\ &&
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\!\!d\alpha
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\!\!d\beta
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\!\!dp'_{0}
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\!\!dp_{0}
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\!\!dk'_{0}
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\!\!dk_{0}
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\!\!dp''_{0}\
\nonumber\\ && \times
e^{i\alpha(p'_{0}-k'_{0}-p''_{0})}
e^{i\beta(p''_{0}-p_{0}-k_{0})} \nonumber\\
&& \times [\omega'^{2}-k_{0}^{\prime 2}-i\delta]^{-1}
[\omega^{2}-k_{0}^{2}-i\delta]^{-1}
\nonumber\\ && \times
[A^{\prime2}-p_{0}^{\prime2}-i\delta]^{-1}
[A''+p_{0}^{\prime\prime}-i\delta]^{-1}
[A^{2}-p_{0}^{2}-i\delta]^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ The energy-variable integrations can be performed in a straight forward manner using the residue theorem, e.g. $$\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\!dk_{0}\ \frac{e^{i\beta k_{0}}}
{\omega^{2}-k_{0}^{2}-i\delta} = \frac{2\pi i}{2\omega}
e^{\mp i\beta\omega},$$ where in the exponential the (–)-sign and the (+)-sign apply to $\beta>0$ and $\beta<0$, respectively. Also, $$\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\!dp''_{0}\ \frac{e^{i\beta p''_{0}}}
{A''+p''_{0}-i\delta} = \left\{ \begin{array}{lcl}
2\pi i\ e^{-i\beta A''} & , & \beta > 0 \\
0 & , & \beta< 0 \end{array} \right. .$$ Keeping track of the signs in the exponentials, the intermediate result is $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal J}_{1P} = (2\pi)^{-4} (2\pi i)^{5}
\left[4 \omega \omega'\right]^{-1}\, &&
\left\{ \int_{0}^{\infty}\!\!d\alpha\int_{\alpha}^{\infty}\!\!d\beta\
e^{-i\alpha(\omega'+A'- A'')}
e^{-i\beta(\omega+A+A'')} \right. \nonumber\\
&& + \int_{-\infty}^{0}\!\!d\alpha \int_{0}^{\infty}\!\!d\beta\
e^{+i\alpha(\omega'+A'+A'')}
e^{-i\beta(\omega+A+A'')} \nonumber\\
&& \left. + \int_{-\infty}^{0}\!\!d\alpha\int_{\alpha}^{0}\!\!d\beta\
e^{+i\alpha(\omega'+A'+A'')}
e^{+i\beta(\omega+A-A'')} \right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Performing the remaining elementary integrals, we end up with $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal J}_{1P} = -\frac{2\pi i}{4\omega\omega'}&&
\left\{\frac{1}{A'+A''+\omega'}\,\frac{1}{A+A'+\omega+\omega'}\
\right.\nonumber\\ && \left.
+\ \frac{1}{A'+A''+\omega'}\,\frac{1}{A+A''+\omega}\
+\ \frac{1}{A+A''+\omega}\,\frac{1}{A+A'+\omega+\omega'} \right\}.
\nonumber\\
& & \label{I1bpair}\end{aligned}$$ The terms in the curly brackets correspond to the different time-ordered graphs (a), (b), and (c) of Fig. \[pap2fig3\].
\(ii) [*The two-pair graph.*]{} Here the integral to be performed is $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal J}_{2P}({\bf p}',{\bf p}|W) &=& -(2\pi)^{-2}
\left[ W-2E({\bf p}')\right]\left[W-2E({\bf p})\right]
\nonumber\\ && \times
\int\!dp'_{0}\int\!dp_{0}\int\!dk'_{0}\int\!dk_{0}\
\delta^{4}(p'-p-k-k') \nonumber\\
&& \times [k^{\prime 2}-m^{\prime 2}+i\delta]^{-1}\,
\left[F^{(a)}_{W}({\bf p}',p'_{0})^{-1}\
F^{(b)}_{W}(-{\bf p}',-p'_{0})\right]^{-1} \nonumber\\
&& \times [k^{2}-m^{2}+i\delta]^{-1}\,
\left[F^{(a)}_{W}({\bf p},p_{0})\
F^{(b)}_{W}(-{\bf p},-p_{0})\right]^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ This integral can be brought into the form $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal J}_{2P} = -(2\pi)^{-3} [4A'A] &&
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\!\!d\alpha
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\!\!dp'_{0}
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\!\!dp_{0}
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\!\!dk'_{0}
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\!\!dk_{0}\
e^{i\alpha(p'_{0}-p_{0}-k_{0}-k'_{0})} \nonumber\\
&& \times [\omega'^{2}-k_{0}^{\prime 2}-i\delta]^{-1}
[\omega^{2}-k_{0}^{2}-i\delta]^{-1}
\nonumber\\ && \times
[A^{\prime2}-p_{0}^{\prime2}-i\delta]^{-1}
[A^{2}-p_{0}^{2}-i\delta]^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ The evaluation of the energy-variable integrals gives in this case $${\cal J}_{2P} = -(2\pi)^{-3} (2\pi i)^{4}
\left[4 \omega \omega' \right]^{-1}\, \left\{
\int_{0}^{\infty}\!d\alpha\ e^{-i\alpha(\omega+\omega'+A+A')}
+ \int_{-\infty}^{0}\!d\alpha\ e^{+i\alpha(\omega+\omega'+A+A')}
\right\}.$$ The two terms correspond to the time-ordered graph (d) of Fig. \[pap2fig3\] and its “mirror” graph. Carrying out the final $\alpha$ integrations leads to the final expression $${\cal J}_{2P} = \frac{2\pi i}{4\omega\omega'}\,
\frac{2}{A+A'+\omega+\omega'}. \label{I2pair}$$
ISOSPIN FACTORS {#app:appB}
===============
In this Appendix we review the calculation of the isospin factors. The isospin factor comes from the evaluation of all possible contractions for the vacuum matrix element of the product of the meson fields coming from the contractions of the interaction Hamiltonians at the different vertices. For the one-pair diagrams we label the $N\!Nm_{1}m_{2}$ vertex with (1), the meson vertex on the other nucleon line with (2), and the pion vertex with (3). The pion is propagating with momentum ${\bf k}_{1}$ and the other meson with momentum ${\bf k}_{2}$. The isospin factors are then found to be $$\begin{aligned}
(\pi\pi)_{0} &:\ & \langle0| \bbox{\pi}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\pi}(1)
\bbox{\tau}_{2}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\pi}(2)
\bbox{\tau}_{2}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\pi}(3) |0\rangle =
(\delta_{im}\delta_{in}+\delta_{in}\delta_{im})
\tau_{2m}\tau_{2n} = 6, \\
(\sigma\sigma)&:\ & \langle0|\sigma\sigma(1)\sigma(2)\sigma(3)
|0\rangle = (12,13+13,12)_{\rm contractions} = 2, \\
(\pi\pi)_{1} &:\ & \langle0| \bbox{\tau}_{1}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\pi}
\times\partial^{\mu}\bbox{\pi}(1)
\bbox{\tau}_{2}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\pi}(2)
\bbox{\tau}_{2}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\pi}(3)
|0\rangle = \varepsilon_{ijk}\tau_{1k}\tau_{2m}\tau_{2n}
\langle0| \pi_{i}(1)\partial^{\mu}\pi_{j}(1)\pi_{m}(2)\pi_{n}(3)
|0\rangle \\
&& \hspace*{5.6cm} = \varepsilon_{ijk}\tau_{1k}\tau_{2m}\tau_{2n}
[\delta_{im}\delta_{jn}\partial^{\mu}(3)+\delta_{in}\delta_{jm}
\partial^{\mu}(2)] \\
&& \hspace*{5.6cm} = 2i\bbox{\tau}_{1}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\tau}_{2}
(\partial_{1}^{\mu}-\partial_{2}^{\mu}),\\
(\pi\rho)_{1} &:\ & \langle0| \bbox{\tau}_{1}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\pi}
\times\bbox{\rho}(1) \bbox{\tau}_{2}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\rho}(2)
\bbox{\tau}_{2}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\pi}(3)
|0\rangle = \varepsilon_{ijk}\tau_{1k}\tau_{2m}\tau_{2n}
\delta_{in}\delta_{jm}=-2i\bbox{\tau}_{1}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\tau}_{2},\\
(\pi\sigma) &:\ & \langle0|
\bbox{\tau}_{1}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\pi}(1)
\sigma(1)\sigma(2)\bbox{\tau}_{2}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\pi}(3)
|0\rangle = \tau_{1i}\delta_{im}\tau_{2m} =
\bbox{\tau}_{1}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\tau}_{2}.\end{aligned}$$ For the two-pair diagrams, we label the $N\!Nm_{1}m_{2}$ vertices on each nucleon line by (1) and (2), respectively. We then find $$\begin{aligned}
(\pi\pi)_{0} &:\ & \langle0| \bbox{\pi}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\pi}(1)
\bbox{\pi}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\pi}(2) |0\rangle =
(\delta_{im}\delta_{im}+\delta_{im}\delta_{im}) = 6, \\
(\sigma\sigma)&:\ & \langle0| \sigma\sigma(1)\sigma\sigma(2)
|0\rangle = 2, \\
(\pi\pi)_{1} &:\ & \langle0| \bbox{\tau}_{1}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\pi}
\times\partial^{\mu}\bbox{\pi}(1)
\bbox{\tau}_{2}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\pi}
\times\partial^{\nu}\bbox{\pi}(2) |0\rangle =
\varepsilon_{ijk}\varepsilon_{mnl}\tau_{1k}\tau_{2l}
\langle0| \pi_{i}(1)\partial^{\mu}\pi_{j}(1)\pi_{m}(2)
\partial^{\nu}\pi_{n}(2) |0\rangle \\
&& \hspace*{5.5cm} = 2\bbox{\tau}_{1}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\tau}_{2}
(\partial_{2}^{\mu}\partial_{2}^{\nu}-
\partial_{1}^{\mu}\partial_{2}^{\nu}) \\
&& \hspace*{5.5cm} = \bbox{\tau}_{1}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\tau}_{2}
(\partial_{1}^{\mu}-\partial_{2}^{\mu})
(\partial_{1}^{\nu}-\partial_{2}^{\nu}), \\
(\pi\rho)_{1} &:\ & \langle0| \bbox{\tau}_{1}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\pi}
\times\bbox{\rho}(1) \bbox{\tau}_{2}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\pi}
\times\bbox{\rho}(2) |0\rangle =
\varepsilon_{ijk}\varepsilon_{mnl}\tau_{1k}\tau_{2l}\delta_{im}
\delta_{jn} = 2\bbox{\tau}_{1}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\tau}_{2}, \\
(\pi\sigma) &:\ & \langle0| \bbox{\tau}_{1}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\pi}(1)
\sigma(1)\bbox{\tau}_{2}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\pi}(2)\sigma(2)
|0\rangle = \tau_{1i}\delta_{im}\tau_{2m} =
\bbox{\tau}_{1}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\tau}_{2}.\end{aligned}$$ We should point out that for the $(\pi\pi)_{1}$ vertices the isospin factors are defined to be $2i\bbox{\tau}_{1}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\tau}_{2}$ and $\bbox{\tau}_{1}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\tau}_{2}$ for the one-pair and two-pair potentials, respectively, because the $\partial^{\mu}_{i}$ dependence, i.e., the ${\bf k}_{i}$ dependence, is already included in the operators $O^{(n)}_{\alpha\beta,p}$ given in Tables \[O1pair\] and \[O2pair\].
COORDINATE-SPACE POTENTIALS {#app:appC}
===========================
The explicit formulas for the soft-core meson-pair potentials are given below.
\(i) Scalar $\pi\otimes\pi\ (I=0)$ pairs: $$\begin{aligned}
V^{(1)}_{\rm pair}(r) &=& 6 \frac{g_{(\pi\pi)_{0}}}{m_{\pi}}
\frac{f_{N\!N\pi}^{2}}{m_{\pi}^{2}}
\left[I'_{2,\pi}(r)\right]^{2}, \label{tmep1}\\
V^{(2)}_{\rm pair}(r) &=& -3 \frac{g_{(\pi\pi)_{0}}^{2}}{m_{\pi}^{2}}
\frac{2}{\pi} \int_{0}^{\infty}\!d\lambda
\left[F_{\pi}(\lambda,r)\right]^{2}. \label{tmep2}\end{aligned}$$
\(ii) Scalar $\sigma\otimes\sigma$ pairs: $$\begin{aligned}
V^{(1)}_{\rm pair}(r) &=& 2\frac{g_{(\sigma\sigma)}}{m_{\pi}}
g_{N\!N\sigma}^{2} \left[I_{2,\sigma}(r)\right]^{2},
\label{tmep3}\\
V^{(2)}_{\rm pair}(r) &=& -\frac{g_{(\sigma\sigma)}^{2}}{m_{\pi}^{2}}
\frac{2}{\pi} \int_{0}^{\infty}\!d\lambda
\left[F_{\sigma}(\lambda,r)\right]^{2}. \label{tmep4}\end{aligned}$$
\(iii) Vector $\pi\otimes\pi\ (I=1)$ pairs: $$\begin{aligned}
V^{(1)}_{\rm pair}(r) &=& 4
\left(\bbox{\tau}_{1}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\tau}_{2}\right)
\frac{g_{(\pi\pi)_{1}}}{m_{\pi}^{2}}
\frac{f_{N\!N\pi}^{2}}{m_{\pi}^{2}}
\Biggl\{ \frac{2}{\pi}\int_{0}^{\infty}\!d\lambda
\left[F'_{\pi}(\lambda,r)\right]^{2} - \frac{1}{M}
\frac{1}{r^{2}}[I'_{2,\pi}(r)]^{2}\,{\bf L}\!\cdot\!{\bf S} \nonumber\\
&& - \frac{1+\kappa_{1}}{3M} \left[
\frac{1}{r}I'_{2,\pi}\left(\frac{1}{r}I'_{2,\pi}
+2I''_{2,\pi}\right)(r)
\left(\bbox{\sigma}_{1}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\sigma}_{2}\right)
+\frac{1}{r}I'_{2,\pi}
\left(\frac{1}{r}I'_{2,\pi}-I''_{2,\pi}\right)(r)\
S_{12} \right] \Biggr\}, \label{tmep7}\\
V^{(2)}_{\rm pair}(r) &=& -
\left(\bbox{\tau}_{1}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\tau}_{2}\right)
\frac{g_{(\pi\pi)_{1}}^{2}}{m_{\pi}^{4}}
\frac{2}{\pi} \int_{0}^{\infty}\!d\lambda\ F_{\pi}(\lambda,r)
\biggl[ \frac{\Lambda_{\pi}^{3}}{8\pi\sqrt{\pi}}\
e^{-\frac{1}{4}\Lambda_{\pi}^{2}r^{2}}-2\lambda^{2}F_{\pi}
(\lambda,r)\biggr]. \label{tmep8}\end{aligned}$$
\(iv) Axial $\pi\otimes\rho\ (I=1)$ pairs: $$\begin{aligned}
V^{(1)}_{\rm pair}(r) &=& -{\textstyle\frac{2}{3}}
\left(\bbox{\tau}_{1}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\tau}_{2}\right)
\frac{g_{(\pi\rho)_{1}}}{m_{\pi}}
\frac{f_{N\!N\pi}}{m_{\pi}} \frac{g_{N\!N\rho}}{M_{N}}
\Biggl\{ \left(1+\kappa_{\rho}\right) I'_{2,\pi}I'_{2,\rho}(r)
\left[S_{12} - 2(\bbox{\sigma}_{1}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\sigma}_{2})\right]
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace*{2.0cm} +\left(I''_{2,\pi}+\frac{2}{r} I'_{2,\pi}\right)
I_{2,\rho}(r)\left(\bbox{\sigma}_{1}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\sigma}_{2}\right)
+ \left(I''_{2,\pi}-\frac{1}{r} I'_{2,\pi}\right)I_{2,\rho}(r)\
S_{12} \Biggr\}, \label{tmep9}\\
V^{(2)}_{\rm pair}(r) &=& -(\bbox{\tau}_{1}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\tau}_{2})
(\bbox{\sigma}_{1}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\sigma}_{2})
\frac{g_{(\pi\rho)_{1}}^{2}}{m_{\pi}^{2}}
\frac{2}{\pi}\int_{0}^{\infty}\!d\lambda\ F_{\pi}F_{\rho}(\lambda,r).
\label{tmep10}\end{aligned}$$
\(v) Pseudovector $\pi\otimes\sigma$ pairs: $$\begin{aligned}
V^{(1)}_{\rm pair}(r) &=& {\textstyle\frac{2}{3}}
\left(\bbox{\tau}_{1}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\tau}_{2}\right) g_{N\!N\sigma}
\frac{g_{(\pi\sigma)}}{m_{\pi}^{2}} \frac{f_{N\!N\pi}}{m_{\pi}}
\Biggl\{ \left[ \left(I''_{2,\pi}+\frac{2}{r}I'_{2,\pi}
\right) I_{2,\sigma} - I'_{2,\pi} I'_{2,\sigma} \right](r)
\left(\bbox{\sigma}_{1}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\sigma}_{2}\right) \nonumber\\
&& \hspace*{3.0cm}+ \left[ \left(I''_{2,\pi}-\frac{1}{r} I'_{2,\pi}\right)
I_{2,\sigma} - I'_{2,\pi} I'_{2,\sigma} \right](r)\
S_{12} \Biggr\}, \label{tmep11}\\
V^{(2)}_{\rm pair}(r) &=& {\textstyle\frac{1}{6}}
\left(\bbox{\tau}_{1}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\tau}_{2}\right)
\frac{g_{(\pi\sigma)}^{2}}{m_{\pi}^{4}}
\frac{2}{\pi}\int_{0}^{\infty}\!d\lambda \Biggl\{ \left[
\left(F''_{\pi}+\frac{2}{r} F'_{\pi}\right) F_{\sigma} +
\left(F''_{\sigma}+\frac{2}{r} F'_{\sigma}\right) F_{\pi}
-2 F'_{\pi} F'_{\sigma} \right](\lambda,r)
\left(\bbox{\sigma}_{1}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\sigma}_{2}\right) \nonumber\\
&& \hspace*{2.8cm} +\left[ \left(F''_{\pi}-\frac{1}{r} F'_{\pi}\right)
F_{\sigma} + \left(F''_{\sigma}-\frac{1}{r} F'_{\sigma}\right) F_{\pi}
-2F'_{\pi}F'_{\sigma}\right](\lambda,r)\ S_{12}\Biggr\}.\label{tmep12}\end{aligned}$$
Th.A. Rijken and V.G.J. Stoks, Phys. Rev. C [**XX**]{}, xxx (1996), the preceding paper. M.M. Nagels, Th.A. Rijken, and J.J. de Swart, Phys. Rev. D [**17**]{}, 768 (1978). R. Dolen, D. Horn, and C. Schmid, Phys. Rev. [**166**]{}, 1768 (1968); H. Harari, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**20**]{}, 1395 (1968); F.J. Gilman, H. Harari, and Y. Zarmi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**21**]{}, 323 (1968). J.J. de Swart, Th.A. Rijken, P.M. Maessen, and R.G. Timmermans, Nuovo Cim. [**102A**]{}, 203 (1989). S. Weinberg, Phys. Lett. B [**251**]{}, 288 (1990); Nucl. Phys. [**B363**]{}, 3 (1991); C. Ordóñez and U. van Kolck, Phys. Lett. B [**291**]{}, 459 (1992). J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. [**167**]{}, 1432 (1968). S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. [**166**]{}, 1568 (1968); [*ibid.*]{} [**177**]{}, 2604 (1969). Although the existence of the scalar nonet is still controversial, there appears to be evidence for a scalar–isoscalar resonant state $0^{++}(750)$; see M. Svec, A. de Lesquen, and L. van Rossum, Phys. Rev. D [**46**]{}, 949 (1992) and M. Svec, Phys. Rev. D [**53**]{}, 2343 (1996). J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. D [**3**]{}, 1967 (1971). J. Binstock and R.A. Bryan, Phys. Rev. D [**4**]{}, 1341 (1971). J.J. de Swart and M. M. Nagels, Fortschr. d. Physik [**28**]{}, 215 (1978). A. Manohar and H. Georgi, Nucl. Phys. [**B234**]{}, 189 (1984); S. Weinberg, Physica (Amsterdam) [**96A**]{}, 327 (1979). E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. [**B160**]{}, 57 (1979). M. Gell-Mann and M. Lévy, Nuovo Cim. [**16**]{}, 705 (1960). V.G.J. Stoks, R.A.M. Klomp, C.P.F. Terheggen, and J.J. de Swart, Phys. Rev. C [**49**]{}, 2950 (1994). Th.A. Rijken, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) [**208**]{}, 253 (1991). S. Gasiorowicz and D.A. Geffen, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**41**]{}, 531 (1969). B.W. Lee, [*Chiral Dynamics*]{}, Gordon and Breach, 1972. P. Ko and S. Rudaz, Phys. Rev. D [**50**]{}, 6877 (1994). M.L. Goldberger and S.B. Treiman, Phys. Rev. [**110**]{}, 1178 (1958). V.G.J. Stoks, R.A.M. Klomp, M.C.M. Rentmeester, and J.J. de Swart, Phys. Rev. C [**48**]{}, 792 (1993).
---------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
$(\alpha\beta)$ $C^{(1)}(\alpha\beta)$ $O_{\alpha\beta,p}^{(1)}({\bf k}_{1},\omega_{1};{\bf k}_{2},\omega_{2})$
$(\pi\pi)_{0}$ $6$ $-{\bf k}_{1}\!\cdot{\bf k}_{2}
+{\textstyle\frac{i}{2}}(\bbox{\sigma}_{1}+\bbox{\sigma}_{2})
\!\cdot\!({\bf k}_{1}\times{\bf k}_{2}) $
\[0.2cm\] $(\sigma\sigma)$ $2$ $1$
\[0.2cm\] $(\pi\pi)_{1}$ $2i\bbox{\tau}_{1}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\tau}_{2}$ $i\left[{\bf k}_{1}\!\cdot\!{\bf k}_{2}
-{\textstyle\frac{i}{2}}(\bbox{\sigma}_{1}+\bbox{\sigma}_{2})
\!\cdot\!({\bf k}_{1}\times{\bf k}_{2})\right]
\left(\omega_{1}-\omega_{2};\ -\omega_{1}-\omega_{2};\
-\omega_{1}+\omega_{2}\right) $
\[0.2cm\] $ \hspace{2ex} + {\displaystyle\frac{i}{M}} \left[ (1+\kappa_{1})
\bbox{\sigma}_{1}\!\cdot\!({\bf k}_{1}\times{\bf k}_{2})
\bbox{\sigma}_{2}\!\cdot\!({\bf k}_{1}\times{\bf k}_{2})
+{\textstyle\frac{i}{2}}(\bbox{\sigma}_{1}+\bbox{\sigma}_{2})
\!\cdot\!({\bf k}_{1}\times{\bf k}_{2})\,{\bf q}\!\cdot\!
({\bf k}_{1}-{\bf k}_{2})\right]$
\[0.2cm\] $(\pi\rho)_{1}$ $-2i\bbox{\tau}_{1}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\tau}_{2}$ ${\displaystyle\frac{i}{M}}
\left[\bbox{\sigma}_{1}\!\cdot\!{\bf k}_{1}
\bbox{\sigma}_{2}\!\cdot\!{\bf k}_{1}
+{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}(1+\kappa_{\rho})
(\bbox{\sigma}_{1}\!\cdot\!{\bf k}_{1}
\bbox{\sigma}_{2}\!\cdot\!{\bf k}_{2} +
\bbox{\sigma}_{1}\!\cdot\!{\bf k}_{2}
\bbox{\sigma}_{2}\!\cdot\!{\bf k}_{1} -
2\bbox{\sigma}_{1}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\sigma}_{2}
{\bf k}_{1}\!\cdot\!{\bf k}_{2}) \right]$
\[0.2cm\] $(\pi\sigma)$ $\bbox{\tau}_{1}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\tau}_{2}$ $\left[\bbox{\sigma}_{1}\!\cdot\!{\bf k}_{1}
\bbox{\sigma}_{2}\!\cdot\!{\bf k}_{2} +
\bbox{\sigma}_{1}\!\cdot\!{\bf k}_{2}
\bbox{\sigma}_{2}\!\cdot\!{\bf k}_{1} -
2\bbox{\sigma}_{1}\!\cdot\!{\bf k}_{1}
\bbox{\sigma}_{2}\!\cdot\!{\bf k}_{1} \right] $
---------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
: The one-pair isospin factors $C^{(1)}(\alpha\beta)$ and momentum operators $O^{(1)}_{\alpha\beta,p}({\bf k}_{1},\omega_{1};
{\bf k}_{2},\omega_{2})$. The index $p$ labels the three time-ordered contributions of Fig. \[pap2fig3\] and is only of relevance for the $(\pi\pi)_{1}$ entry, where they are shown as a row vector. Note that $\kappa_{1}=(f/g)_{(\pi\pi)_{1}}$.
\[O1pair\]
---------------------------- -------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
$(\alpha\beta)$ $C^{(2)}(\alpha\beta)$ $O_{\alpha\beta,p}^{(2)}({\bf k}_{1},\omega_{1};{\bf k}_{2},\omega_{2})$
$(\pi\pi)_{0}$ $6$ $1$
\[0.2cm\] $(\sigma\sigma)$ $2$ $1$
\[0.2cm\] $(\pi\pi)_{1}$ $\bbox{\tau}_{1}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\tau}_{2}$ $(\omega_{1}-\omega_{2})^{2}$
\[0.2cm\] $(\pi\rho)_{1}$ $2\bbox{\tau}_{1}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\tau}_{2}$ $\bbox{\sigma}_{1}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\sigma}_{2}$
\[0.2cm\] $(\pi\sigma)$ $\bbox{\tau}_{1}\!\cdot\!\bbox{\tau}_{2}$ $\bbox{\sigma}_{1}\!\cdot\!({\bf k}_{1}-{\bf k}_{2})
\bbox{\sigma}_{2}\!\cdot\!({\bf k}_{1}-{\bf k}_{2})$
---------------------------- -------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
: The two-pair isospin factors $C^{(2)}(\alpha\beta)$ and momentum operators $O^{(2)}_{\alpha\beta,p}({\bf k}_{1},\omega_{1};
{\bf k}_{2},\omega_{2})$. The index $p$ labels the two time-ordered contributions of Fig. \[pap2fig3\] but is of no relevance in the final result.
\[O2pair\]
[cldd]{} $J^{PC}$ & $(\alpha\beta)$ & $g/4\pi$ & $f/4\pi$\
$0^{++}$ & $(\pi\pi)_{0}$ &–0.412 &\
$0^{++}$ & $(\sigma\sigma)$ &–0.482 &\
$1^{--}$ & $(\pi\pi)_{1}$ & 0.058 & 0.216\
$1^{++}$ & $(\pi\rho)_{1}$ & 0.598 &\
$1^{++}$ & $(\pi\sigma)$ & 0.053 &
\[gpair\]
----- ---------------- ------------ ------------------------- ------------ ------------------------- ------------ ------------------------- ------
$N_{\rm data}$ $\chi^{2}$ $\chi^{2}_{\rm p.d.p.}$ $\chi^{2}$ $\chi^{2}_{\rm p.d.p.}$ $\chi^{2}$ $\chi^{2}_{\rm p.d.p.}$
0.0 0.5 145 144.45 0.996 146.15 1.008 185.78 1.28
0.5 2 68 42.97 0.632 47.38 0.697 55.06 0.81
2 8 110 106.28 0.966 115.19 1.047 128.92 1.17
8 17 296 276.31 0.933 326.31 1.102 368.20 1.24
17 35 359 279.54 0.829 332.10 0.925 393.92 1.10
35 75 585 567.18 0.970 697.19 1.192 1337.28 2.29
75 125 399 409.58 1.027 421.89 1.057 480.96 1.20
125 183 760 820.69 1.080 936.53 1.232 1443.10 1.90
183 290 1047 1035.48 0.989 1261.50 1.205 1995.71 1.91
290 350 992 997.02 1.005 1706.75 1.721 2866.39 2.89
0 350 4761 4697.50 0.987 5990.99 1.258 9255.32 1.94
----- ---------------- ------------ ------------------------- ------------ ------------------------- ------------ ------------------------- ------
: $\chi^{2}$ and $\chi^{2}$ per datum ($\chi^{2}_{\rm p.d.p.}$) at the 10 energy bins for the updated partial-wave analysis (PWA) and the ESC and Nijm93 potential models. $N_{\rm data}$ lists the number of data within each energy bin. The bottom line gives the results for the total 0–350 MeV interval.
\[tabchi2\]
[^1]: Present address: TRIUMF, 4004 Wesbrook Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 2A3
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
The effective photon hypothesis of Panarella and Raychaudhuri shows that the self focusing of photon in the laser beam is inherent and it also shows that the the cause of phenomena of self focusing of intense laser radiation in solids is not actually the nonlinear intensity dependent refractive index. In the effective photon hypothesis the laser photon have much better chance than ordinary photon to undergo a phase transition to a superfluid state.\
If a super fluid photon in the laser beam can be realized then in the effective photon hypothesis gives interesting results. The effective photon hypothesis shows that if the average energy X-ray laser beams is $h\nu=10^{3}$ $eV \sim 10^{4}$ $eV$, we find that mass of the quasiparticles in the X-ray laser beams is in the range $10^{5}$ $eV \sim 10^{12}$ $eV$. Thus the mass of the quasipartcle in the X-ray laser beams can be $Z$-boson of the electroweak theory of weak interactions. It is possible that $W^{+}$ and $W^{-}$ can be originated from another vector boson whose mass is more than 200 $GeV$.
author:
- |
[**Probhas Raychaudhuri**]{}[^1]\
Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Calcutta,\
92 A.P.C. Road, Kolkata-700 009, INDIA
title: 'EFFECTIVE PHOTON HYPOTHESIS, SELF FOCUSING OF LASER BEAMS AND SUPER FLUID '
---
.3in
Introduction
============
The celebrated formula of physics $E=h\nu$ is independent of the light intensity and this formula was verified in the low light intensity experiment before the optical laser invented. Now a days it is a routine affair to get photon intensity as high as $10^{30}$ to $10^{33}$ $cm^{-2}sec{-1}$. These corresponds to photon number densities $N\sim 3\times
10^{19}$ to $3\times 10^{22} cm^{-3}$, which are about $10^{7}$ to $10^{10}$ times higher than the ordinary light phenomena. A new phenomenon appears when the laser beams interact with metals or gases, such as ionization of gases, photoemission from metal surfaces and supercontinuum generation in gases. The phenomena are not expected, because the photon energy of the laser beams used is at least an order of magnitude lower than the ionization potential of the gases or the work function of the materials irradiated. The difficulties faced by the classical theories in an attempt to explain the above characteristic phenomena. Multiphoton processes are generally described within the context of the lower order perturbation theory. If we think multiphoton theory is the correct answer to explain the above-mentioned characteristics then why multiphoton theory cannot applicable to lower intensity photon. Moreover, multiphoton theory predicts that the photoelectric current i is a function of light intensity $I$, namely, $i\propto I^{n}$, where $n$ is the integral part of $(W/h\nu)+1$, $W$ being the work function of the irradiated material. The experimental results, shows the electron emission from a metal to be directly proportional to light intensity rather than being the $n$th power the light intensity. On the otherhand, the power threshold observed for multiphoton processes is a natural consequence of the intensity dependence of the effective photon energy. Again, since the electron emission is a single photon process, the electron current must be linear with intensity according to effective photon hypothesis, which is in agreement with experimental results.\
Panarella (1972, 1974,1986) has shown from elementary analysis that a photon cannot approach another one closer than characteristic distance $\lambda$, which can be assumed to be the equivalent of the wave length $\lambda$ in the classical theory of light. This implies that a photon occupies a volume of space equal to or greater than $\sim
\lambda^{3}$. In terms of photon number density N, photon flux F , and the intensity I , the maximum allowed values for $\lambda=5\times 10^{-5}$ $cm$, we therefore have $N=1.62\times
10^{13} cm^{-3},$ $F= Nc =4.56\times 10^{23}$ $cm^{-2} sec^{-1}$ and $I =1.81\times 10^{5}$ $W/cm^{2}$. It is well known that at the focus of high intensity laser beams, these values are exceeded if we take the fundamental value that two photon photons cannot come any closer than l unless a specific mechanism allow this to occur (perhaps a photon-photon inelastic scattering or basic neutrino-antineutrino interaction), then this implies that the photons, in the course of focusing, have their wave length reduced or frequency raised thus giving energy at the expense of energy from surrounding photons. This hypothesis seems to have already retained experimental confirmation. In fact, some experiments of ionization of gases by focused laser beams to indicate a photon energy increase at the experimental light intensity and never less than this intensity. The gases, in fact, begin to be ionized at this intensity, although their ionization potential is well above the original energy of the photon when emitted by the laser source. Hence the photon seems to have gained energy in the course of focusing. The cause of phenomena of self-focusing of intense laser radiation in solids the nonlinear intensity dependent refractive index $n=n_{1}+n_{2}\overline{E}^{2}$, where $n_{1}$ is the normal refractive index and $\overline{E}^{2}$ the time averaged of the effective field of the laser beam radiation. The coefficient of $n_{2}$ determine the magnitude of the nonlinear behaviour of refractive index, self focusing happens provided that the laser power exceeds a critical value $P_{c}$ which is in CGS units $\omega^{2})$, for $n_{2}=10^{-11}$ in CGS unit, $\lambda=10^{-4}$ cm, $\omega=2\times 10^{15}$ $sec-1$, $P_{c}=2\times 10^{4}$ watt which is equivalent to $I_{c}\sim
10^{12}$ $W/cm^{2}$. It is suggested that if $I > I_{c}$ the beam begins to undergo self focusing. The critical temperature below which this is going to happen is a function of temperature dependence of $n_{2}$. Most likely $n_{2}$ is a decreasing function of temperature and vanish for certain temperature where the critical bond is broken. The temperature is playing the role of a critical temperature and is therefore of the order of $10^{3}$ K. The nonlinear optical property results in self focusing can be interpreted as an attractive force acting between the photons. If the photon gas is dense enough it can undergo Bose-Einstein condensation and if the attractive force is strong enough, it is conceivable that it becomes superfluid, by undergoing a second order transition.\
In this paper we will show here that the cause of phenomena of self-focusing of intense laser radiation in solids is not actually the nonlinear intensity dependent refractive index $n=n_{1}+n_{2}\overline{E}^{2}$, where $n_{1}$ is the normal refractive index and $\overline{E_{2}}$ the time averaged of the effective field of the laser beam radiation. The coefficient of $n_{2}$ determine the magnitude of the nonlinear behaviour of refractive index , self focusing happens provided that the laser power exceeds a critical value $P_{c}$ which is in CGS units $P_{c}\approx (c^{3}/4n_{2}\omega^{2})$, for $n_{2}=10^{-11}$ in CGS unit, $\lambda=10^{-4}$ $cm$, $\omega=2\times 10^{15}$ $sec^{-1}$, $P_{c}=2\times 10^{4}$ watt which is equivalent to $I_{c}\sim 10^{12}$ $W/cm^{2}$. In section-2 we will describe the effective photon hypothesis and its consequence in the formation of superfluid state. After that we will show that in the superfluid state the effective photon can be the vector boson of the electroweak theory of particle physics.
Effective Photon Hypothesis and Superfluid State
================================================
During 1964 to 1970 Panarella was engaged in experimental research of ionization gas by laser beams and he relates that the available classical- theories namely multiphoton and cascade theory -were unable to explain the experimental results. He then postulated the possibility of exchange of energy among photons at the focus of high intensity laser beams and designated this photon that had acquired energy from the exchange as effective photon. Effective photon suggests that since electron emission is a single photon process, the electron current must be linear with intensity in agreement with the observation (Panarella 1986). The failure of multiphoton theory to explain the ionization of gases by laser beams which led to postulate of a single photon process of ionization and to the effective photon photon model, in which the photon energy is now a function of intensity $$E=h\nu f(I,\nu)=h\nu\exp[\beta_{\nu}f(I)]=\frac{h\nu}{1-\beta_{\nu}f(I)}$$ Enhance photon energy is occurs if $\beta_{\nu}f(I)$ sufficiently differ from zero at the focal point of the laser beam etc., $h\nu$ is the normal photon energy, $\beta_{\nu}$ and $f(I)$ is a function of light intensity has not been contradicted so far either by the experiment on laser induced gas ionization or by photoemission from laser irradiated metals. Because of the positive aspects of the hypothesis Raychaudhuri (1986, 1989) was lead to give a theoretical basis. If one starts with a composite nature of photons, one may end up with coupling constant $g^{2}=5\times 10^{-12}e^{2}$, the energy of photon results in $$E=\frac{h\nu}{\varepsilon}\eqno{(1)}$$ and $$\varepsilon=1-\frac{3.9\times 10^{3}N_{\gamma}}{m_{\nu}(eV)(\omega^{2}-\omega_{0}^{2})}$$ Where $N_{\gamma}$ is the number density of photon, $\omega$ average frequency of the photons in the laser beams, $\omega_{0}$ is the characteristic frequency of the laser medium can be taken as $$\omega_{0}^{2}=3.9\times \frac{10^{3}N_{\gamma}}{m_{\gamma}(eV)}$$ The above formulas (1) can be similar to Panarella’s effective photon formula. Now it can be said that $$0<\frac{3.9\times 10^{3}N_{\gamma}}{m_{\nu}(eV)(\omega^{2}-\omega_{0}^{2})}<1\eqno{(2)}$$ is the condition for ordinary photon energy to be enhanced and ordinary photon to be to be maser, laser, X-Ray lasers etc. The above formula has been applied to (i) Cosmic masers, (ii) ionization of highly excited hydrogen atom in a strong microwave field, (iii) Auroral Kilometric radiation , (iv) multiphoton absorption in chemical reactions etc. (Raychaudhuri , 1993, 1996). The detection of effective photons (i.e., energy enhanced of photon) has to be made at angles very near to forward scattering of photon-photon scattering by laser beams with very high intensity (Raychaudhuri, 2002, 2005). In this connection it may be mentioned that there was an attempt to search for stimulated photon-photon scattering in vacuum at a center of mass photon energy 0.8 MeV (Bernard et al.2000). Brodin et al. (2001) have proposed trapping of photons inside a so-called high power resonant cavities. This cavity concentrates photons of particular energies. After producing photons of different energies (or equal energies) could smash into each other, then goes away with two energies that were not among the original frequency.\
In the case of effective photon hypothesis it is shown by Raychaudhuri (1986, 1996) that self focusing of photon is possible when $I\geq 10^{12}$ $W/cm^{2}$. We will show here that the cause of phenomena of self-focusing of intense laser radiation in solids is not actually the nonlinear intensity dependent refractive index $n=n_{1}+n_{2}\overline{E}^{2}$, where $n_{1}$ is the normal refractive index and $\overline{E}^{2}$ the time averaged of the effective field of the laser beam radiation. The coefficient of $n_{2}$ determine the magnitude of the nonlinear behaviour of refractive index, self focusing happens provided that the laser power exceeds a critical value $P_{c}$ which is in CGS units $P_{c}\approx \frac{c^{3}}{4n_{2}\omega^{2}}$, for $n_{2}=10^{-11}$ in CGS unit, $\lambda=10^{-4}$ cm, $\omega
=2\times 10^{15}$ $sec^{-1}$ , $P_{c}=2\times 10^{4}$ watt which is equivalent to $I_{c}\sim 10^{12}$ $W/cm^{2}$. It is suggested that if $I>I_{c}$ the beam begins to undergo self focusing. The critical temperature below which this is going to happen is a function of temperature dependence of $n_{2}$. Most likely $n_{2}$ is a decreasing function of temperature and vanish for certain temperature where the critical bond is broken. The temperature is playing the role of a critical temperature and is therefore of the order of $10^{3}$ K. The nonlinear optical property results in self focusing can be interpreted as an attractive force acting between the photons. From the effective photon hypothesis concept self focusing of photon is possible approximately at the same intensity of photons. The effective photon formula is suggested by Panarella and Raychaudhuri due to interaction of photons themselves in the laser photons. Thus the effective photon hypothesis is the alternative way to explain the many of the phenomena associated with the laser. If the photon gas is dense enough, it can undergo Bose-Einstein condensation, and if the attractive force is strong enough it is conceivable that it becomes superfluid by undergoing a second order transition. An ordinary photon gas obeying a Planck’s blackbody radiation law is already a degenerate Bose-Einstein gas. The same must be true even for the low temperature photon gas of laser beam. In the laser beam the photon can be understood as quasiparticles as the photon passes through the laser beam every photon experience a force from the surrounding photons. In the laser beam the quasiparticle of $m^{*}$ are moving with velocity $v=c\varepsilon$. The wave length in the medium is $\lambda^{*}=\lambda\varepsilon$ and we have $$\lambda^{*}=\frac{h}{m^{*}v}\eqno{(1)}$$ with $\lambda=\frac{h}{mv}$ and $v=c\varepsilon$, we obtain from (1) $$m^{*}=\frac{m}{\varepsilon^{2}}\eqno{(2)}$$ For $m^{*}$ we can compute the rest mass $m^{*}_{0}$ of the quasiparticle $$m^{*}_{0}=m*\sqrt{1-\frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}=\frac{m}{\varepsilon^{2}}
\sqrt{1-\varepsilon^{2}}\eqno{(3)}$$ which shows that\
$m^{*}_{0}=0$ for $\varepsilon=1$ and we have\
$m^{*}_{0}=m^{*}$ around $\varepsilon<1$ and the Bose gas of the quasipartcle of $m^{*}$ is NR , under this condition Bose-Einstein condensation occurs if $T<T_{B}$ (critical temperature) (Winterberg,1989) given as follows: $$KT <KT_{B}\approx\frac{\pi h^{2}}{m^{*}}N^{2/3}$$ Where $N$ is the number of quasiparticles. Where N is the number of quasiparticles. Now writing $3/2 KT=1/2 m^{*}v^{2}$\
We find\
$1/3 m^{*}v^{2}< \frac{\pi\hbar^{2}}{m^{*}}N^{2/3}$\
gives $N > [\frac{(m^{*})^{2}v^{2}}{3\pi\hbar^{2}}]^{3}/2\approx 8
(1/\lambda\varepsilon)^{3}$\
For $\lambda=10^{-4}$ gives $N>
10^{16}\sim 10^{22}/cm^{3}$ where $\varepsilon$ ranges from $10^{-1}$ to $10^{-3}$. For Bose-Einstein condensation to occur the beam intensity $I>I_{c}$ (critical), $$I_{c}=8(1/\lambda\varepsilon)^{3}(c\varepsilon)(h\nu)=(8hc^{2}/\lambda^{4}
\varepsilon^{2})$$ If $I=\frac{P}{r^{2}}\geq I_{c}$, where $r$ is the beam radius.\
A transportation with superfluid state may occur. From the above for $I=I_{c}$, a critical beam with radius $r_{c}$ below the transition would take place $$r<r_{c}=(\frac{P}{\pi I_{c}})^{1/2}=(\frac{\lambda^{4}\varepsilon^{2}}{8\pi h c^{2}}P)^{1/2}$$ If $P>P_{c}$ less focusing is needed and we therefore find $$r<r_{c}\sqrt{\frac{P}{P_{c}}}$$ require to make $$\frac{P}{P_{c}}=(\frac{r}{r_{c}})^{2}=(\frac{0.5}{0.6})^{2}\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{2}}=\frac{0.75}{\varepsilon^{2}}$$ Thus $\frac{P}{P_{c}}$ can range from 75 to $7.5\times 10^{7}$\
If $\varepsilon$ ranges from $10^{-1}$ to $10^{-4}$\
i.e., $P=7.5\times 10^{5}$ to $7.5\times 10^{11}$ watt.\
We will now show that laser photons have much better chance than ordinary photon to undergo phase transition to a superfluid state. For an ordinary photon the uncertainty principle is $$mrc\geq h$$ whereas for laser photon it is $$m^{*}r^{*}v\geq h$$ gives $mrc\geq h\varepsilon$ which shows that the laser photon can be much more density packed than ordinary photons and greatly enhances the chance for a second phase transition. In a superfluid laser beam all the photons will be highly correlated, a property which would find its establishment in the formation of energy gap. In fact the energy gap is $$\Delta(h\nu)=h\nu'-h\nu$$ $$h(\frac{\nu}{\varepsilon}-\nu)=\frac{h\nu(1-\varepsilon)}{\varepsilon}$$ as a result, individual photons of superfluid condensate would not be scattered out of the beam.\
Now taking average photon energy in the laser beam $h\nu=1$ eV we find that\
$m^{*}=\frac{m}{\varepsilon^{2}}\sim 10^{-33}$ $gm$/$\varepsilon^{2}\longrightarrow$ $10^{-31}$ $gm$ to $10^{-25}$ $gm$\
for $\varepsilon$ ranges from $10^{-1}$ to $10^{-4}$.\
Thus the mass of the quasiparticles in the laser beam is therefore of the order of 100 eV $\sim$ 100 MeV. The mass of the quasiparticles is therefore in the range of the various mass of the vector particles.\
In the case of X-ray laser beams $h\nu=10^{3}$ eV $\sim 10^{4}$ eV, in that case mass of the quasiparticles in the X-ray laser beams is in the range $10^{5}$ eV $\sim 10^{12}$ eV. Thus the mass of the quasiparticle in the X-ray laser beams can be one which may be the Z-boson of the electroweak theory of weak interactions. It is possible that $W^{+}$ and $W^{-}$ can be originated from another vector boson whose mass is more than 200 GeV.\
The finite rest mass of the particle leads to a range of interactions and which is given by the Compton wavelength\
$\Lambda_{c}=\frac{h}{m^{*}_{0}c}=\frac{(h/mc)\varepsilon^{2}}{\sqrt{1-\varepsilon^{2}}}
=\frac{\lambda\varepsilon^{2}}{\sqrt{1-\varepsilon^{2}}}=10^{-2}\lambda$ to $10^{-8}\lambda$.
Discussion
==========
The effective photon hypothesis suggests that from laser beam with very high intensity a superfluid photon beam can be realized. If a superfluid photon in the laser beam can be realized then the effective photon hypothesis gives interesting results. The effective photon hypothesis shows that if the average energy X-ray laser beams is $h\nu= 10^{3}$ $eV\sim 10^{4}$ $eV$, we find that mass of the quasiparticles in the X-ray laser beams is in the range $10^{5} $eV$\sim$ $10^{12}$ $eV$. Thus the mass of the quasiparticle in the X-ray laser beams can be produced as Z-boson of the electroweak theory of weak interactions. It is possible that $W^{+}$ and $W^{-}$ can be originated from another vector boson from the quasiparticle in the X-ray laser beams whose mass is more than 200 GeV.\
[**References:\
**]{}
1. E.Panarella(1972) Lett. Nuovo Cimento 3, 417.
2. E.Panarella(1974) Found. Phys. 4, 227 and Phys.Rev A16, 677.
3. E.Panarella (1986) in Quantum uncertainties, NATO ASI series B162 Physics, edited by W.M.Honig, D.W.Kraft and E.Panarella,237, Plenum press.
4. P.Raychaudhuri (1986) in Quantum uncertainties, NATO ASI series B162 Physics, edited by W.M.Honig, D.W.Kraft and E.Panarella,271, Plenum press.
5. P.Raychaudhuri(1989) Physics Essays 2, 339.
6. P.Raychaudhuri (1993) Ind.J.Theo.Phys. 41, 54.
7. P.Raychaudhuri (1996) Review Bull. Cal.Math.Soc. 4 (1 and 2)47.
8. P.Raychaudhuri (2002) Physics Essays 15, 457.
9. P.Raychaudhuri ( 2005) Review Bull. Cal. Math. Soc.12,11.
10. F.Winterberg (1989) Z. Naturforchungs 44a,243.
11. D.Bernard et al (2000) Eur. Phys. J. D10,141.
12. G.Brodin, M Marklund and L.Stenflo (2001)Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 171801.
[^1]: [email protected]$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Quantum key distribution (QKD) offers the promise of absolutely secure communications. However, proofs of absolute security often assume perfect implementation from theory to experiment. Thus, existing systems may be prone to insidious side-channel attacks that rely on flaws in experimental implementation. Here we replace all real channels with virtual channels in a QKD protocol, making the relevant detectors and settings inside private spaces inaccessible while simultaneously acting as a Hilbert space filter to eliminate side-channel attacks. By using a quantum memory we find that we are able to bound the secret-key rate below by the entanglement-distillation rate computed over the distributed states.'
author:
- 'Samuel L. Braunstein'
- Stefano Pirandola
title: 'Side-channel-free quantum key distribution'
---
In 1982 Richard Feynman conjectured the use of quantum systems as a technological platform for solving difficult calculations in physics. Eventually this insight lead to the field of quantum information processing. As part of the field’s growth, it has partly diverged into the two main application domains: computation and communications, though much fundamental and technical overlap still exists. Interestingly, the key application that has started to mature and is now commercially available is quantum cryptography, or more precisely quantum key distribution (QKD) which has quickly moved from the purely theoretical [@BB84; @Ekert; @Hillery; @Cerf] to a practical technology [@Grangier; @Weed; @Scarani; @Net; @GQI].
How can we explain the impressive industrial uptake of quantum cryptography and its ultimate aim to take over classical systems? The answer lies in the claim of “absolute security” [@Gis02]. Unfortunately, while the idea is very compelling, subtle details in implementation may introduce flaws that could, potentially, be open to attack. Specifically, attacks from so called “side channels” represent one of the most elusive threats in practical quantum cryptography, because a system could be vulnerable to side-channel attacks even if it is unbreakable in theory [@Lut09; @SCA]. In fact, the recent approach of “device-independent QKD” [@DIQKD] makes important advances in handling imperfect implementations, and can even be made by untrusted parties, but does not directly address all possible side-channel attacks, where, for example, detectors may directly receive external probing aimed at seeding or gleaning their readout.
In principle side-channel attacks affect both classical and quantum cryptography, but could be especially devastating for quantum cryptography, precisely because of the proclaimed absolute security “guarantee”. The threat from such attacks has been demonstrated in both lab and installed field settings [@SCA]. Thus, while practical QKD systems have been fighting a trade-off between distance and key generation rate, they are still facing the fundamental problem of guaranteed security, choosing to rely on theoretical promises of absolute security without having any way of authenticating them in practice.
![Private space to private space. The UTP acts as a correlator.[]{data-label="GEN"}](fig1.eps){width="47.00000%"}
0.0truein [**Private spaces: general model**]{}
Let us consider the scenario of Fig. \[GEN\]. Two authenticated parties, Alice and Bob, control two private spaces, $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$, respectively. Conventionally, these spaces are assumed completely inaccessible from the outside, i.e., no illegitimate system may enter $\mathcal{A}$ or $\mathcal{B}$. For this reason every kind of side-channel attack upon the private spaces is assumed excluded. In practice, however, any port can allow a side-channel to enter possibly probing any detector, state-generation or detector settings. To prevent or overcome such attacks, the QKD system must effectively isolate its private spaces: the private space must not be directly involved in either state preparation (for sending) or detection (of incoming states). To overcome such probing side-channel attacks, we propose performing state-generation by collapse of a bipartite entangled state, so that any probe from outside is perfectly isolated from the state-generation “machinery” (see Supplementary Material for an extended discussion). Thus, in a manner akin to teleportation, we replace all real channels with virtual channels. This allows us to physically (and “topologically”) separate all detectors and settings within the private space from external probing, while also acting as a Hilbert space filter [@LoChau] against any side channel.
Within its own private space, each party (Alice or Bob) has a bipartite state $\rho$ which entangles two systems: $\{A,A^{\prime}\}$ for Alice, and $\{B,B^{\prime}\}$ for Bob. Systems $\{A,B\}$ are kept within the private spaces, while systems $\{A^{\prime },B^{\prime}\}$ are sent to an untrusted third party (UTP), whose task is to perform a quantum measurement and communicate the corresponding result. This untrusted LOCC then allows the creation of correlations between the private systems $\{A,B\}$ that Alice and Bob can exploit to generate a secret-key. In its simplest form an ideal side-channel free QKD scheme reduces to an entanglement swapping setup [@Biham], with the dual teleportation channel acting as an ideal Hilbert space filter. What is unique about our protocol is the ability to completely protect private space settings and detectors from probing side-channel attacks.
In the worst case scenario, the UTP must be identified with Eve herself, whose aim is to eavesdrop the key, or even prevent Alice and Bob from generating the key (i.e., a denial of service). In the most general case, Eve applies a quantum instrument $\mathbf{T}=\{T_{l}\}_{l=1}^{l_{\max}}$ to the incoming systems $\{A^{\prime},B^{\prime}\}$. This is a quantum operation with both classical and quantum outputs. For each classical outcome $l$, there is a corresponding completely positive (CP) map $T_{l}$ applied to the systems $\{A^{\prime },B^{\prime}\}$ [@CPTP]. This means that the global input state $\rho_{AA^{\prime}}\otimes\rho_{BB^{\prime}}$ is transformed into the conditional output state $$\rho_{ABE}(l)\equiv
\frac{1}{p(l)}(I_{A}\otimes I_{B}\otimes T_{l})(\rho_{AA^{\prime}}
\otimes\rho_{BB^{\prime}}), \label{condSTATE}$$ where $E$ represents an output quantum system in the hands of Eve, while $I_{A}\otimes I_{B}$ is the identity channel acting on the private systems $\{A,B\}$. Cleary each outcome $l$ will be found with some probability $p(l)$, depending both on $T_{l}$ and the input state. As a consequence the classical output of $\mathbf{T}$ can be simply represented by the stochastic variable $L\equiv\{l,p(l)\}$. The quantum output of $\mathbf{T}$ is represented by the system $E$ which is correlated with the private systems $\{A,B\}$ via the conditional state $\rho_{ABE|L}$ specified by Eq. (\[condSTATE\]). $E$ is the system that Eve will use for eavesdropping. For instance, most generally Eve can store all the output systems $E$ (generated in many independent rounds of the protocol) into a big quantum memory. Then, she can detect the whole memory using an optimal quantum measurement (corresponding to a collective attack).
According to the agreed protocol, the UTP must send a classical communication (CC) to both Alice and Bob in order to “activate” the correlations. Here, Eve has another weapon in her hands, i.e., tampering with the classical outcomes. In order to decrease the correlations between the honest parties, Eve may process the output stochastic variable $L$ via a classical channel $$p(l^{\prime}|l):L\rightarrow L^{\prime},$$ and then communicate the fake variable $L^{\prime}=\{l^{\prime},p(l^{\prime})\}$ to Alice and Bob, where $$p(l^{\prime})=\sum_{l}p(l^{\prime},l),
\qquad p(l^{\prime},l)=p(l^{\prime}|l)p(l).$$ This process projects the private systems $\{A,B\}$ onto the conditional state $$\rho_{AB|L^{\prime}}=\mathrm{Tr}_{E}\left( \rho_{ABE|L^{\prime}}\right)
,\label{ABstate}$$ where $$\rho_{ABE}(l^{\prime}) \equiv\frac{1}{p(l^{\prime})}
\!\sum_{l}p(l^{\prime},l)
\rho_{ABE}(l) =\!\sum_{l}p(l|l^{\prime})\rho_{ABE}(l).$$ Notice that, if $L^{\prime}$ is completely unrelated to $L$, then Eve realizes a denial of service, being the communication of the fake variable equivalent to tracing over systems $\{A^{\prime},B^{\prime}\}$. In other words, for $p(l^{\prime},l)=p(l^{\prime})p(l)$, we have $\rho_{AB|L^{\prime} }=\rho_{A}\otimes\rho_{B}$, where $\rho_{A}\equiv \mathrm{Tr}_{A^{\prime}}\left(\rho_{AA^{\prime}}\right)$ and $\rho_{B}\equiv\mathrm{Tr}_{B^{\prime}}\left(\rho_{BB^{\prime}}\right)$.
0.1truein [**Secret-key rate: General analysis**]{} After $M$ rounds of the protocol, Alice and Bob will share $M$ copies $(\rho_{AB|L^{\prime}})^{\otimes M}$. Note that, in general, Alice and Bob do not know anything about the physical process within the UTP, i.e., they do not know the couple $\{\mathbf{T},L\rightarrow L^{\prime}\}$. For this reason, what they actually get are $M$ copies of an unknown state $\rho
_{AB}^{?}$ plus classical information $L^{\prime}$. However, by measuring a suitable number $M^{\prime}$ of these copies, they are able to deduce the explicit form of the conditional state $\rho_{AB|L^{\prime}}$ for the remaining $N=M-M^{\prime}$ copies (here $M,$ $M^{\prime}$ and $N$ are large numbers). Then, by applying local measurements, Alice on her private systems and Bob on his, they are able to extract two correlated classical variables, $X$ and $Y$. Finally, from these variables, they can derive a shared secret key via the classical techniques of error correction (EC) and privacy amplification (PA). These procedures can be implemented using one-way classical communications between these two parties.
Let us bound the secret-key rate of the protocol. For simplicity we omit here the conditioning on $L^{\prime}$, so that Eq. (\[ABstate\]) simply becomes $\rho_{AB}=\mathrm{Tr}_{E}\left( \rho_{ABE}\right) $. It is understood that the final result must be averaged over $L^{\prime}$. Independently from its generation, the (generally) mixed state $\rho_{AB}$ can be purified in a pure state $\Phi_{ABe}=\left\vert \Phi\right\rangle \left\langle \Phi\right\vert
_{ABe}$ by introducing a suitable system $e$ to be assigned to Eve (this is generally larger than the $E$ system considered before). After this purification, the scenario is the one depicted in Fig. \[ABE\]. Here, for every bipartition of the systems, $\{AB,e\},$ $\{Ae,B\}$, or $\{Be,A\}$, the corresponding reduced states have the same von Neumann entropy. In particular, we have $S(\rho_{AB})=S(\rho_{e})$.
![Purified scenario.[]{data-label="ABE"}](fig2.eps){width="40.00000%"}
Now suppose that Alice performs a POVM $\mathcal{M}_{A}=\{\hat{A}(x)\}$ on her system $A$ with classical outcome $x$. This measurement projects $\Phi_{ABe}$ onto the conditional state$$\Phi_{Be}(x)=\frac{1}{p(x)}\mathrm{Tr}_{A}\left[ \hat{A}(x)\Phi_{ABe}\hat
{A}(x)^{\dagger}\right], \label{FIBe}%$$ where $$p(x)=\mathrm{Tr}_{ABe}
\left[ \hat{A}(x)\Phi_{ABe}\hat{A}(x)^{\dagger}\right].$$ Thus Alice encodes the stochastic variable $X=\{x,p(x)\}$ in the nonlocal ensemble $\mathcal{E}_{Be}\equiv\{\Phi_{Be}(x),p(x)\}$. Given the conditional state $\Phi_{Be|X}$ of Eq. (\[FIBe\]), Bob and Eve can only access their local states, respectively given by $$\rho_{B}(x)=\mathrm{Tr}_{e}\left[ \Phi_{Be}(x)\right] ,
\qquad
\rho_{e}(x)=\mathrm{Tr}_{B}\left[ \Phi_{Be}(x)\right] .$$ Thus, on his side, Bob has the ensemble $\mathcal{E}_{B}\equiv\{\rho
_{B}(x),p(x)\}$, whose measurement estimates Alice’s variable $X$. Assuming that Bob has a quantum memory, he can collect all the private systems $B$ associated to the $N$ rounds of the protocol. Then, asymptotically for $N\rightarrow \infty$, Bob can reach the Holevo bound [@Holevo] $$I(X:B)=S(\rho_{B})-\sum_{x}p(x)S[\rho_{B}(x)].$$ At the same time, Eve’s information is bounded by $$I(X:e)=S(\rho_{e})-\sum_{x}p(x)S[\rho_{e}(x)].$$ Assuming one-way CCs from Alice to Bob (for implementing EC and PA), we can write the secret-key rate as a difference of Holevo informations [@DW], i.e.,$$R=I(X:B)-I(X:e).$$ If we now assume that Alice’s POVM is rank one, then the conditional state $\Phi_{Be|X}$ is pure and, therefore, $\rho_{B|X}$ and $\rho_{e|X}$ have the same entropy, i.e., $S[\rho_{B}(x)]=S[\rho_{e}(x)]$. As a consequence, we can write$$R=S(\rho_{B})-S(\rho_{e})=S(\rho_{B})-S(\rho_{AB})=I(A\rangle B),
\label{rate1}%$$ where $I(A\rangle B)$ is the coherent information between Alice and Bob. Thus the secret-key rate is lower-bounded by the entanglement-distillation rate.
0.1truein [**Secret-key rate: Detailed analysis**]{}
Here we make a more detailed analysis which is more closely connected to the scenario of Fig. \[GEN\]. In fact, the rate $R$ of Eq. (\[rate1\]) comes from the general configuration of Fig. \[ABE\], which is independent from the actual process generating the final state of Alice and Bob. If we explicitly consider the peculiarities of the scheme of Fig. \[GEN\], then we could achieve a larger rate $R^{\ast}\geq R$. This new rate can be achieved if Alice and Bob have some knowledge of the classical unreliability of the UTP, i.e., of the amount of information which is “absorbed” by the classical channel $L\rightarrow L^{\prime}$. Thus, if Eve tries to tamper with the overall security by employing fake CCs, then Alice and Bob can potentially extract a secret-key with rate larger than the entanglement-distillation rate.
In this section, we take the different conditionings (by $L$ and $L^{\prime}$) explicitly into account. After the CC of $L^{\prime}=\{l^{\prime},p(l^{\prime})\}$, Alice and Bob possess the conditional state $\rho_{AB}(l^{\prime})$ of Eq. (\[ABstate\]). Let us assume that Alice performs a POVM $\mathcal{M}_{A}=\{\hat{A}(x)\}$ on her system $A$ with classical outcome $x$. This generates the doubly-conditional state $$\rho_{B}(x,l^{\prime})
=\frac{1}{p(x|l^{\prime})}\mathrm{Tr}_{A}
\left[\hat{A} (x)\rho_{AB}(l^{\prime})\hat{A}(x)^{\dagger}\right],$$ where $$p(x|l^{\prime})= \mathrm{Tr}_{AB}\left[\hat{A}(x)\rho_{AB}(l^{\prime})\hat
{A}(x)^{\dagger}\right].$$ Averaging over the CCs, the output of Alice’s measurement is the unconditional variable $X=\{x,p(x)\}$, where $$p(x)=\sum_{l^{\prime}}p(x|l^{\prime})p(l^{\prime})
=\mathrm{Tr}_{A}\left[ \hat{A}(x)\rho_{A}\hat{A}(x)^{\dagger}\right] .$$ This is the secret variable to be estimated by Bob. In his private system $B$, Bob has the ensemble $$\mathcal{E}_{B}=\{p(x,l^{\prime}),\rho_{B}(x,l^{\prime})\},$$ where $p(x,l^{\prime})=p(x|l^{\prime})p(l^{\prime})$. Clearly, this ensemble depends on both $X$ and $L^{\prime}$. Exploiting his knowledge of $L^{\prime }$, Bob applies a conditional measurement $\mathcal{M}_{B|L^{\prime}}$ to his system $B$ which estimates the value $x$ encoded by Alice. Asymptotically (i.e., for $N\rightarrow\infty$), using a quantum memory and averaging over the CCs (i.e., over $L^{\prime}$), Bob can reach the conditional Holevo information [@EHSBOB] $$I(X:B|L^{\prime})=\sum_{l^{\prime}}p(l^{\prime})\,I(X:B|L^{\prime}
=l^{\prime }). \label{HolB}$$ For Eve we have to consider the different conditioning given by $L$. Thus, the conditional state that Eve shares with Alice is $$\rho_{AE|L}=\mathrm{Tr}_{B}\left( \rho_{ABE|L}\right) ,$$ which becomes $\rho_{E|XL}$ after Alice’s projection. Explicitly this state is given by $$\rho_{E}(x,l)=\frac{1}{p(x|l)}\mathrm{Tr}_{A}
\left[ \hat{A}(x)\rho_{AE}(l)\hat {A}(x)^{\dagger}\right] ,$$ where $$p(x|l)=\mathrm{Tr}_{AB}
\left[\hat{A}(x)\rho_{AE}(l)\hat{A}(x)^{\dagger}\right] .$$ Thus, Eve has the ensemble $$\mathcal{E}_{E}=\{p(x,l),\rho_{E}(x,l)\},$$ where $p(x,l)=p(x|l)p(l)$. Asymptotically, Eve can eavesdrop $I(X:E|L)$ bits per copy [@EHSEVE].
As a result, we can write the secret-key rate $$R^{\ast}=I(X:B|L^{\prime})-I(X:E|L).$$ This quantity can be rewritten as $R^{\ast}=R^{\prime}+\Delta$, where $$R^{\prime}\equiv I(X:B|L^{\prime})-I(X:E|L^{\prime}), \label{Rprime}$$ and $\Delta\equiv I(X:E|L^{\prime})-I(X:E|L)$, quantifies the information which is “absorbed” by the classical channel $L\rightarrow L^{\prime}$. We call $\Delta$ the “classical cheating” by Eve. Clearly, we have $\Delta=0$ for $L^{\prime}=L$. $R^{\prime}$ is the “apparent rate”, which refers to the apparent scenario where Alice, Bob and Eve are all subject to the same conditioning $L^{\prime}$. In other words, $R^{\prime}$ is computed assuming the total state $\rho_{ABE|L^{\prime}}$, which is then projected onto $\rho_{BE|XL^{\prime}}$ by Alice’s measurement (see Fig. \[PicLP1\]).
![Conditional state $\rho_{ABE|L^{\prime}}$ projected onto $\rho_{BE|XL^{\prime}}$.[]{data-label="PicLP1"}](fig3.eps){width="42.00000%"}
We can now easily prove that the secret-key rate is larger than the entanglement-distillation rate. We have the following result (see Supplementary Material for the proof).
**Theorem**. *Suppose that Eve measures the incoming systems but cheats on the results using a classical channel* $L\rightarrow L^{\prime}.$ *Then, Alice and Bob’s secret-key rate satisfies* $$R^{\ast}\geq I(A\rangle B|L^{\prime})+\Delta,$$ *where* $I(A\rangle B|L^{\prime})$ *is the coherent information conditioned to Eve’s fake variable* $L^{\prime}$*, and* $\Delta$ *is the classical cheating*.
Our analysis leaves an intriguing open question. It would be wonderful to provide an explicit example where simultaneously $\Delta>0$ and $I(A\rangle B|L^{\prime})=0$, so that $R^{\ast}>0$. This would imply secret-key distillation without entanglement distillation. More generally, we cannot exclude the possibility that $R^{\ast}>I(A\rangle B|L^{\prime})$ by using POVMs which are not rank one.
0.1 truein [**Conclusion**]{}
We have shown that virtual channels may replace real channels in the QKD setting so as to remove any possibility of side-channel attacks. In its simplest setting, our QKD protocol corresponds to an entanglement swapping experiment, where the dual teleportation channels act as ideal Hilbert space filters to wipe out side-channel attacks. The authenticated users’ private spaces are designed so that any incoming quantum signal is topologically excluded from access to detectors, detector settings or state-generation settings, thus side-channel probing attacks of the private spaces are eliminated. Finally, an external untrusted party performs a suitable LOCC (such as a Bell-state measurement) to create correlations necessary for shared key generation.
0.1 truein [**Acknowledgments**]{}
The research leading to these results has received funding from EPSRC under grant No. EP/J00796X/1 (HIPERCOM).
0.1 truein [**Note added**]{}
We noticed the manuscript of Lo *et al.* [@Curty] submitted to the arxiv just four days before our submission. At a 2009 Dagstuhl seminar, SLB told the first author of that manuscript the detailed ingredients needed to turn entanglement swapping into a completely side-channel free QKD scheme. Despite this, we stress that there are several important differences between our work and that of Lo *et al.* [@Curty] which itself is based on previous results by Biham *et al.* and Inamori [@Biham].
1\) *Generality*: Our work considers a QKD setup involving general quantum systems (e.g., they could be qubit-systems or bosonic modes). In the case of Lo *et al.* [@Curty], the setup is strictly related to the use of decoy states.
2\) *Untrusted party*: Our work does not impose any restriction for the action of the middle eavesdropper, who implements a general quantum instrument with classical information communicated to Alice and Bob. Despite this general scenario, we can easily prove that the secret-key rate is lowerbounded by the coherent information. In Lo *et al.* [@Curty], a very strong conjecture is made explicitly for the middle eavesdropper, who is always assumed to perform a Bell measurement. Thus, in practice, the third party cannot be regarded as an eavesdropper (Eve) but more correctly as a trusted party (Charlie). The real action of Eve is therefore restricted to the noise present in the quantum channels between the honest users and Charlie.
3\) *Trojan-horses*: Our work excludes the possibility that the eavesdropper is able to get information by sending trojan-horses into Alice’s and Bob’s apparata. This is the result of a Hilbert space filtering which derives from a suitable use of the entanglement in Alice’s and Bob’s private spaces (this aspect is further discussed in our Supplementary Material). By contrast, in the paper Lo *et al.* [@Curty], state preparation can be easily eavesdropped upon, being directly inline with the output ports of Alice’s and Bob’s private spaces.
Finally, in Lo *et al.* [@Curty] there is a disconnect between the security proof (which relies on Alice and Bob creating entanglement) and the implementation. We note however that the authors cite Ref. [@ShPre] as a possible way to avoid quantum information processing but do not seriously discuss this as part of their proof in any detail.
[Supplementary Material]{}
In defense of private spaces
============================
In quantum cryptography unconditional security proofs are derived under the assumption that Alice’s and Bob’s apparata (private spaces) are completely inaccessible by an eavesdropper who, therefore, can only attack the signal systems which are transmitted through the quantum communication channel connecting the two parties. Under this assumption, secret-key rates and security thresholds are derived in both discrete and continuous variable quantum key distribution.
One potential loophole in the security proofs is related to how a theoretical protocol is actually implemented experimentally. Any redundant information encoded in extra degrees of freedom or extra Hilbert space dimensions outside the theoretical prescription can allow for so-called side-channel attacks. By their nature, such attacks may be of classical or quantum degrees of freedom and are insidious because even quantifying their threat appears to involve understanding what have been called unknown unknowns about the vulnerability of the experimental set-up.
Progress has been made on eliminating side-channel attacks in the quantum communication channels between private spaces, but this leaves open potential attacks on the private spaces through their quantum communication ports. Let us therefore take a step back and consider private spaces in more detail: What goes on in Alice’s and Bob’s private spaces involves a significant amount of classical information processing; at the very least the key itself will be generated and stored as classical information. Now with virtually any technology we have today classical information is stored, processed and transmitted in a highly redundant fashion (many electrons are used to charge a capacitor to represent a bit value, or many electrons must pass through the base junction of a transistor to effect a logical switching operation, tapping on a keyboard produces sound waves and electromagnetic signals in addition to the ‘legitimate’ electrical signals in the wires, etc). In principle any of this redundant information may leak out of the private space through a parasite channel. An eavesdropper might therefore ignore the quantum communication channel and directly attack Alice’s and Bob’s apparata by exploiting the presence of parasite channels: this is also a side-channel attack.
The implicit assumption in quantum cryptography is that we could always improve technology in such a way that Alice’s and Bob’s private spaces are not affected by the presence of parasite channels, so that the legitimate participants do indeed have access to absolutely private spaces. (For instance, Alice and Bob could simulate the classical information processing on a quantum computer. A hacked operating system on such a machine could be tested for by randomly running subroutines that confirm that coherence is preserved and that no information is copied out to where it can be stored or transmitted by a trojan program — see also Ref. \[\].)
However, even if you rely on a perfect isolation technology, there remains a potential chink in this armor, which is the quantum communication port used either to transmit a quantum state out of your private space or to accept a quantum state for detection into it.
If you open a communication port for quantum states to enter or leave you must explicitly deal with side channels which can be probing these links to your private space. Eve can potentially send trojan systems through Alice’s and Bob’s communication ports and detect their reflection to infer both state preparation and measurement settings. As an example, in the standard BB84 protocol, Eve can irradiate Alice’s apparatus by using optical modes at slightly different frequencies. Then, from reflection, Eve can infer the polarization chosen in each round of the protocol. Thanks to this information, Eve can measure each signal system in the correct basis. Another example regards the so-called plug-and-play systems, where trojan systems can be reflected together with signal systems, as discussed in Ref. [@Gis02].
Our paper shows how to overcome the problem of the open quantum communication ports, therefore making feasible the notion of absolutely private spaces. Note that this problem is not addressed by current device-independent quantum cryptography, where such attacks on the private space ports are simply considered illegitimate as they violate the strong private space assumption. The key point of our scheme is that detectors are no longer in line with the quantum communication port of the private space. For this reason, it is not possible for an external party to probe the port and obtain detector settings or readouts from the processing of parasite systems. In order to explain this key feature in detail, we analyze the problem of the quantum communication ports by comparing standard protocols with our scheme.
In Fig. \[ex1\], we depict a general prepare-and-measure protocol, where Alice’s variable $X$ is encoded in a quantum state $\rho(X)$ by modulation. Bob’s variable $Y$ is the output of a quantum measurement. Here, Eve can attack the quantum communication ports by using two trojan systems $e$ and $f$. By means of $e$, Eve can retrieve information about the state preparation $X\rightarrow\rho(X)$. By means of $f$, she can retrieve information about the measurement apparatus of Bob and, therefore, about $Y$.
![Port attack in a prepare and measure protocol.[]{data-label="ex1"}](ex1.eps){width="50.00000%"}
In Fig. \[ex2\], we depict a general entanglement-based protocol, where an untrusted party (Eve) distributes entanglement between two parties. This is done by distributing an entangled state $\rho=\rho_{AB}$, where system $A$ is sent to Alice and system $B$ is sent to Bob. Alice and Bob can perform entanglement distillation and measure the output distilled systems to derive two correlated classical variables, $X$ and $Y$, respectively. In this scenario, Eve can decide not to attack the source $\rho$ but directly the two quantum communication ports of Alice and Bob. Eve can probe these ports by using two trojan systems $e$ and $f$, which can retrieve information about Alice’s and Bob’s distilling and detecting apparata. As a result, Eve can infer information about $X$ and $Y$.
![Port attack in an entanglement-based protocol.[]{data-label="ex2"}](ex2.eps){width="50.00000%"}
In Fig. \[ex3\], we depict our protocol where an untrusted party (Eve) represents an entanglement swapper between Alice and Bob. This is generally done by measuring two *public* systems, $A^{\prime}$ and $B^{\prime}$, received from Alice and Bob, processing the outcome of the measurement, and classically communicating the processed data back to Alice and Bob. As a result the two private systems, $A$ and $B$, become correlated, so that Alice and Bob can extract two correlated classical variables, $X$ and $Y$, by applying suitable measurements. In particular, if Alice and Bob can access quantum memories, then they can extract a secret key at a rate which is at least equal to the coherent information between $A$ and $B$. Eve can attempt a side-channel attack against the two ports by sending two trojan systems $e$ and $f$. In this case, however, the apparata which detect the two private systems $A$ and $B$ are inaccessible to Eve. By exploiting reflections from the ports, Eve can only retrieve information regarding the reduced states $\rho_{A^{\prime}}$ and $\rho_{B^{\prime}}$ of the two public systems $A^{\prime}$ and $B^{\prime}$. However, these reduced states contain no useful information about the private system $A$ or $B$ or Alice’s or Bob’s detector settings or outputs.
![Port attack in our scheme.[]{data-label="ex3"}](ex3.eps){width="48.00000%"}
To understand better how the full isolation of the private systems might be achieved, we may consider the procedure depicted in Fig. \[ports\]. It is explained for Alice’s private space, but steps are identical for Bob.
![Possible procedure for the full isolation of the private systems. See text for explanations.[]{data-label="ports"}](port1.eps){width="45.00000%"}
![Possible procedure for the full isolation of the private systems. See text for explanations.[]{data-label="ports"}](port2.eps){width="45.00000%"}
![Possible procedure for the full isolation of the private systems. See text for explanations.[]{data-label="ports"}](port3.eps){width="45.00000%"}
In the first step (a), Alice’s port is closed and she prepares an entangled state $\rho=\rho_{AA^{\prime}}$ where system $A$ is directed towards a quantum memory (QM), while system $A^{\prime}$ is directed towards a delay line (DL). In step (b), once system $A$ is stored in the memory and while system $A^{\prime}$ is trapped in the delay line, a shutter is used to fully separate the delay line from the rest of Alice’s apparatus. Note that a virtual channel between $A$ and $A^{\prime}$ has been created. In step (c), Alice’s quantum communication port is opened and system $A^{\prime}$ is transmitted to Eve. During this stage, trojan systems may enter the port but no detector is in line with the port. In step (d), the port is closed with the private system $A$ kept in the memory. The previous steps (a)-(d) are repeated many times, so that Alice collects many private systems in her quantum memory. We therefore reach step (e) of the figure. Finally, once Alice has received all the classical communications, she applies a collective quantum measurement on her quantum memory to retrieve the classical variable $X$. This measurement can include or be anticipated by an entanglement distillation.
Notation and basic formulas
===========================
In part of the derivation we adopt the enlarged Hilbert space (EHS) representation, where stochastic classical variables are embedded in quantum systems. Consider a stochastic variable $X=\{x,p(x)\}$ which is encoded into an ensemble of states of some quantum system $A$, i.e., $$\mathcal{E}_{A}=\{p(x),\rho_{A}(x)\}. \label{ensemble}%$$ This ensemble may be equivalently represented by the classical-quantum (CQ) state $$\rho_{\mathbf{X}A}=\sum_{x}p(x)\left\vert x\right\rangle
\left\langle
x\right\vert _{\mathbf{X}}\otimes\rho_{A}(x), \label{CQ}%$$ where the stochastic variable $X$ is embedded into the dummy quantum system $\mathbf{X}$, by using an orthonormal basis $\{\left\vert x\right\rangle \}$ in the Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_{\mathbf{X}}$ of $\mathbf{X}$. We denote by $\rho_{A}(x)$ the state of a system $A$ which is conditioned by the value $x$ of a stochastic variable $X$. The notation $\rho_{A|X}$ refers to the conditional state $\rho_{A}(x)$ where $x$ is not specified. Clearly, we have $$\rho_{A}=\sum_{x}p(x)\rho_{A}(x).$$
Given a quantum system $A$ in a state $\rho_{A}$, its von Neumann entropy $S(\rho_{A})$ is also denoted by $H(A)$. Given a quantum system $\mathbf{X}$, embedding the stochastic variable $X$, its quantum entropy $H(\mathbf{X})$ is just the Shannon entropy $H(X)$. Given two quantum systems, $A$ and $B$, we denote by $I(A:B)$ their quantum mutual information. This is defined by $$I(A:B)=H(B)-H(B|A), \label{mutual}%$$ where $H(B|A)=H(AB)-H(A)$ is the conditional quantum entropy. Note that $H(B|A)$ can be negative and it is related to the coherent information by the relation $$I(A\rangle B)=-H(B|A).$$ For $A=\mathbf{X}$, the quantum mutual information $I(A:\mathbf{X})$, which is computed over the CQ-state of Eq. (\[CQ\]), corresponds to the Holevo information $I(A:X)$, computed over the ensemble of Eq. (\[ensemble\]). For $A=\mathbf{X}$ and $B=\mathbf{Y}$, embedding two stochastic variables $X$ and $Y$, $I(\mathbf{X}:\mathbf{Y})$ is just the classical mutual information $I(X:Y)$. For three quantum systems $A$, $B$, and $C$, we can consider the conditional quantum mutual information $$I(A:B|C)=H(AC)+H(BC)-H(ABC)-H(C),$$ which is $\geq0$ as a consequence of the strong subadditivity of the von Neumann entropy. For a classically correlated system $C=\mathbf{X}$, we have a probabilistic average over mutual informations, i.e., $$I(A:B|\mathbf{X})=I(A:B|X)\equiv\sum_{x}p(x)~I(A:B|X=x).$$ List of other useful elements:
- Given a tripartite quantum system $ABC$, we can use the “chain rule” $$I(A:BC)=I(A:B)+I(A:C|B).$$
- Invariance of the Holevo information under addition of classical channels, i.e., for a classical channel $$p(y|x):X\rightarrow Y,$$ we have $$I(A:X)=I(A:XY).$$
- Given a Markov chain $X\rightarrow Y\rightarrow Z$, the classical mutual information decreases under conditioning [@Cover], i.e., $$I(X:Y|Z)\leq I(X:Y).$$ Notice that, for three general stochastic variables, we have $I(X:Y|Z)\gtreqless I(X:Y)$, so that the so-called “interaction information” $$I(X:Y:Z)\equiv I(X:Y|Z)-I(X:Y),$$ can be positive, negative or zero.
- Data processing inequality. For a Markov chain $X\rightarrow
Y\rightarrow Z$, we have $$H(X)\geq I(X:Y)\geq I(X:Z).$$
Proof of the theorem\[APPtheorem\]
==================================
Let us purify the mixed state $\rho_{ABE|L^{\prime}}$ into the pure state $\Phi_{ABE\tilde{E}|L^{\prime}}=\left\vert
\Phi\right\rangle \left\langle \Phi\right\vert
_{ABE\tilde{E}|L^{\prime}}$ by introducing an ancillary system $\tilde{E}$ which is assumed to be in Eve’s hands (so that Eve’s global system consists of $E\tilde{E}$). This scenario is depicted in Fig. \[PicLP2\].
![Purification. Conditional state $\Phi_{ABE\tilde
{E}|L^{\prime}}$ projected onto $\Phi_{BE\tilde{E}|XL^{\prime}}$.[]{data-label="PicLP2"}](PicLP2.eps){width="45.00000%"}
Thus, for the total state $\rho_{ABE|L^{\prime}}$, we have $$\rho_{ABE}(l^{\prime})=\mathrm{Tr}_{\tilde{E}} \left[
\Phi_{ABE\tilde{E} }(l^{\prime})\right] .$$ For the conditional state $\rho_{BE|XL^{\prime}}$, generated by the measurement, we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{BE}(x,l^{\prime}) & =\frac{1}{p(x|l^{\prime})}
\mathrm{Tr}_{A}\left[
\hat{A}(x)\rho_{ABE}(l^{\prime})\hat{A}(x)^{\dagger}\right] \nonumber\\
& =\frac{1}{p(x|l^{\prime})}\mathrm{Tr}_{A\tilde{E}} \left[ \hat{A}%
(x)\Phi_{ABE\tilde{E}}(l^{\prime}) \hat{A}(x)^{\dagger}\right] \nonumber\\
& =\mathrm{Tr}_{\tilde{E}}\left[
\Phi_{BE\tilde{E}}(x,l^{\prime})\right] ,
\label{TraceEQ}%\end{aligned}$$ where $$\Phi_{BE\tilde{E}}(x,l^{\prime})\equiv\frac{1}{p(x|l^{\prime})}\mathrm{Tr}%
_{A}\left[
\hat{A}(x)\Phi_{ABE\tilde{E}}(l^{\prime})\hat{A}(x)^{\dagger
}\right] ,$$ represents the conditional state $\Phi_{BE\tilde{E}|XL^{\prime}}$ which is generated by the measurement in the purified scenario. Clearly if we discard $X$, we get the reduced state $$\Phi_{BE\tilde{E}|L^{\prime}}\equiv\left\langle \Phi_{BE\tilde{E}|XL^{\prime}%
}\right\rangle _{X} =\mathrm{Tr} _{A}\left[ \Phi_{ABE\tilde{E}|L^{\prime}%
}\right] .$$ Because of Eq. (\[TraceEQ\]), the conditional state $\Phi_{BE\tilde {E}|XL^{\prime}}$ can be used to compute $R^{\prime}$ via $$\begin{aligned}
R^{\prime} & \equiv
I(X:B|L^{\prime})_{\rho}-I(X:E|L^{\prime})_{\rho
}\nonumber\\
& =I(X:B|L^{\prime})_{\Phi}-I(X:E|L^{\prime})_{\Phi},\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho=\rho_{BE|XL^{\prime}}$ and $\Phi=\Phi_{BE\tilde{E}|XL^{\prime}}$ (the computation is exactly the same up to a trace over $\tilde{E}$). In the EHS representation, the conditional state $\Phi_{BE\tilde{E}|XL^{\prime}}$ becomes $$\Psi_{\mathbf{XL}^{\prime}BE\tilde{E}}=\sum_{x,l^{\prime}}
p(x,l^{\prime })\left\vert x\right\rangle \left\langle
x\right\vert _{\mathbf{X}} \otimes\left\vert
l^{\prime}\right\rangle \left\langle l^{\prime}\right\vert
_{\mathbf{L}^{\prime}} \otimes\Phi_{BE\tilde{E}}(x,l^{\prime}).$$ Thus, we can also set $$R^{\prime}=I(\mathbf{X}:B|\mathbf{L}^{\prime})_{\Psi}
-I(\mathbf{X} :E|\mathbf{L}^{\prime})_{\Psi},$$ where $\Psi=\Psi_{\mathbf{XL}^{\prime}BE\tilde{E}}$. From the chain rule we have $$\begin{aligned}
I(\mathbf{X} :E\tilde{E}|\mathbf{L}^{\prime})_{\Psi} &
=I(\mathbf{X} :E|\mathbf{L}^{\prime})_{\Psi}
+I(\mathbf{X}:\tilde{E}|E\mathbf{L}^{\prime
})_{\Psi}\nonumber\\
& =I(\mathbf{X}:E|\mathbf{L}^{\prime})_{\Psi}+\gamma,\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma\equiv I(\mathbf{X}:\tilde{E}|E\mathbf{L}^{\prime})_{\Psi}
\geq 0$ \[gamma\]is the information contribution due to the purification [@IntroEHS]. In other words, the (conditional) Holevo information can only increase with the purification, i.e., $$I(X:E\tilde{E}|L^{\prime})=I(X:E|L^{\prime}) +\gamma\geq
I(X:E|L^{\prime}).$$ As a consequence, we have $R^{\prime}=R^{\prime\prime}+\gamma$, where $$R^{\prime\prime}\equiv
I(X:B|L^{\prime})_{\Phi}-I(X:E\tilde{E}|L^{\prime })_{\Phi}.$$ In terms of conditional entropies, we have $$\begin{aligned}
R^{\prime\prime} = & \,H(B|L^{\prime})_{\Phi}
-H(B|XL^{\prime})_{\Phi
}\nonumber\\
& -[H(E\tilde{E}|L^{\prime})_{\Phi}
-H(E\tilde{E}|XL^{\prime})_{\Phi}].
\label{Rsec}%\end{aligned}$$ Here $H(E\tilde{E}|L^{\prime})$ is computed over $\Phi=\Phi_{BE\tilde {E}|XL^{\prime}}$ discarding $X$ and $B$, i.e., over the reduced state $$\Phi_{EE|L^{\prime}}=\mathrm{Tr}_{AB} \left[ \Phi_{ABE\tilde{E}|L^{\prime}%
}\right] .$$ Now since $\Phi_{ABE\tilde{E}|L^{\prime}}$ is pure, we have $H(E\tilde {E}|L^{\prime})=H(AB|L^{\prime})$, where $H(AB|L^{\prime})$ can be computed over $\rho_{AB|L^{\prime}}
=\mathrm{Tr}_{E\tilde{E}}[\Phi_{ABE\tilde {E}|L^{\prime}}]$. Clearly, also $H(B|L^{\prime})_{\Phi}$ can be computed over $\rho_{AB|L^{\prime}}$. As a consequence we can recognize in Eq. (\[Rsec\]) the conditional coherent information $$I(A\rangle B|L^{\prime})=H(B|L^{\prime})-H(AB|L^{\prime}),$$ associated with Alice and Bob’s conditional state $\rho_{AB|L^{\prime}}$. Thus, we can set $$R^{\prime\prime}=I(A\rangle B|L^{\prime})
+[H(E\tilde{E}|XL^{\prime})_{\Phi }-H(B|XL^{\prime})_{\Phi}].$$ Here, we can assume that Alice’s measurement is a rank one POVM. As a result, $\Phi=\Phi_{BE\tilde{E}|XL^{\prime}}$ is also a pure state, and we can set $H(E\tilde{E}|XL^{\prime})_{\Phi}=H(B|XL^{\prime})_{\Phi}$, so that $R^{\prime\prime}=I(A\rangle B|L^{\prime})$. Finally, we can write $$\begin{aligned}
R^{\ast} & =R^{\prime\prime}+\gamma+\Delta\nonumber\\
& =I(A\rangle B|L^{\prime})+\gamma+\Delta\nonumber\\
& \geq I(A\rangle B|L^{\prime})+\Delta,\end{aligned}$$ where we have used $\gamma\geq 0$ from its definition.
[99]{}
C. H. Bennett, and G. Brassard, in *Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computers, Systems and Signal Processing*, (Bangalore, India, 1984), p. 175.
A. Ekert, Phys. Rev. Lett. **67**, 661 (1991).
M. Hillery, Phys. Rev. A **61**, 022309 (2000).
N. J. Cerf, M. Lévy, and G. Van Assche, Phys. Rev. A **63**, 052311 (2001).
F. Grosshans, [*et al.*]{}, Nature **421**, 238 (2003).
A. M. Lance, [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. **95**, 180503 (2005).
V. Scarani, [*et al.*]{}, Rev. Mod. Phys. **81**, 1301 (2009).
SECOQC, 2007, http://www.secoqc.net.
C. Weedbrook, S. Pirandola, R. G. Patron, N. J. Cerf, T. C. Ralph, J. H. Shapiro, and S. Lloyd, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**84**]{}, 621 (2012).
N. Gisin, [*et al.*]{}, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**74**]{}, 145 (2002).
N. Lütkenhaus and A. J. Shields, New J. Phys. [**11**]{}, 045005 (2009).
B. Qi, [*et al.*]{}, Quantum Inform. Comput. [**7**]{}, 73 (2007); C.-H. F. Fung, [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**75**]{}, 032314 (2007); Y. Zhao, [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**78**]{}, 042333 (2008); L. Lydersen, [*et al.*]{}, Nature Photonics [**4**]{}, 686 (2010); L. Lydersen, [*et al.*]{}, Nature Photonics [**4**]{}, 801 (2010); I. Gerhardt, [*et al.*]{}, Nature Comm. [**2**]{}, 349 (2011); L.Lydersen, [*et al.*]{}, New J. Phys. [**13**]{}, 113042 (2011).
D. Mayers and A. Yao, Quantum Inform. Comput. [**4**]{}, 273 (2004); J. Barrett, L. Hardy and A. Kent, Phys. Rev. Lett., 010503 (2005); A. Acin, [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev.Lett. [**97**]{}, 120405 (2006); A. Acin, [*et al.*]{}, Phys.Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 230501 (2007); N. Gisin, S. Pironio and N. Sangouard, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{}, 070501 (2010).
H.-K. Lo and H. F. Chau, Science [**283**]{}, 2050 (1999).
E. Biham, B. Huttner and T. Mor, Phys. Rev. A [**54**]{}, 2651 (1996); H. Inamori, Algorithmica [**34**]{}, 340 (2002).
Summing over $l$, we have a completely positive trace preserving (CPTP) map.
A. S. Holevo, Probl. Inform. Transm. **9**, 177 (1973).
I. Devetak and A. Winter, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A **461**, 207 (2005).
Equivalently, we can adopt the EHS representation (see Supplementary Material for details), where the ensemble $\mathcal{E}_{B}$ and the stochastic variables $X$ and $L^{\prime}$ are described by a unique classical-quantum state $\rho_{\mathbf{XL}^{\prime}B}=\sum_{x,l^{\prime}}p(x,l^{\prime})
\left\vert x\right\rangle\left\langle x\right\vert_{\mathbf{X}}
\otimes\left\vert l^{\prime}\right\rangle
\left\langle l^{\prime}\right\vert _{\mathbf{L}^{\prime}}
\otimes\rho_{B}(x,l)$. The Holevo quantity of Eq. (\[HolB\]) corresponds to the conditional quantum mutual entropy $I(\mathbf{X}:B|\mathbf{L}^{\prime})$ computed over this state.
Equivalently, we can consider the classical-quantum state $\rho_{\mathbf{XL}E}=\sum_{x,l}p(x,l)\left\vert x\right\rangle
\left\langle x\right\vert _{\mathbf{X}}
\otimes\left\vert l\right\rangle \left\langle l\right\vert_{\mathbf{L}}
\otimes\rho_{E}(x,l)$, and compute $I(\mathbf{X}:E|\mathbf{L})=I(X:E|L)$.
H-K. Lo, M. Curty, and B. Qi, preprint arXiv:1109.1473.
P.W. Shor and J. Preskill, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 441 (2000).
S. Barz *et al*., Science [**335**]{}, 303 (2012).
T. M. Cover and J. A. Thomas, (John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, 2006) p. 35.
Note that the EHS representation has been mainly introduced to give the correct interpretation to the definition of $\gamma$, where a quantum system $E$ conditions a classical variable $X$ thanks to the embedding in a quantum system $\mathbf{X}$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We examine by singularity analysis an equation derived by reduction using Lie point symmetries from the Euler–Bernoulli Beam equation which is the Painlevé–Ince Equation with additional terms. The equation possesses the same leading-order behaviour and resonances as the Painlevé–Ince Equation and has a Right Painlevé Series. However, it has no Left Painlevé Series. A conjecture for the existence of Left Painlevé Series for ordinary differential equations is given.
Keywords: Singularity analysis; Painlevé–Ince; Integrability
author:
- |
Amlan K Halder[^1]\
[ *Department of Mathematics, Pondicherry* ]{}\
[ *University, Kalapet, India-605014*]{}
- |
Andronikos Paliathanasis[^2]\
[ **]{} [**]{} [*Institute of Systems Science, Durban University of Technology*]{}\
[*Durban 4000, Republic of South Africa.*]{}\
- |
PGL Leach[^3]\
[*School of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science,*]{}\
[*University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.*]{}\
[*Institute of Systems Science, Durban University of Technology*]{}\
[*Durban 4000, Republic of South Africa.*]{}
title: 'Singularity Analysis of a Variant of the Painlev[é]{}–Ince Equation'
---
Introduction
============
The Painlevé–Ince Equation $$y^{\prime \prime }+3yy^{\prime}+y^{3}=0, \label{1.1}$$where the prime denotes differentiation of the dependent variable, $y(x)$, with respect to the independent variable, $x$, is an equation noted for its interesting properties. Firstly it possesses eight Lie point symmetries [Mahomed 85 a]{} with the Lie Algebra $sl(2,R)$ which means that it is linearisable by a point transformation. Secondly it is the second member of the Riccati Hierarchy which is based upon the Riccati Equation with the recursion operator $D+y$, where $D$ is the operator $\frac{d}{dy}$ [Euler 07 a]{}. Thirdly it possesses the Painlevé Property in a very unique way in that there are two possible Laurent expansions about its simple pole. The coefficient of the leading-order term can be $1$ or $2$. For the former the resonances are the generic $-1$ and $1$. For the latter the resonances are again $-1$ and an unexpected $-2$. This meant that the Laurent expansion must be decreasing in exponent from the simple pole [Lemmer 93 a]{}. The existence of a resonance at an exponent lower than the exponent of the leading-order term was not expected and the proposal was derided by some, but the careful analysis of Feix and his team [@Feix; @97; @a; @Feix; @05; @a; @Claude; @02; @a] established the sense with the addition of the Left Painlevé Series to the well-established Right Painlevé Series. One notes that Andriopoulos *et al* [@Andriopoulos; @06; @a] discussed the existence of both positive and negative [nongeneric]{} resonances for higher-order equations, *ie* Mixed Painlevé Series and their geometric interpretation.
In an analysis of the Euler–Bernoulli Equation for a beam Halder *et al* [@Halder; @19; @a] determined the Lie point symmetries [^4] and used them initially to reduce the fourth-order partial differential equation to a fourth-order ordinary differential equation. This fourth-order equation had sufficient Lie point symmetries to reduce it to a second-order equation devoid of Lie point symmetries. It was noted that the second-order equation was the Painlevé–Ince Equation with some rather messy additional terms of order lower than the second order in the derivative. It is the purpose of this paper to demonstrate that this equation does in fact satisfy the requirement of the ARS algorithm [Ablowitz 78 a, Ablowitz 80 a, Ablowitz 80 b]{}. The equation is nonautonomous and so we treat it in the spirit of the treatment of nonautonomous equations as found in Andriopoulos *et al* [@Andriopoulos; @11; @a].
The equation and its singularity analysis
=========================================
The nonlinear second-order ordinary differential equation of our consideration is $$y^{\prime \prime }+y^{\prime }\left( \frac{7}{x}+3y\right) +y^{3}+\frac{%
7y^{2}}{x}+y\left( \frac{1}{16abx^{4}}+\frac{39}{4x^{2}}\right) +\frac{3}{%
2x^{3}}=0, \label{2.1}$$where the symbolic usages are the same as for (\[1.1\]) above. As, mentioned in the introduction, equation (\[2.1\]) caught our attention, as it is obtained from the reduction of the well-known Euler-Bernoulli Beam equation, which is something new according to the author’s knowledge and cannot be found in the literature. A first glance at the equation establish the fact that, it is a variant of the Painlevé–Ince equation. It has zero Lie-point symmetries, and we choose to study the singularity analysis to ascertain its integrability. A problem of interests also in the area of physics where the Euler-Bernoulli Beam equation has applications. The similarities and dissimilarities of equation (\[2.1\]) with the Painlevé–Ince equation have been mentioned subsequently. To determine the leading-order behaviour of equation (\[2.1\]), we substitute $$y=a(x-x_{0})^{p}, \label{2.2}$$where $x_{0}$ is the location of the putative singularity and, being movable, is one of the constants of integration to be determined from the initial conditions, into (\[2.1\]) to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
0 &=&\frac{3x^{4}}{2}%
-apx^{7}(x-x_{0})^{-2+p}+ap^{2}x^{7}(x-x_{0})^{-2+p}+7apx^{6}(x-x_{0})^{-1+p}
\notag \\
&&+\frac{x^{3}(x-x_{0})^{p}}{16b}+\frac{39}{4}%
ax^{5}(x-x_{0})^{p}+7a^{2}x^{6}(x-x_{0})^{2p}+ \notag \\
&&+a^{3}x^{7}(x-x_{0})^{3p}+3a^{2}px^{7}(x-x_{0})^{-1+2p}. \notag
\label{2.3}\end{aligned}$$We consider the dominant terms to compute the value of $p$, which is, $$-apx^{7}(x-x_{0})^{-2+p}+ap^{2}x^{7}(x-x_{0})^{-2+p}+a^{3}x^{7}(x-x_{0})^{3p}+3a^{2}px^{7}(x-x_{0})^{-1+2p},$$we equate the exponents of the dominant terms, which are $-2+p,3p$ and $-1+2p
$, from which it is evident that $p=-1$, *ie*, the singularity is a simple pole.
We solve the dominant terms $$\frac{2ax^{7}}{(x-x_{0})^{3}}-\frac{3a^{2}x^{7}}{(x-x_{0})^{3}}+\frac{%
a^{3}x^{7}}{(x-x_{0})^{3}}=0, \label{2.4}$$for $a$ and obtain $a=0,1,2$. So far all is the same as for (\[1.1\]). To determine the resonances for the leading-order coefficient $a=1$ we make the substitution $$y=(x-x_{0})^{-1}+m(x-x_{0})^{-1+s}, \label{2.5}$$into (\[2.1\]), take the coefficient of $m$ and require it to vanish for the terms corresponding to the dominant terms from which $p$ was found.
The values of $s$ so found are $-1$ and $1$. The former value of $s$, which is $-1$, is generic in nature and is related to the arbitrariness of the location of the movable singularity. The details regarding the various values of the resonances and most importantly the implications of the value $%
-1$ is explained in [@Andriopoulos; @11; @a].
When we use the value $a = 2$, the resonances are $-1$ and $-2$. Thus far the results are as for the Painlev[é]{}–Ince Equation, (\[1.1\]).
To determine consistency we need to substitute a (truncated) Laurent expansion into the full equation, which is, $$\frac{1}{(x-x_{0})}%
+a_{0}+a_{1}(x-x_{0})+a_{2}(x-x_{0})^{2}+a_{3}(x-x_{0})^{3},$$where, $a_{0},a_{1},a_{2}$ and $a_{3}$ are the coefficients of the series terms. For the coefficient constants $a_{0},a_{1},a_{2}$ and $a_{3}$ in the Laurent expansion we obtain the following results $$\begin{aligned}
&&a_{1}=\frac{-1-156bx_{0}^{2}-224a_{0}bx_{0}^{3}-48a_{0}^{2}bx_{0}^{4}}{%
48bx_{0}^{4}}, \notag \\
&&a_{2}=\frac{%
11+2a_{0}x_{0}+1380bx_{0}^{2}+2104a_{0}bx_{0}^{3}+896a_{0}^{2}bx_{0}^{4}+128a_{0}^{3}bx_{0}^{5}%
}{128bx_{0}^{5}}\mbox{\rm and} \notag \\
&&a_{3}=\frac{%
-(1+8bx_{0}^{2}(372+173a_{0}x_{0}+30a_{0}^{2}x_{0}^{2})+80b^{2}x_{0}^{4}(4095+...))%
}{11520b^{2}x_{0}^{8}}. \notag\end{aligned}$$
One could continue further, but the successive coefficients in the Right Painlev[é]{} Series are expressible in terms of the two arbitrary constants, $x_{0}$ and $a_{0}$, which is as they should be.
We turn now to the second possibility, $a=2$, for the value of the coefficient of the leading-order term for which the resonances are $-1$ and $%
-2$. We substitute $$y=2(x-x_{0})^{-1}+a_{2}(x-x_{0})^{-2}+a_{3}(x-x_{0})^{-3}+a_{4}(x-x_{0})^{-4}+a_{5}(x-x_{0})^{-5},
\label{2.9}$$in equation (\[2.1\]), to check the consistency by computing the coefficients of the Laurent expansion.
An attempt to put various coefficients to zero fails immediately due to the presence of the term, $x^{4}$, in (\[2.1\]) for which there is no compensating term in the posited Left Painlev[é]{} Series.
Conclusion
==========
The Painlevé–Ince Equation is the first known instance of an ordinary differential equation possessing both Left and Right Painlevé Series. Equation (\[2.1\]), obtained by reduction using Lie point symmetries from the Euler–Bernoulli Beam equation, is like a Painlevé–Ince Equation with some additional terms. These additional terms do not affect the first two steps of the ARS algorithm as they are not part of the dominant terms in (\[2.1\]). However, when it comes to the test for consistency, these additional terms must play a role.
The basis of the singularity analysis is the existence of a Laurent expansion about a singularity. There are three possible forms for a convergent Laurent expansion. One is an expansion from singularity in increasing powers of $\left( x-x_{0}\right) $, where $x_{0}$ is the location of the singularity in the complex plane. This is the well-known right-Painlevé series. Secondly the series can descend in powers from the singularity and one has the left-Painlev‘e series. Thirdly there can be an expansion between two singularities which gives rise to the mixed-Painlevé series. All of these are well illustrated in [@anlp]. One should bear in mind that the existence of, say, a left-Painlevé series does suggest that the series, of the nature of an asymptotic series, is convergent over the rest of the complex plane. On the other hand the mixed series gives a starting point for a series which cannot be convergent over the whole complex plane and so it must terminate at the boundary determined by another singularity.
As far as the equation of our problem is concerned, for the Right Painlevé Series there is no serious effect apart from making the coefficients of the terms in the series more complex. Nevertheless those coefficients are expressible in terms of the two constants of integration required for the second-order equation. We note that the location of the movable pole plays an active role in the further coefficients as predicted in [Andriopoulos 11 a]{}.
The collapse of the Left Painlevé Series comes as no surprise in retrospect as the negative powers cannot possibly balance positive powers. Indeed it suggests strongly that an equation with nondominant terms might not be able to possess a Left Painlevé Series.**Conjecture:** For a differential equation to possess a Left Painlevé Series all terms must be dominant.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
AKH expresses grateful thanks to UGC (India) NFSC, Award No. F1-17.1/201718/RGNF-2017-18-SC-ORI-39488 for financial support and Late Prof. K.M.Tamizhmani for the discussions which AKH had with him which formed the basis of this work. PGLL acknowledges the support of the National Research Foundation of South Africa, the University of KwaZulu-Natal and the Durban University of Technology and thanks the Department of Mathematics, Pondicherry University, for gracious hospitality.
[99]{} Ablowitz MJ, Ramani A & Segur H (1978) Nonlinear Evolution Equations and Ordinary Differential Equations of Painlevé Type *Lett Nuovo Cimento* **23** 333-337.
Ablowitz MJ, Ramani A & Segur H (1980) A connection between nonlinear evolution equations and ordinary differential equations of P-type I *Journal of Mathematical Physics* **21** 715-721.
Ablowitz MJ, Ramani A & Segur H (1980) A connection between nonlinear evolution equations and ordinary differential equations of P-type II *Journal of Mathematical Physics* **21** 1006-1015.
Andriopoulos K & Leach PGL (2006) An interpretation of the presence of both positive and negative nongeneric resonances in the singularity analysis *Physics Letters A* **359** 199-203.
Andriopoulos K & Leach PGL (2011) Singularity analysis for autonomous and nonautonomous differential equations *Applicable Analysis and Discrete Mathematics* **5** 230-239.
Dimas S & Tsoubelis D (2004, October) SYM: A new symmetry-finding package for Mathematica *In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference in Modern Group Analysis* (University of Cyprus Press) 64-70.
Dimas S & Tsoubelis D (2006, June) A new Mathematica-based program for solving overdetermined systems of PDEs *In 8th International Mathematica Symposium*.
Euler M, Euler N & Leach PGL (2007) The Riccati and Ermakov-Pinney hierarchies *Journal of Nonlinear Mathematical Physics* **14** 290-310.
Feix MR, Géronimi C, Cairó L, Leach PGL, Lemmer RL & Bouquet SÉ (1997) On the singularity analysis of ordinary differential equations invariant under time translation and rescaling *Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General* **30** 7437-7461.
Feix MR, Géronimi C & Leach PGL (2005) Properties of some autonomous equations invariant under homogeneity symmetries *Problems of Nonlinear Analysis in Engineering Systems* **11** 26-34.
Géronimi C, Leach PGL & Feix MR (2002) Singularity analysis and a function unifying the Painlevé and $\Psi$ series *Journal of Nonlinear Mathematical Physics* **9** **Second Supplement** 36-48.
Halder AK , Paliathansis K & Leach PGL (2019) A Complete Study Of Different Forms Of Beam Equations Through Lie Group Analysis[submitted]{}.
Lemmer RL & Leach PGL (1993) The Painlevé test, hidden symmetries and the equation $y^{\prime\prime}+ yy^{\prime}+ky^{3} = 0$ *Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General* **26** 5017-5024.
Mahomed FM & Leach PGL (1985) The linear symmetries of a nonlinear differential equation *Quaestiones Mathematicae* **8** 241-274.
Paliathanasis A & Leach PGL (2016) Nonlinear Ordinary Differential Equations: A discussion on Symmetries and Singularities *International Journal Geometric Methods Modern Physics* **13** 1630009
[^1]: Email: [email protected]
[^2]: Email: [email protected]
[^3]: Email: [email protected]
[^4]: The Mathemaica add-on Sym [@Dimas; @04; @a; @Dimas; @06] was used to obtain the symmetries.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A domain wall separating two oppositely magnetized regions in a ferromagnetic semiconductor exhibits, under appropriate conditions, strongly non linear I-V characteristics similar to those of a $p$-$n$ diode. We study these characteristics as functions of wall width and temperature. As the width increases or the temperature decreases, direct tunneling between the majority spin bands reduces the effectiveness of the diode. This has important implications for the zero-field quenched resistance of magnetic semiconductors and for the design of a recently proposed spin transistor.'
author:
- 'G. Vignale'
- 'M. E. Flatté'
title: 'Nonlinear spin-polarized transport through a ferromagnetic domain wall'
---
It has recently been reported that some doped semiconductors, such as Ga$_{1-x}$Mn$_x$As [@OhnoRTD] and Ti$_{1-x}$Co$_x$O$_2$ [@Matsumoto], undergo ferromagnetic transitions at temperatures as high as $110$ K and $300$ K respectively, while others ($n$-doped Zn$_{1-x}$Mn$_x$Se [@BeMnZnSe]) are almost completely spin polarized by the application of a relatively modest magnetic field. These findings have raised hopes for the realization of semiconductor-based magnetoelectronic devices [@review].
In a ferromagnetic semiconductor, the up- and down- spin components of just [*one*]{} carrier type are quite analogous to majority and minority carriers in ordinary doped semiconductors. Accordingly, a domain wall separating two ferromagnetic regions with opposite magnetizations is the analogue of a $p$-$n$ junction, while two consecutive domain walls correspond to a $p$-$n$-$p$ transistor. In a recent paper [@FV] we have exploited this analogy to show that nonlinear amplification of a spin-polarized charge current is indeed possible in the “$p$-$n$-$p$" configuration, and can be controlled by a magnetic field or a voltage applied to the “base" region between the two domain walls. However, the analysis of Ref. [@FV] was based on the assumption that the probability of a carrier flipping its spin while crossing the domain wall is negligible. This corresponds to assuming the resistivity of the domain wall is large compared to that of the bulk material.
The resistance of a domain wall between ferromagnetic materials has been examined several times from different perspectives since the pioneering work of Cabrera and Falicov [@Falicov]. These authors found that the resistance was very small, and later calculations [@Zhang; @Simanek] have supported that result for metallic magnets. A far different regime is possible, however, when the spin polarization is or approaches $100 \%$. For example, experimental and theoretical results[@Mathur] indicate that domain walls in La$_{0.7}$Ca$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ may dominate the resistance in thin films. Magnetic semiconductor systems, due to their very small bandwidths, are also likely to be $100 \%$ spin polarized, and thus their domain walls should be highly resistive in the absence of spin-flip transport processes across them.
A key question that has not been addressed so far is how the nonlinear current-voltage (I-V) characteristics of the domain wall are affected by spin-flip processes as the width of the domain wall increases. Note that the width of a domain wall can now be directly measured [@magneticSTM] and, in principle, geometrically controlled [@Bruno]. Our analytical theory of transport across the domain wall should therefore be useful in designing devices with optimal values of the controllable parameters. Certainly such a theory would be crucial to understanding the zero-field quenched resistance and the low-field magnetoresistance of magnetic semiconductors as well as to the realization of the “unipolar spin transistor" proposed in [@FV].
Here we present a quantitative study of the nonlinear I-V characteristics of a magnetic domain wall. The main issue is the competition between minority spin injection, which is responsible for the nonlinear spin-diode behavior, and majority spin transmission, which tends to suppress it. We shall show that the latter dominates when either the temperature is low, or the domain wall is thick. Assuming that the motion of carriers through the domain wall is ballistic, we derive analytic expressions for the charge and spin currents as functions of applied voltage, width of the domain wall, and temperature. We further identify a new transport regime for intermediate wall thicknesses, in which carriers are ballistically transported across the domain wall (characterized by nonlinear charge currents), but most spin polarization is lost.
Our model is schematically depicted in Fig. 1(a). The two ferromagnetic regions $F1$ and $F2$ are connected by a domain wall region of width $d$, $-d/2<x<d/2$. The exchange field $B(x)$ has the form $$\vec B (x) = B_0 [\cos \theta(x) \hat x + \sin \theta (x) \hat y],$$ where $\hat x$, $\hat y$ are unit vectors in the direction of $x$ and $y$, and the angle $\theta (x)$ varies linearly from $\theta = \pi/2$ in $F2$ to $\theta = -\pi/2$ in $F1$ [@footnote1].
\[fig1\] {width="7cm"}
We assume that $d$, while possibly large in comparison to a typical carrier wavelength, is smaller than the mean free path and the spin diffusion length $L_s$, which is in turn smaller than the geometric size of the system. A charge current $J_q$ is injected from the left: our objective is to calculate the voltage $V$ that develops across the domain wall and the spin current $J_s$ due to the flow.
Let $\mu_>$ and $\mu_<$ be the quasi-chemical potentials, which control the nonequilibrium densities of majority and minority spin carriers respectively [@footnote2]. Far from the wall we have $\mu_> = \mu_<$ and the carrier densities have the equilibrium values $n^{(0)}_>$ and $n^{(0)}_<$, with $n^{(0)}_> >> n^{(0)}_<$. Density variations from equilibrium $\Delta
n_{>(<)} \equiv n_{>(<)} - n^{(0)}_{>(<)} $ are related to the difference of the quasichemical potentials $\Delta \mu \equiv \mu_< - \mu_>$ near the domain wall. Since, by charge neutrality, $\Delta n_< \simeq - \Delta n_>$ we see that the [*relative*]{} change in the minority spin density is always much larger than the corresponding relative change in the majority spin density. This implies that $\mu_>$ is essentially pinned to its bulk value, while $\mu_<$ varies significantly in a region of length $\sim L_s$ on either side of the domain wall. We can therefore set $\mu_{>} \simeq 0$ throughout $F1$ and $\mu_{>} \simeq eV$ throughout $F2$, where $V$ is the electrostatic potential of $F1$ relative to $F2$ (see Fig. 1(b)) and the carriers are assumed to be electrons. The density variations are $$\label{excessdensity}
\Delta n_< (x) = n^{(0)}_< \left [e^{\Delta \mu (x) /k_BT}-1 \right ],$$ where $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant and $T$ is the temperature.
The charge currents for majority and minority spin orientations must satisfy the condition $J_> + J_< = J_q$ where the total charge current $J_q$ is independent of position. In addition, the minority carrier current $J_<$ is almost entirely a diffusion current, and is given by the classical relation $J_< (x) = e D d n_< (x)
/dx$, where $D$ is the diffusion constant. Because the spin density relaxes to equilibrium exponentially on the scale of $L_s$ ( i.e., $\Delta n_{< }(x) = \Delta
n_{<}(\pm d/2)
e^{-|x \mp d/2|/L_s}$ where the lower sign holds in $F1$ and the upper sign in $F2$), the minority carrier current at $x = \pm d/2$ can be written as $J_<(\pm d/2) = \mp
eD \Delta n_{<}(\pm d/2)/L_s$, or, with the help of Eq. (\[excessdensity\]), $$\label {minoritycurrents}
J_<(\pm d/2) = \mp {eD n_<^{(0)} \over L_s} \left [e^{\Delta
\mu(\pm d/2)/k_BT}-1 \right ].$$
It will be argued below that for nondegenerate carriers the quasi-chemical potential of minority spin electrons on each side of the domain wall adjusts to the quasichemical potential of majority spin electrons on the opposite side, so that $\mu_<(-d/2) \simeq eV$, $\mu_<(d/2) \simeq 0$ (see Fig. 1(b)), and $$\label{deltamu}
\Delta \mu (\pm d/2) = \mp eV.$$
Under the same assumption of nondegeneracy, it will also be shown that the matching condition for the spin current $J_s (x) \equiv J_\uparrow(x) -
J_\downarrow (x)$ is $$\label{matchingcondition}
{J_s(-d/2) \over
J_s(d/2)} = {\bar t_{-} + \bar t_{+}e^{-eV/k_BT} \over \bar t_{+} + \bar
t_{-}e^{-eV/k_BT}}$$ where $ \bar t_{\pm} = \bar t_{nf} \pm \bar
t_{sf}$, and $\bar t_{sf} $ and $\bar t_{nf}$ are population-averaged transmission coefficients, with and without spin flip (see Fig. 1(c)), which will be defined more precisely below. Thus, the spin current is conserved across a sharp domain wall ($\bar t_+ = \bar t_-$), but reverses its sign across a smooth one ($\bar
t_+ = - \bar
t_-$).
Combining Eqs. (\[minoritycurrents\]-\[matchingcondition\]), and using current conservation we arrive at our main results. First $$\label{chargecurrent}
{ J _q\over J_0} = \sinh \left ( {e V \over k_B T} \right ) \left [1+
{\bar t_{sf }\over \bar t_{nf}} \tanh^2 \left ( {e V \over 2 k_B T} \right
) \right ],$$ where $J_0 \equiv 2 e D n^{(0)}_</L_s$. For $\bar t_{sf} = 0$ this reduces to the equation [@Streetman] derived in ([@FV]), while for $\bar t_{nf}=0$ we get $V=0$ as expected for a ballistic conductor. In the linear regime $eV/k_BT<<1$ this formula leads to the well-known interfacial resistance of Fert and Valet [@Fert]. Second, in the immediate vicinity of the domain wall the spin current is given by $$\label{spincurrent}
{ J_s \over J_0} = 2\sinh^2 \left ( {e V \over 2 k_B T} \right ) \left [1 \pm
{\bar t_{sf }\over \bar t_{nf}} \tanh \left ( {e V \over 2 k_B T} \right )
\right ],$$ where the upper sign holds in $F2$ and the lower sign in $F1$. We see that spin-flip processes cause the appearance of an odd-in-voltage component of the spin-current, whereas, for $t_{sf}=0$, the spin-current is an even function of $V$ [@FV]. Shown in Fig. 2 is (a) the spin current in $F1$, (b) the charge current, and (c) the ratio of the two. The curves correspond to several different values of $\bar t_{nf}/ \bar t_{sf}$. The trends for the spin and charge current described above are evident in Fig. 2; specifically the charge current is always odd in $V$ whereas the spin current is even in the absence of spin-flip. When spin-flip dominates the spin current becomes odd as well. The spin current in $F2$ is related to that in $F1$ according to the following relation: $J_s(F2;
V) = -J_s(F1; -V)$. As $\bar t_{nf}/ \bar t_{sf} $ becomes smaller, the “leakage current" between the two majority bands becomes significant, and the odd in $V$ term in the spin current begins to dominate. Over the entire range shown of $\bar t_{nf}/ \bar
t_{sf} $ the relationship between $J_q$ and $V$ is highly nonlinear indicating ballistic transport. Thus ballistic transport itself is not a sufficient condition for maintaining spin polarization in transport across a domain wall.
\[fig2\] {width="7cm"}
Assuming ballistic transport in the wall region, we calculate the transmission/reflection coefficients from the exact numerical solution of the Schrödinger equation $$\label{SE}
\left [ {- \hbar^2 \over 2m} {\partial^2 \over \partial x^2} - {\Delta
\over 2} \left (
\begin{array} {cc} 0 & e^{-i \theta (x)} \\ e^{+i \theta (x)}& 0 \end{array}
\right ) \right ]
\left ( \begin {array} {cc}\psi_{\uparrow} \\ \psi_\downarrow \end{array}
\right )
= E \left ( \begin {array}{cc} \psi_{\uparrow} \\ \psi_\downarrow
\end{array} \right
),$$ where $\Delta = g \mu_B B$ is the exchange spin-splitting. The technique of solution is the same as used in Ref. [@Zhang]. Sample results are shown in Fig. 3(a)-(c) for three different values of the dimensionless parameter $\xi =
\hbar \pi/2 d
\sqrt {2 m \Delta} = 10$, $1$, and $0.1$, corresponding to sharp, intermediate, and smooth domain walls respectively. smooth domain walls respectively. Recent experiments [@magneticSTM] suggest the width of domain walls in artificial nanostructures can be as small as $1$ nm, giving $\xi \sim 1$ for an effective mass $m$ equal to the electron mass and a spin splitting $\Delta = 100 meV$. Domain walls thinner than $20$ nm have already been inferred in thin GaMnAs layers[@Schiffer].
\[fig3\] {width="7cm"}
Fig. 3(d)-(f) shows the behavior of the key ratio $\bar
t_{nf}/ \bar t_{sf}$ as a function of temperature and thickness. As expected $\bar t_{nf}$ vanishes at low temperature, because, in this limit, there are no incident states above the exchange barrier to provide minority spin-injection. The spin diode is a thermally-activated device (as a $p$-$n$ diode is), thus higher temperature is favorable to its performance. Fig. 3(d,e) supports this view by showing that minority spin injection only dominates above a certain temperature (depending on domain wall thickness). However the condition $k_BT \lesssim \Delta$ must be respected if the system is to be nearly $100 \%$ spin-polarized. The conclusion is that there is a range $T_{min}<T<T_{max}$ in which unipolar spin diodes and transistors are expected to be operational.
We now come to the justification of the matching condition (\[matchingcondition\]) and the calculation of the quasi-chemical potential offset. We begin with the former. In the spirit of the Landauer-Büttiker formalism we treat the ferromagnetic regions $F1$ and $F2$ as two reservoirs of spin polarized electrons at chemical potentials $\mu_1 = 0$ and $\mu_2 = eV$ which inject up- and down-spin electrons, respectively, in the domain wall region. The small density of minority spin carriers is neglected in the following argument. The components of the current due to electrons with energies in the range $(E, E+dE)$ on the two sides of the domain wall are given (in units of $e/h$) by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{LBcurrents}
j_{1 >}(E) &=& -(1 - r_{nf}(E)) f
_{1>}(E) + t_{sf}(E)f_{2>} (E)
\nonumber \\
j_{1 <} (E) &=& ~~r_{sf}(E)f_{1>}(E) + t_{nf}(E)f_{2>}(E)
\nonumber \\
j_{2 >} (E) &=& ~~(1 - r_{nf}(E)) f_{2>}(E) - t_{sf}(E)f_{1>}(E)
\nonumber \\
j_{2 <} (E) &=& ~- r_{sf}(E)f_{2>}(E) - t_{nf}(E)f_{1>}(E),
\end{aligned}$$ where $r_{nf}$ and $r_{sf}$ are the non spin-flip and spin-flip reflection probabilities, related to $t_{nf}$ and $t_{sf}$ by the unitarity condition $r_{nf}+r_{sf} +t_{nf}+t_{sf} = 1$, and $f_{1 >}$ ,$f_{2 >}$ are shorthands for the equilibrium distributions of majority spin carriers in $F1$ and $F2$ respectively. Note that, for nondegenerate carriers $f_{1>} = f_{2>} e^{-eV/k_BT}$. We find that the spin-flip reflection coefficient $r_{sf}$ is extremely small at all energies and thicknesses, and can therefore be safely neglected. With this approximation, combined with the unitarity condition, it is easy to show that the energy-resolved currents are given by $j_{s1(2)} (E) = ( t_{-(+)} (E) +
t_{+(-)} (E)
e^{-eV/k_BT}) f_{2>}(E)$. Noting that $f_{2>}(E) \propto
~e^{-E/k_BT}$ and integrating over energy we see that the total current $J_{s1} =
\int_0^\infty j_{s1}(E) e^{-e/k_BT}$ is equal to $A ( \bar t_- + \bar t_+
e^{-eV/k_BT})$ where the average transmission coefficients are defined as $$\label{averagetransmission}
\bar t_{nf (sf)} = {\int_0^\infty t_{nf (sf)}(E) e^{-E/k_BT} dE \over
\int_0^\infty e^{-E/k_BT} dE},$$ and $A$ is a constant. Similarly $J_{s2} = A( \bar t_+ + \bar t_-
e^{-eV/k_BT})$. The ratio $J_{s1}/J_{s2}$ is thus given by Eq. (\[matchingcondition\]).
To justify the quasi-chemical potential offset condition, Eq. (\[deltamu\]) we notice that the quasi-chemical potential $\mu_{<,1}$ of minority spin electrons near the left hand side of the domain wall is an average of the quasi-chemical potentials of right (+) and left (-) moving electrons : $e^{ \mu_{<,1}/k_BT} = [e^{ \mu_{<,1}^+/k_BT}+e^{ \mu_{<,1}^-/k_BT}]/2$. (A similar relation holds for the quasi-chemical potential $\mu_{<,2}$ of minority spin electrons near the right hand side of the domain wall). The quasi-chemical potentials for right and left movers on either side are determined by the conditions of continuity $$\begin{aligned}
\label{chemicalpotentials} e^{-(E - \mu_{>,2}^+)/k_BT } &=& q e^{-(E -
\mu_{>,1}^+)/k_BT } + p e^{-(E - \mu_{<,1}^+)/k_BT } \nonumber \\
e^{-(E - \mu_{<,2}^+)/k_BT } &=& q e^{-(E - \mu_{<,1}^+)/k_BT } + p
e^{-(E - \mu_{>,1}^+)/k_BT }
\nonumber \\
e^{-(E - \mu_{<,1}^-)/k_BT } &=& q e^{-(E - \mu_{<,2}^-)/k_BT } + p
e^{-(E - \mu_{>,2}^-)/k_BT }
\nonumber \\
e^{-(E - \mu_{>,1}^-)/k_BT } &=& q e^{-(E - \mu_{>,2}^-)/k_BT } + p
e^{-(E - \mu_{<,2}^-)/k_BT }, \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ where $q = t_{sf}/(t_{sf}+t_{nf})$ and $p = t_{nf}/(t_{sf}+t_{nf})$ are the relative probabilities of transmission with and without spin flip respectively. The first of these equations, for example, says that the density of right-moving up-spin electrons of energy $E$ on the right hand side of the domain wall is equal to the density of right-moving down-spin electrons of the same energy which enter from the left and flip their spin, [*plus*]{} the density of right-moving up-spin electrons which enter from the left and do not flip their spin. Because the quasi-chemical potentials of the majority spin carriers are essentially pinned to their bulk values, we can set $\mu_{>,2}^+ = \mu_{>,2}^- = \mu_{>,2}=eV$ and $\mu_{>,1}^+ = \mu_{>,1}^- = \mu_{>,1}=0$. Integrating Eqs. (\[chemicalpotentials\]) over energy, and making use of $p+q = 1$, we easily get $\mu_{<,1}=eV$ and $\mu_{<,2}=0$, as indicated in Fig. 1(b).
In summary, we have shown that both the thickness and the temperature have a profound influence on the nonlinear transport properties of a ferromagnetic domain wall. We have derived analytical formulas, Eqs. (\[chargecurrent\]) and (\[spincurrent\]), for the charge and spin currents of this “magnetic junction" under physical assumptions similar to the ones from which the Shockley equations of a classical $p$-$n$ junction are derived. These formulae indicate a new transport regime, where charge transport is ballistic, but spin polarization is lost. Equations (\[chargecurrent\]) and (\[spincurrent\]), together with microscopic calculation of the population-averaged transmission coefficients, can be used to assess the effectiveness of unipolar spin-diode devices in realistic circumstances.
We gratefully acknowledge support from NSF grants No. DMR-0074959 and from DARPA/ARO DAAD19-01-1-0490.
H. Ohno [*et al.*]{}, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**73**]{}, 363 (1998); H. Ohno, Science [**281**]{}, 951 (1998). Y. Matsumoto et al., Science [**291**]{}, 854 (2001). B. König[*et al.*]{} , Phys. Rev. B [**60**]{}, 2653 (1999). For a recent review of semiconductor spintronics see S. A. Wolf et al., Science [**294**]{}, 1488 (2001) and references therein. M. E. Flatté and G. Vignale, App. Phys. Lett. [**78**]{}, 1273 (2001). G. G. Cabrera and L. M. Falicov, Phys. Status Solidi B [**61**]{}, 539 (1974); [**62**]{}, 217 (1974). P. Levy and S. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 5110 (1997). E. Simanek, Phys. Rev. B [**63**]{}, 224412-1 (2001). N. D. Mathur [*et al.*]{}, J. Appl. Physics [**86**]{}, 6287 (1999). O. Pietzsch, A. Kubetzka, M. Bode, and R. Wiesendanger, Science [**292**]{}, 2053 (2001); M. Pratzer [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 127201 (2001). P. Bruno, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 2425 (1999). This model describes a Neél wall in a ferromagnetic film in the x-y plane. With the slight change $\vec B (x) = B_0 [\cos \theta(x) \hat
z + \sin \theta
(x) \hat y] $ the model also describes a Bloch wall. The exact electronic states are, strictly speaking, neither “up" nor “down" with respect to the local magnetization, but superpositions of the two orientations. However, the relative phase of the up and down components of the wave function has a rapid spatial variation — typically on the scale of the electronic wavelength $\lambda$. Therefore transverse spin coherence disappears on a scale larger than $\lambda$, and the carriers’ spin can be safely assumed to be either parallel or antiparallel to the local magnetization. B. G. Streetman and S. Banerjee, [*Solid State Electronic Devices*]{} (Prentice Hall, 2000), Chapters 5,7. T. Valet and A. Fert, Phys. Rev. [**B 48**]{}, 7099 (1993). S. J. Potashnik, K. C. Ku, R. Mahendiran, S. H. Chun, R. F. Wang, N. Samarth, P. Schiffer, and M. Jaime, unpublished.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a new approach for the analysis of Bose-Einstein condensates in a few mode approximation. This method has already been used to successfully analyze the vibrational modes in various molecular systems and offers a new perspective on the dynamics in many particle bosonic systems. We discuss a system consisting of a Bose-Einstein condensate in a triple well potential. Such systems correspond to classical Hamiltonian systems with three degrees of freedom. The semiclassical approach allows a simple visualization of the eigenstates of the quantum system referring to the underlying classical dynamics. From this classification we can read off the dynamical properties of the eigenstates such as particle exchange between the wells and entanglement without further calculations. In addition, this approach offers new insights into the validity of the mean-field description of the many particle system by the Gross-Pitaevskii equation, since we make use of exactly this correspondence in our semiclassical analysis. We choose a three mode system in order to visualize it easily and, moreover, to have a sufficiently interesting structure, although the method can also be extended to higher dimensional systems.'
author:
- 'S. Mossmann'
- 'C. Jung'
title: 'Semiclassical approach to Bose-Einstein condensates in a triple well potential'
---
Introduction
============
Bose-Einstein condensates form one of the main topics of research at the moment. One reason for this enormous interest is the fact that they combine concepts and techniques from different areas of physics, such as quantum optics, condensed matter physics, molecular physics and quantum chaos. On the experimental side, there has been a remarkable progress in confining and manipulating Bose-Einstein condensates [@Albi05; @Schu05a], which has stimulated the theoretical research in the area.
There has been a large number of previous studies analyzing the dynamics of Bose-Einstein condensates in a double well potential using a mean-field approach, the Gross-Pitaevskii equation. In [@Smer97] Smerzi [*et al.*]{} discussed the occurrence of macroscopic self-trapping within one well. The behavior of the system during an adiabatic change of parameters was studied in [@06zener_bec; @Liu03; @Wu03] and generalizations of the linear two level crossing scenarios and the Landau-Zener formula were analyzed. Another line of investigation considers the mesoscopic regime in which the quantum and the classical, i.e. mean-field descriptions overlap and therefore semiclassical techniques can be used to study the system [@Milb97; @Smer00; @Angl01a; @Angl01b; @Thom03; @Mahm05].
In this paper we present a semiclassical technique to analyze the spectral properties of a Bose-Einstein condensate. This method has already been used to describe the vibrational spectra of molecules [@Sibe96; @Jaco99; @Jung02; @Jung04] and provides an intuitive picture for the at first sight uninterpretable spectra. In this sense, the dynamics of a Bose-Einstein condensate in a triple well potential is analogous to the vibrations of a tri-atomic molecule. Using the geometrical language of classical mechanics to describe the quantum system, we introduce a simple semiclassical method of visualization and classification of the quantum eigenstates which allows a characterization of the dynamics of the system. Furthermore, we investigate how far the correspondence between the mean-field system and the quantum many body system can be extended when the number of particles decreases.
For our studies we consider a Bose-Einstein condensate in a triple well potential, since the technique easily allows us to go beyond the standard double well potential analysis. A triple well potential has a much richer structure [@05level3; @Nemo00; @Thom03; @Buon03; @Fran03; @Buon04] and the power of the method can be shown without loss of clarity, still allowing a direct visualization of all relevant structures.
The model {#sec-model}
=========
In the following analysis we consider a system consisting of bosonic particles in an external periodic potential $V(\vec{r})=V(\vec{r}+\vec{r}_{\vec{l}})$ with $\vec{r}_{\vec{l}}= l_1d_1\vec{e}_1+l_2d_2\vec{e}_2+l_3d_3\vec{e}_3$, $l_k\in{\mbox{$\mbox{I}\hspace{-2.2pt}\mbox{N}$}}$ and $d_k\in{\mathbf{R}}$. If a weak two-particle point-like interaction is assumed, then the Hamiltonian in second quantization can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
{{\hat{H}}}=& \int d^3r\; {{\hat{{{\Phi}}}}}^\dagger(\vec{r})\Bigl[-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\Delta + V(\vec{r})\Bigr]{{\hat{{{\Phi}}}}}(\vec{r}) \nonumber \\
&+ \frac{g}{2} \int d^3r\; {{\hat{{{\Phi}}}}}^\dagger(\vec{r})\,{{\hat{{{\Phi}}}}}^\dagger(\vec{r})\,{{\hat{{{\Phi}}}}}(\vec{r})\,{{\hat{{{\Phi}}}}}(\vec{r})\,.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $m$ is the particle mass, $g=4\pi a_s\hbar^2/m$ is the coupling constant describing two-body interactions and $a_s$ is the s-wave scattering length. For a repulsive interaction, $g$ is positive while for an attractive interaction $g$ takes a negative value. For the rest of the paper we choose scaled units with $\hbar=m=1$. The field operator ${{\hat{{{\Phi}}}}}(\vec{r})$ can be expanded in terms of bosonic annihilation operators, $${{\hat{{{\Phi}}}}}(\vec{r}) = \sum_{n,m}{\phi_{n,m}}(\vec{r})\,{{\hat{a}}}_{n,m}\,,$$ where we assume that the basis functions $\{\phi_{n,m}\}$ of the one-particle Hilbert space are exponentially localized in space and real, as is the case for the Wannier functions [@Kohn59]. The index $n$ describes basis functions in different wells and we will take into account only three different wells in order to model the three well potential. The second index $m$ labels the excited states within a single well. Assuming Bose-Einstein condensates, we can restrict ourselves to the lowest energy state $m =1$ and neglect higher excited states (see also [@Milb97] for a careful discussion of this topic for a two well potential). Experimentally such a system was realized in [@Albi05] for a two well potential but the technique can in principle also be extended to three wells.
Expanding the Hamiltonian in this basis and neglecting fourth order terms in the creation and annihilation operators from different basis functions (modes) yields the well-known Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian [@Fish89b] restricted to three wells. So, the Hamiltonian can be written in a symmetrized form as $$\label{eq-Hqm}
{{\hat{H}}}= {{\hat{H}}}_0 + {{\hat{W}}}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
{{\hat{H}}}_0 =&\;\omega_1\,\frac{{{\hat{a}^\dagger}}_1{{\hat{a}}}_1+{{\hat{a}}}_1{{\hat{a}^\dagger}}_1}{2}
+\omega_2\,\frac{{{\hat{a}^\dagger}}_2{{\hat{a}}}_2+{{\hat{a}}}_2{{\hat{a}^\dagger}}_2}{2}\nonumber\\&+
\omega_3\,\frac{{{\hat{a}^\dagger}}_3{{\hat{a}}}_3+{{\hat{a}}}_3{{\hat{a}^\dagger}}_3}{2}
+x_{1}\,\biggl(\frac{{{\hat{a}^\dagger}}_1{{\hat{a}}}_1+{{\hat{a}}}_1{{\hat{a}^\dagger}}_1}{2}\biggl)^2\nonumber\\
&+ x_{2}\,\biggl(\frac{{{\hat{a}^\dagger}}_2{{\hat{a}}}_2+{{\hat{a}}}_2{{\hat{a}^\dagger}}_2}{2}\biggl)^2
+x_{3}\,\biggl(\frac{{{\hat{a}^\dagger}}_3{{\hat{a}}}_3+{{\hat{a}}}_3{{\hat{a}^\dagger}}_3}{2}\biggl)^2\,,\\
{{\hat{W}}}=&\; -\frac{k_{12}}{2}\,({{\hat{a}^\dagger}}_1{{\hat{a}}}_2+{{\hat{a}^\dagger}}_2{{\hat{a}}}_1)
-\frac{k_{23}}{2}\,({{\hat{a}^\dagger}}_2{{\hat{a}}}_3+{{\hat{a}^\dagger}}_3{{\hat{a}}}_2)\,.\label{eq-Hqmb}\end{aligned}$$ Here we neglect a constant energy shift. For convenience, we will choose the nonlinear interaction strengths $x_j$ equal for each well in the following sections which is also in accordance with experimental realizations. Such Hamiltonians have already been studied in great detail for the more restrictive two mode model (e.g. in [@Spek99; @Angl01b; @Mahm05]).
The Hamiltonian commutes with the particle number operator ${{\hat{N}}}= {{\hat{n}}}_1+{{\hat{n}}}_2+{{\hat{n}}}_3$ which expresses the conservation of the total number of particles. The symmetrized form is more convenient when considering the semiclassical limit, as will become clear in the next paragraph. Hamiltonians of this kind have been used in molecular physics in order to describe and assign vibrational spectra [@Jung04; @Sibe96]. In the molecular case they describe all kinds of vibrational degrees of freedom like stretches, bends, torsions etc. and include various resonant interactions corresponding to different simple rational ratios between the frequencies. The conserved particle number in our case of Eq. (\[eq-Hqm\]) corresponds to the polyad-type conserved quantities in the molecular systems.
For the case of 30 particles considered in the following, it is an easy numerical task to diagonalize the Hamiltonian matrix and thus solve the problem. However, one cannot understand the underlying structure of this system from numerical values alone. The aim of this paper is to present a method which allows an easy visual characterization of the eigenvectors of the Hamiltonian, using the close correspondence with the classical system.
The classical system
--------------------
Essential for our semiclassical classification and assignment of quantum states is a comparison between the quantum states and the corresponding classical dynamics. To this end, the first step is the construction of the classical Hamiltonian function, which corresponds to the quantum Hamiltonian given in Eqs. (\[eq-Hqm\])–(\[eq-Hqmb\]). This is done by Heisenberg’s substitution rules [@Heis25] $$\label{eq-aIrel}
{{\hat{a}}}_k\rightarrow \sqrt{I_k}e^{i\varphi},\quad
{{\hat{a}^\dagger}}_k\rightarrow \sqrt{I_k}e^{-i\varphi}\,.$$ There are two different lines of argumentation for this substitution. First, it is exact for the harmonic oscillator where the well known classical Hamiltonian $\omega I$ is obtained by the replacement of the symmetrized product of an annihilation and a creation operator by the classical action. This implies the correspondence $$\label{eq-Inrel1}
I \longleftrightarrow n+\frac{1}{2}$$ between the classical action $I$ and the quantum number $n$ of the oscillator ($I$ is here measured in units of $\hbar$). This correspondence of Eq. (\[eq-Inrel1\]) is also a result of the application of the semiclassical Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization rules to the harmonic oscillator. In more general cases we have to generalize the Bohr-Sommerfeld method to the EBK quantization. Then the argument holds for any bound system of any number of degrees of freedom as long as the system is close to integrable (for general background information on semiclassics see [@Brac97]). In general, the semiclassical methods give results correct in the lowest two orders in $\hbar$ (orders 0 and 1) and cause errors of order $\hbar^2$. The application of the substitution rules of Eq. (\[eq-aIrel\]) to the quantum Hamiltonian of Eqs. (\[eq-Hqm\])–(\[eq-Hqmb\]) gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-Hcl}
&H(\varphi_1,\varphi_2,\varphi_3,I_1,I_2,I_3) \nonumber\\&= H_0(I_1,I_2,I_3)+W(\varphi_1,\varphi_2,\varphi_3,I_1,I_2,I_3)
\nonumber\\&
=\omega_1\,I_1+\omega_2\,I_2+
\omega_3\,I_3+x_{1}\,I_1^2+x_{2}\,I_2^2+x_{3}\,I_3^2\\&\quad
-k_{12}\sqrt{I_1I_2}\,\cos(\varphi_1-\varphi_2)
-k_{23}\sqrt{I_2I_3}\,\cos(\varphi_2-\varphi_3)\,.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ A Hamiltonian for the same system but expanded in another basis was analyzed in [@Thom03]. This function can be interpreted as the Hamiltonian of a classical system of three coupled anharmonic oscillators described in action-angle variables $\varphi_k\in[0,2\pi)$ and $I_k>0$, where $k=1,2,3$. As a method to construct the corresponding classical Hamiltonian, the substitution rules of Eq. (\[eq-aIrel\]) always give the correct result since in this direction (quantum $\rightarrow$ classical) the correspondence is unique whenever it exist at all, in contrast to the other direction (classical $\rightarrow$ quantum) with its notorious $\hbar^2$ problems. At high excitation (large quantum numbers) there is a second argument for the semiclassical correspondence. The application of a creation or annihilation operator to a number state ${|n\rangle}$ has the effect $${{\hat{a}}}\, {|n\rangle} = \sqrt{n}\, {|n-1\rangle},\quad {{\hat{a}^\dagger}}\, {|n\rangle} = \sqrt{n+1}\, {|n+1\rangle}\,.$$ In the limit of a large quantum number $n$, the difference between $n$ and $n+1$ or $n-1$ is irrelevant in the square roots as well as in the states and the operators can simply be replaced by multiplication with the number $\sqrt{n}$. This argument holds for condensates where a large number of particles goes into a superfluid state which is well described by a mean-field limit. This is in line with the standard argument of semiclassical behavior in the limit of large quantum numbers. Interestingly, for systems of coupled anharmonic oscillators the semiclassical treatment is very good also for low excitation numbers. In this limit, we approach the integrable harmonic limit where the Bohr-Sommerfeld treatment gives the correct result. The experience with molecular systems of the structure of Eqs. (\[eq-Hqm\])–(\[eq-Hqmb\]) shows that a semiclassical treatment of such systems is globally quite good in most cases.
Accordingly, we base our method of semiclassical assignment on this argument. Semiclassical arguments will be used later first to convert the eigenstates of the many-body Hamiltonian (\[eq-Hqm\]) into wave functions on the toroidal configuration space and second to compare these functions with important structures seen in the classical dynamics.
The integrable part $H_0$ of the Hamiltonian, which does not contain interactions between the three oscillators, leaves all actions unchanged. In contrast, $W$ changes the values of the actions (particles in the wells) because of its dependence on angles and introduces interactions between the three oscillators. In this sense we call in the following $W$ the interaction part of the Hamiltonian. In the picture of particles in the triple well, $W$ describes tunneling terms between the various wells.
The Poisson bracket between $H$ and the observable $$\label{eq-Kcl}
K=I_1+I_2+I_3\,,$$ the total action, is equal to zero, which corresponds to the quantum mechanically conserved number of particles. Note that the numerical value of $K$ differs by $3\cdot 1/2$ from the value of $N$ because of the zero point actions. The symmetry $\{H,K\}=0$ can be used to reduce the number of degrees of freedom from three to two by a canonical transformation. Using the generating function $$\begin{gathered}
G(\varphi_1,\varphi_2,\varphi_3,J_1,J_2,K) \\= J_1(\varphi_1-\varphi_2) + J_2(\varphi_3-\varphi_2) + K \varphi_2\end{gathered}$$ of the old angles $(\varphi_1,\varphi_2,\varphi_3)$ and the new actions $(J_1,J_2,K)$ results in the transformations (together with Eq. (\[eq-Kcl\])) $$\begin{aligned}
&\psi_1 = \varphi_1-\varphi_2\,,\quad\psi_2 = \varphi_3-\varphi_2\,,\quad \vartheta=\varphi_2\,,\nonumber\\
&I_1 = J_1\,,\quad I_3 = J_2\,,\label{eq-vartrans}\end{aligned}$$ where $(\psi_1,\psi_2,\theta)$ are the new angles conjugate to $(J_1,J_2,K)$.
The Hamiltonian in the new coordinates is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-Hclred}
H =& \;\omega_1\,J_1+\omega_2\,(K-J_1-J_2)+
\omega_3\,J_2\nonumber\\&
+x_{1}\,J_1^2+x_{2}\,(K-J_1-J_2)^2+x_{3}\,J_2^2\nonumber\\&
-k_{12}\sqrt{J_1(K-J_1-J_2)}\,\cos\psi_1\nonumber\\&
-k_{23}\sqrt{J_2(K-J_1-J_2)}\,\cos\psi_2\,,\end{aligned}$$ with corresponding equations of motions $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\psi}_1 &=(\omega_1+2x_1J_1)-(\omega_2+2x_2(K-J_1-J_2))\nonumber\\
&\quad -\frac{k_{12}}{2}\Biggl[\,\sqrt{\frac{K-J_1-J_2}{J_1}}-\sqrt{\frac{J_1}{K-J_1-J_2}} \;\Biggr]\cos\psi_1\nonumber\\
&\quad + \frac{k_{23}}{2}\sqrt{\frac{J_2}{K-J_1-J_2}}\cos\psi_2\,,\label{eq-diffhama}\\
\dot{\psi}_2 &=(\omega_3+2x_3J_2)-(\omega_2+2x_2(K-J_1-J_2))\nonumber\\
&\quad -\frac{k_{23}}{2}\Biggl[\,\sqrt{\frac{K-J_1-J_2}{J_2}}-\sqrt{\frac{J_2}{K-J_1-J_2}} \;\Biggr]\cos\psi_2\nonumber\\
&\quad + \frac{k_{12}}{2}\sqrt{\frac{J_1}{K-J_1-J_2}}\cos\psi_1\,,\label{eq-diffhamb}\\
\dot{J}_1 &=-k_{12}\,\sqrt{J_1(K-J_1-J_2)}\,\sin\psi_1\,,\label{eq-diffhamc}\\
\dot{J}_2 &=-k_{23}\,\sqrt{J_2(K-J_1-J_2)}\,\sin\psi_2\,.\label{eq-diffhamd}\end{aligned}$$ The classical configuration space is a two dimensional torus spanned by the two angles $\psi_1$ and $\psi_2$. In order to compare the classical and the quantum system we have to represent the states as wave functions on the classical configuration space. The way to do this will be described in the following section.
The quantum mechanical configuration space
------------------------------------------
The angle variables can be introduced in the quantum system by using the set of functions $$\label{eq-phirep}
{|\varphi_1,\varphi_2,\varphi_3\rangle} =\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \sum_{n_1,n_2,n_3 \ge 0}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
e^{i(n_1\varphi_1+n_2\varphi_2+n_3\varphi_3)}\,{|n_1,n_2,n_3\rangle}\,,$$ first introduced in molecular spectroscopy by Sibert and McCoy [@Sibe96]. These functions are similar to the Bargmann states studied in [@Angl01b] in the context of a Bose-Einstein condensate. This relation is well-known from the context of infinite lattices. There, the sum is taken from $-\infty$ to $\infty$ and corresponds to the representation of Bloch functions in terms of Wannier functions. The angle variables $\varphi_1$, $\varphi_2$ and $\varphi_3$ span the Brillouin zone. However, in this example these functions are not orthogonal due to the fact that for fixed $N$ the sum is finite, $$\begin{gathered}
{\ensuremath{\langle \varphi'_1,\varphi'_2,\varphi'_3 | \varphi_1,\varphi_2,\varphi_3 \rangle}}\\[2mm]
=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\sum_{n_1+n_2+n_3=N} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!
e^{-i(n_1(\varphi_1-\varphi'_1)+n_2(\varphi_2-\varphi'_2)+n_3(\varphi_3-\varphi'_3))}\,.\end{gathered}$$ For a large particle number $N$ the scalar product converges to a delta-comb. There is a considerable deviation for the value of $N=30$, which can play an important role when matrix elements are calculated. But here we use these functions only for visualization and not for further algebraic manipulations. The eigenfunctions of (\[eq-Hqm\]) have the form $$\label{eq-eigexpansion}
{|{{\Phi}}\rangle}= \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\sum_{n_1+n_2+n_3=N}\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c_{n_1,n_2,n_3}\,{|n_1,n_2,n_3\rangle}\,.$$ The coefficients $c_{n_1,n_2,n_3}$ can be obtained by a numerical diagonalization in the number basis ${|n_1,n_2,n_3\rangle}$. The eigenstates in the angle representation (\[eq-phirep\]), i.e. the wave functions, are given by a Fourier series: $$\label{eq-eigf}
{\ensuremath{\langle \varphi_1,\varphi_2,\varphi_3 | {{\Phi}}\rangle}} = \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\sum_{n_1+n_2+n_3=N}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
c_{n_1,n_2,n_3}\,e^{i(n_1\varphi_1+n_2\varphi_2+n_3\varphi_3)}\,.$$ Finally, we can reduce the number of degrees of freedom in this representation by using the same coordinate transformation as in the classical case of Eq. (\[eq-vartrans\]). This leads to the expression $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq-eigfred}
{{\Phi}}(\psi_1,\psi_2)={\ensuremath{\langle \psi_1,\psi_2 | {{\Phi}}\rangle}}\\
=e^{iN\vartheta}\sum_{n_1+n_3\le N}c_{n_1,N-n_1-n_3,n_3}\,e^{i(n_1\psi_1+n_3\psi_2)}\,.\end{gathered}$$ The global phase factor $e^{iN\vartheta}$ can be ignored in the following considerations. It must be emphasized that the sum includes only a finite number of terms due to the finite number of combinations of numbers $n_1$, $n_2$ and $n_3$ which sum to $N$. Therefore the Fourier expansion in Eq. (\[eq-eigfred\]) has only a finite resolution. For a very small value of $N$, this sum has just a few terms, so that only the coarse grain structure can be explored; accordingly, the eigenfunctions ${{\Phi}}(\psi_1,\psi_2)$ show only diffuse structures. In our example, the configuration space of the reduced system is the two dimensional torus $T^2$ with total volume $4 \pi^2$. The total number of basis states for a given number of particles $N$ is $L = (N+1)(N+2)/2$. Accordingly, the eigenfunctions which are linear combinations of the $L$ basis functions can only show patterns with a resolution of the order $4 \pi^2 /L$ in the area or a resolution of the order $2 \pi /N$ in each direction. With $N=30$ we have $L=496$ eigenstates, giving a resolution of approximately $0.07\pi$ in each direction.
The reinterpretation of the expansion of an eigenstate into number states as a Fourier series on the toroidal configuration space has the following semiclassical interpretation, where we write for the moment $\hbar$ explicitly into the equations: If one naively quantizes the classical canonical variables $(\varphi_k,I_k)$ using the Schrödinger quantization $[\hat \varphi_k,\hat I_l] = i\hbar\delta_{kl}$, which imposes $\hat I_k =(i\hbar)^{-1} \partial/(\partial\varphi_k)$, then functions $f(\varphi_1,\varphi_2,\varphi_3)$ can be interpreted as wave functions in coordinate space. Of course, the Schrödinger quantization is correct only in Cartesian coordinates and it does not commute with canonical transformations, in general yielding errors of the order of $\hbar^2$. Therefore the results have to be interpreted semiclassically. Note that due to our symmetric introduction of the quantum-classical correspondence in Eq. (\[eq-Inrel1\]), the errors to first order in $\hbar$ cancel identically. Because of these considerations we call the wave function from Eq. (\[eq-eigfred\]) the [*semiclassical wave function*]{}.
In many semiclassical investigations, Husimi functions are used to relate quantum wave functions of eigenstates to structures in the classical phase space. This is the appropriate and natural procedure if the usual position and momentum coordinates are used. It is less clear and in addition not necessary in our case where the whole dynamics is treated in action-angle variables. Let us explain this point in some detail: The description of the system by a Hamiltonian of the functional structure of Eqs. (\[eq-Hqm\])–(\[eq-Hqmb\]) in the quantum case or Eq. (\[eq-Hcl\]) in the classical case only makes sense for bound systems, it is not appropriate to describe scattering systems. Therefore we restrict the following discussion to bound states only. For any bound eigenstate in the standard position space, there must be the same amount of wave running in one direction and in the opposite direction, otherwise it would not be a bound stationary state. Accordingly, the wave function can be chosen real. The phases of the wave function do not play any important role and do not help for the classification of the states. The canonically conjugate momenta have continuous values and Wigner or Husimi functions are defined without any problem on the classical phase space and indicate in many cases to which structure in the classical phase space some particular quantum state belongs.
The situation is very different in action angle variables. Here the configuration space is a torus with its very different global topology. This causes great difficulties to define the usual Wigner or Husimi functions. Because of the periodicity of the configuration coordinates, the corresponding canonically conjugate variables (here the actions) only have discrete values in the quantum dynamics. This makes it very tricky to convert the wave function into something defined on the continuous classical phase space. On the other hand, we do not really need to do this, since we have the following simpler method to squeeze out of the wave functions information on the classical actions. Waves propagating in one direction on a torus always return to the starting point. Accordingly, wave functions for a bound state can have – and in fact in most cases do have – strong running wave contributions and the phase of the function is essential and will be analyzed to help in the classification of the state. In a semiclassical spirit the phase of a wave function can be interpreted as a classical action integral and accordingly the gradient of the phase function gives the value of the canonically conjugate momentum which in this case is the action. If there is a sufficiently large patch of configuration space where the phase function comes close to a plane wave, then its gradient indicates the value of the actions which is represented by this part of the wave function. This provides a kind of lift of the wave function from configuration space into phase space. If there are closed loops on the torus along which the phase function is very regular (and this usually happens along density crests which run along the classical organizing center as will be explained in detail in section \[sec-semiclass\]) then we interpret this as representing a motion of almost constant action along this loop. This idea is used to get longitudinal quantum numbers introduced in section \[sec-semiclass\].
Classical dynamics and coupling schemes {#sec-class}
=======================================
Before we relate individual quantum states to guiding centers of the classical dynamics, we must get an overview of the classical dynamics and its skeleton. As an example, we discuss the classical dynamics for $N=30$, i.e. for the value $31.5$ of the classically conserved total action $K$. In the following, we choose parameter values $\omega_1 = -\omega_3 = 0.1
$, $\omega_2 = 0$, $x_1=x_2=x_3=0.1$ and $k_{1,2}=k_{2,3}=0.5$, which lead to a quantum mechanical energy interval of $[23.907,
96.393]$. The classical reduced system exists in the energy interval $[22.476, 99.1]$. Furthermore, we measure all energies with respect to the quantum mechanical ground state of $H$ in Eq. (\[eq-Hqm\]), i.e. we subtract the quantum mechanical zero point $H_0(1/2,1/2,1/2)=0.075$ from the classical energies in order to facilitate the comparison between classical and quantum dynamics. To represent the classical dynamics graphically, we show Poincaré sections in planes $\psi_1=0$ with positive orientation $\dot{\psi}_1>0$. If an initial condition $(\psi_2, J_2)$ is chosen in the Poincaré section, then we first have to reconstruct the four corresponding coordinates in the phase space in order to start a trajectory of the flow through this point. The two coordinates $\psi_2$ and $J_2$ coincide with the given coordinates in the domain of the Poincaré map. The coordinate $\psi_1$ is obtained by the intersection condition and the remaining coordinate $J_1$ is calculated by an inversion of the Hamiltonian function (\[eq-Hclred\]) with respect to the coordinate $J_1$ for a fixed value of the energy and for the known values of the other three coordinates. Here some care is necessary since this inverse function is multivalued. First we fix one orientation of the domain, i.e. we always search for solutions with $d \psi_1 / dt > 0$. In principle there can be several solutions with the same orientation and then it is necessary to ensure that all initial points used belong to the same branch. Poincaré sections in planes $\psi_2= \text{constant}$ look very similar to the ones in planes $\psi_1=\text{constant}$. Therefore it is sufficient to restrict ourselves to sections in $\psi_1=0$ only.
If the whole dynamics were governed by $H_0$, then all actions would be constants of motion and all Poincaré sections would be foliated by invariant lines $J_2=\text{constant}$. Including the interaction $W$ between the wells (modes) into the dynamics has the following effects. In regions of the phase space, where none of the resonances contained in $W$ has an important effect, the dynamics is in the KAM regime (see the extensive discussion of soft chaos in chapter 9 of [@Gutz90]) and a large fraction of the phase space volume is still filled by invariant lines, which are continuous deformations of the invariant surfaces $\vec{J}=\text{constant}$ of the unperturbed $H_0$ dynamics. We call such invariant surfaces primary tori. This happens mainly in regions of phase space where the effective frequencies $$\label{eq-omegaeff}
\omega^\text{eff}_j = \frac{\partial H_0}{\partial I_j}$$ are far from simple rational ratios, for which there is a corresponding resonance coupling in $W$, as explained in the next paragraph. For our particular choice of coupling terms in $W$, only 1:1 resonances are relevant.
The effect of the coupling terms between the different modes can be described in the following way. Each term contains a cosine function whose argument is a difference between angles of the original degrees of freedom or one angle of the reduced system, see Eqs. (\[eq-Hcl\]) and (\[eq-Hclred\]). Because in our special case the arguments are differences of two angles with the same weight, we say that these terms describe 1:1 resonant interactions between the two degrees of freedom. The right hand sides of the Hamiltonian equations of motion (\[eq-diffhama\]) and (\[eq-diffhamb\]) for the angles $\psi_k$ ($k=1,2$) of the reduced system, $${\frac{{\rm d} \psi_k}{{\rm d} t}} = {\frac{\partial H_0}{\partial J_k}} + {\frac{\partial W}{\partial J_k}}\,,$$ contain two contributions. The first consists of the difference of two effective frequencies from Eq. (\[eq-omegaeff\]), and the second is the derivative of the coupling terms with respect to the action, which contains cosine functions. First, let us assume that we change some parameter, e.g. $k_{1,2}$, to see how coupling sets in. Further we assume that the difference between the effective frequencies, i.e. the angle independent term on the right hand side, is different from zero. Let us say it has the value $\nu \ne 0$. For a small value of $k_{1,2}$ the angle dependent terms are not able to cancel $\nu$ regardless of the value of the angles. The angle dependent terms have the maximal absolute value for angle values $0$ and $\pi$ because of the dependence on cosine functions. When $k_{1,2}$ increases, then at one point it reaches a value, where the angle dependent terms are just able to cancel $\nu$. Then the angle $\psi_k$ of the reduced system stops, $\psi_k(t) = \text{constant}$, and we call this [*frequency locking*]{}. This necessarily happens for angle values where the cosine functions have maximal absolute value, i.e. where the angles are 0 or $\pi$. Whether the appropriate angle values are 0 or $\pi$ depends on the signs of $\nu$ and of the terms in front of the cosine functions. When the value of $k_{1,2}$ is further increased, then there is a whole interval of angle values where locking is possible. The actual dynamics of the locked motion then performs small oscillations around the angle values 0 or $\pi$. This will be seen in the numerical results of the classical dynamics. In the quantum dynamics the fluctuations around the coupling point of the angles are quantized and give rise to a discrete set of transversal quantum numbers, see section IV.
If only one of these resonant couplings is strong, then the dynamics is still close to integrable, and a large part of the phase space volume is filled by invariant tori, which show up as invariant lines in the Poincaré sections. However, due to the rearrangement of phase space structures by the resonant coupling, the invariant surfaces in phase space are no longer primary tori, i.e. are no longer continuous deformations of invariant surfaces of the $H_0$ dynamics. Large bundles of secondary tori appear which are organized around periodic orbits (in this case stable, elliptic) representing the [*guiding centers*]{} for the new nonlinear modes. There are also corresponding unstable periodic orbits, which in the integrable case are represented by separatrix crossings in Poincaré sections. In the nonintegrable cases, the separatrices break and turn into homoclinic tangles, which become the central structures of chaotic strips. However, if only one resonant coupling has a strong effect and the others are not important, then the chaos strips are very thin and they still appear almost like separatrices.
If two or more linearly independent resonant couplings are strong, then chaos on large scales can appear. These regions in phase space are resonance overlap zones [@Chir79]. However, also in strongly chaotic regions of phase space there are still simple short periodic orbits (in this case unstable, normal hyperbolic or inverse hyperbolic) which act as guiding centers of the flow. Then the dynamics is chaotic but nevertheless the flow follows some guiding center on the average. This average flow is relevant for the comparison with quantum dynamics. Thus, also in the classically chaotic case we may find surprisingly simple and clean structures in a large part of the quantum wave functions. In such cases it can be appropriate to imagine simple idealized classical guiding centers and interpret the quantum states as quantum excitations of these idealized structures.
Let us give a short estimate of the size of structures which are relevant for our semiclassical considerations. The range of action values is limited between 0 and $K$ due to Eq. (\[eq-Kcl\]), the angle can vary over an interval of length $2 \pi$. For each particular plot only a part of this range is energetically accessible in reality. Accordingly the size of the Poincaré section is limited by $2 \pi K$. For semiclassical investigations structures of a size of $\hbar$ or larger are relevant. We always use units in which $\hbar$ has the numerical value 1 and also the values of all actions should be interpreted as being given in units of $\hbar$. Therefore structures in our Poincare plots are of interest in the following, if their size is at least in the order of one unit of action or has a relative size of $1/K$ compared to the size of the maximally possible domain of the map.
We perform almost all our calculations for the reduced system. On the other hand, the real object of interest is the original system of particles in three wells. Therefore we need a fast and easy method to transfer statements about the reduced system into the corresponding statements about the original system. We have called this procedure the [*lift*]{} in the previous work on molecular systems [@Jung04; @Jaco99; @Jung02]. Let us assume a trajectory of the reduced system is given and we want to reconstruct the corresponding trajectory of the original system. The first step of the procedure is the reconstruction of the cyclic angle. It is done rigorously by using the Hamiltonian equation of motion $${\frac{{\rm d} \vartheta}{{\rm d} t}} = {\frac{\partial H}{\partial K}}\,.$$ The right hand side of this equation does not depend on $\vartheta$ but only on the known values of the other coordinates as function of time. Accordingly we get $\vartheta(t)$ by a simple integration with respect to time. The experience with the molecular systems has shown that normally it is sufficient to approximate $\vartheta(t)$ by $t$ times a constant effective frequency. In our case $\vartheta$ is the only fast variable of the whole system and describes a fast oscillation superimposed on the motion of the whole system. The initial value $\vartheta(0)$ is rather irrelevant. In contrast, the variables of the reduced system are slow variables describing the relative motion between the various degrees of freedom of the original system. The next step of the lift procedure is to undo the canonical transformation and to go back to the coordinates of the original system. In this second step the advantage of choosing the new actions equal to some of the old actions becomes evident. The knowledge of the actions in the reduced system and of the constant value of $K$ gives immediately the values of the old actions, i.e. the values of the particle numbers in the three wells. Because of this simple connection between the actions of the reduced system and the actions of the original system we will switch very freely between the reduced and the original system in the following considerations.
In our case we have in the interaction part $W$ of the Hamiltonian 1:1 couplings between the degrees of freedom 1 and 2 and between 2 and 3 respectively. Indirectly this also implies a 1:1 coupling between the degrees of freedom 1 and 3. Accordingly, we have the following coupling schemes:
![\[fig-class55\] The classical reduced system for energy $E=55$. (a) Poincaré plot in the plane $\psi_1=0$ for variables $\psi_2$ and $J_2$ with $J_1$ fixed by energy conservation. (b) Trajectory in a primary torus in the lower region of (a) for initial values $(\psi_1,\psi_2,J_2)=(0,\pi,7.5)$. (c) Trajectory in a primary torus in the upper region of (a) for initial values $(0,0,20.6)$. The points of the trajectories are given in equidistant time intervals $\Delta t=0.01$ in order to indicate the velocity by the distance between neighboring points.](eps/class55){width="8.5cm"}
[*Type (A)*]{}: If the effective frequencies are not very close to each other, then no interaction term can cause frequency and phase coupling, and all three modes run independently with their own effective frequency. This is the KAM regime with many primary tori, where the motion is of quasiperiodic type with three independent frequencies. The organization center of the reduced system is the complete configuration space $T^2$. In Poincaré plots, we see many invariant lines which are continuous deformations of horizontal lines $J_2 = \text{constant}$, i.e. of the invariant lines belonging to $H_0$. This type of motion appears mainly in the middle of the accessible energy interval for a given particle number. In Fig. \[fig-class55\] we give some numerical results for the energy $E=55$. Part (a) shows the Poincaré section and parts (b) and (c) show two segments of trajectories in the reduced configuration space. The domain of the Poincaré map in (a) consists of two parts. The range of $J_2$ values between approximately 10.2 and 20.5 is not accessible at this energy. At values of $J_2$ around 9, we see many primary tori. A segment (five revolutions in direction of $\psi_1$) of a typical trajectory belonging to one of them is shown in part (b) of the figure. In the long run, the trajectory fills the whole configuration space quasiperiodically. In these primary tori the action $J_2$ is smaller than the action $J_1$, so that the trajectories move faster in $\psi_1$ direction than in $\psi_2$ direction. The opposite happens on the primary tori lying around $J_2$ values of 21. Here the $J_2$ action is largest and therefore the quasiperiodic trajectories run with higher speed in the $\psi_2$ direction. (For a numerical example, see a trajectory segment in Fig. \[fig-class55\](c)). The other structures seen in Fig. \[fig-class55\](a) belong to other types of motion, discussed below.
[*Type (B)*]{}: If the effective frequencies of modes 2 and 3 are close but that of the first mode is not close, then we expect that modes 2 and 3 are locked but mode 1 is independent. The motion is then quasiperiodic with two independent frequencies. The organization center in the reduced system is a one dimensional curve with $\psi_2 = \text{constant}$. In Poincaré plots in the plane $\psi_1 = 0$, we see secondary islands. This motion appears mainly for high energies. Figure \[fig-class80\] gives some numerical results for $E=80$. Part (a) shows a Poincaré section, again in the plane $\psi_1=0$, and part (b) shows two periodic orbits in the configuration space. The motion at the upper end of the accessible energy interval is close to integrable. At a very high energy, motion in $\psi_1$ direction is preferred, since the linear frequency $\omega_1$ of original mode 1 is higher than the frequency $\omega_3$ of mode 3. For decreasing energy, the KAM island around the center at $\psi_2 =0$ increases in size while the one around $\psi_2 =\pi$ decreases. The central periodic orbit around $\psi_2=0$ remains stable for energies down to approximately $E=45$, while the other one soon becomes unstable and its KAM island disappears. In Fig. \[fig-class55\](a) we see clearly the large KAM island belonging to the organization center $\psi_2=0$, with center at $J_2=4$.
 The classical reduced system for an energy $E=80$. (a) Poincaré plot as in Fig. \[fig-class55\](a). (b) Periodic orbits crossing the Poincaré section in the centers of the KAM islands (black) for initial values $(\psi_1,\psi_2,J_2) = (0,0,1.3)$ and at the border (green) for initial values $(0,\pi,2.6)$.](eps/class80){width="8.5cm"}
In contrast to the idealized organization center $\psi_2=0$, the exact one is a periodic trajectory running in $\psi_1$ showing small wiggles in $\psi_2$ direction around the average value $\psi_2=0$. However for our considerations it is simpler and completely satisfactory to replace this true organization center, the true periodic orbit, by an idealized organization center, for which we just take the straight line $\psi_2=0$. The reader might remember the previous discussion of the onset of angle coupling and the values of the angles at which coupling sets in. In the spirit of this previous discussion we define the idealized organization center as the subset of the configuration space defined by the angle restrictions exactly at the onset of the corresponding coupling scheme. Also the idealized semiclassical wave functions are given with respect to the corresponding idealized organization center.
[*Type (C)*]{}: If the effective frequencies of modes 1 and 2 are close, but that of the third mode is not close, then we expect that modes 1 and 2 are locked but mode 3 is independent. Then the motion is again quasiperiodic with two independent frequencies. In the reduced system, the organization center is a one dimensional curve which can be idealized by a line $\psi_1 = \text{constant}$, where the constant usually is $0$ or $\pi$ according to the discussion in the beginning of this section. The periodic orbit itself running in the $\psi_2$ direction is almost impossible to find in Poincaré maps with plane of intersection $\psi_1=0$, since it violates the transversality of the map. However, when it is stable, then there is a bundle of invariant tori around it. In Poincaré plots in the planes $\psi_1 = 0$, these invariant tori appear as lines extending over all values of $\psi_2$. In Fig. \[fig-class55\](a) they are the lines at the highest values of $J_2$. In Fig. \[fig-class40\], we show some numerical results at energy $E=40$. Part (a) shows the Poincaré map and parts (b) and (c) show trajectories in configuration space. In Fig. \[fig-class40\](a) the lines at small values of $J_2$ belong to the tori around the organization center $\psi_1=0$. Figure \[fig-class40\](b) shows a segment of a typical quasiperiodic orbit on one of these tori. While running monotonously in the negative $\psi_2$ direction, it oscillates in $\psi_1$ around the value 0.
 The classical reduced system for an energy $E=40$. (a) Poincaré plot as in Fig. \[fig-class55\](a). (b) Quasiperiodic orbit with initial values $(\psi_1,\psi_2,J_2)=(0,\pi,2)$. (c) Two periodic orbits: one oscillating along the diagonal with starting point $(0,0,14.4)$ (black) and the other rotating around the line $\psi_1 = \psi_2+\pi$ (green) with starting point $(0,\pi,11.5)$.](eps/class40){width="8.5cm"}
[*Type (D)*]{}: If the effective frequencies of modes 1 and 3 are very close, then also the weak indirect tunneling processes between modes 1 and 3 can cause coupling. If the frequency of mode 2 is far from this common frequency, then mode 2 runs independently. The corresponding organization center in the reduced system is the line $\psi_1 = \psi_2 + \text{constant}$, where again this constant is usually 0 or $\pi$. In Poincaré plots in planes $\psi_1 = 0$, we see secondary islands. In Fig. \[fig-class40\](a), the two KAM island of moderate size with centers at $\psi_2=0$, $J_2=14$ and $\psi_2 = \pi$ and $J_2=11.5$ respectively represent this type of motion. The two periodic orbits belonging to the centers of these two KAM islands are shown in Fig. \[fig-class40\](c). One oscillates along the diagonal and the other rotates around along the line $\psi_1 = \psi_2 + \pi$.
[*Type (E)*]{}: If all three effective frequencies are close, then there are two possibilities:
(E1): There is coupling between all three modes and the idealized organization center in the configuration space of the reduced system is a (fixed)point. The actual trajectories oscillate around this coupling point and the relative angles $\psi_k$ do not rotate around the whole configuration torus. This behavior, which dominates at very small energy, is shown in Fig. \[fig-class27\] at energy $E=27$. Only a limited range of $\psi_2$ values around the point zero is energetically accessible. The same also holds for $\psi_1$. Rotations around the configuration torus in either direction or the diagonal become possible only for a higher energy. One of the organizing centers is represented in the Poincaré plot by a stable fixed point which lies at the center of the large KAM island shown in Fig. \[fig-class27\](a), and which is shown in configuration space in Fig. \[fig-class27\](b) as the figure-of-eight orbit mainly oscillating in the antidiagonal direction. The other organizing center is an unstable periodic orbit belonging to the unstable fixed point near $\psi_2=0$, $J_2=12$ in the Poincaré plot. In the configuration space plot of Fig. \[fig-class27\](b), it is the orbit oscillating in the diagonal direction. At this energy, all trajectories in configuration space oscillate around the point $(0,0)$, which acts as point organizing center. The two periodic orbits of Fig. \[fig-class27\](b) then act as guiding structures for these fluctuations around the organizing center. Topologically speaking, all trajectories are contractible to a point on the configuration torus at very low energy. At the lower end of the accessible energy interval, the dynamics starts as almost integrable and for this case the invariant manifolds of the unstable fixed point mentioned above lie close to a figure-of-eight shape separatrix in the Poincare section. For increasing energy the system moves further away from integrable and the separatrix breaks and turns into a homoclinic tangle which is the central structure of a chaos strip. In Fig. \[fig-class27\](a) for energy $E=27$ this chaotic layer still has moderate size. For higher energy it grows rapidly and turns into the large chaotic sea seen in Fig. \[fig-class40\](a) at energy $E=40$.
 Classical reduced system for energy $E=27$. (a) Poincaré plot as in Fig. \[fig-class55\](a). (b) Trajectories through the stable fixed point (black, double loop) with initial values $(\psi_1,\psi_2,J_2)=(0,0,6.1)$, and the unstable fixed point (green, along the line $\psi_1=\psi_2$) with initial values $(0,0,12.1)$.](eps/class27){width="8.5cm"}
(E2): The couplings break and reestablish intermittently, and the dynamics shows large-scale chaos. The appearance of chaos in the case of two independent resonant interactions becoming active is a demonstration of Chirikov’s point of view of chaos being caused by resonance overlap [@Chir79]. In Poincaré plots, we see large-scale chaos and eventually embedded in it remnants of islands and regular structures. The beginning of chaos for small energies can be seen in Fig. \[fig-class27\](a); chaos on a large scale is evident in Figs. \[fig-class55\](a) and \[fig-class40\](a).
Classification of semiclassical wave functions {#sec-semiclass}
==============================================
In this section, we show examples of wave functions belonging to the various classes of motion described in the previous section. Our method of classification has been developed in [@Jung04; @Jaco99; @Jung02; @Sibe96] especially for Hamiltonians given quantum mechanically in raising and lowering operators and classically in action-angle variables. An analysis in a similar spirit of wave functions in the usual position space is rather common in molecular physics, two representative examples are [@Jost99; @Azza03]. In contrast to the procedure in action-angle space, the procedure in regular position space can be extended to scattering resonances, see [@Gome89].
Our strategy of classification is as follows: First we expand the eigenstates ${|{{\Phi}}\rangle}$ in the representation ${|\psi_1,\psi_2\rangle}$, according to Eq. (\[eq-eigfred\]). This representation of the eigenstates in the reduced configuration space is in complete analogy to the classical configuration space spanned by the angle variables $\psi_1$ and $\psi_2$ and therefore allows a direct comparison between the classical and quantum system. We refer to these eigenfunctions ${{\Phi}}(\psi_1,\psi_2)$ as the [*semiclassical wave functions*]{} in order to indicate this resemblance. We then check whether the density of the semiclassical wave function in the reduced configuration space resembles the structure of one of the organization centers described in the previous section (types (A) – (E2)). I.e. we check, whether the density is distributed over the whole configuration space without clear nodal structures (type (A)), is concentrated along a few lines in the $\psi_1$ direction (type (B)), in the $\psi_2$ direction (type (C)) or in the diagonal direction (type (D)), is organized around the point center $(0,0)$ (type (E1)) or shows random interferences between the pattern of different organization centers leading to irregular structures (type (E2)).
We call states, for which the density is located in a single crest along the organizing center, a transverse ground state to this organization center. In transversely excited states, the density is concentrated along various copies of the organization center, where these various copies are displaced relatively to each other and the wave function shows nodal structures between them. In addition, we look for the phase advance in directions in or parallel to the organization structure. The phase function must be continuous along curves which do not cross nodal lines. Recall that the phase function can have singularities only in zero points of the density. Accordingly, the curve along a crest of high density must be a curve of continuous phase. Then the phase advance of such a curve must be some integer multiple of $2 \pi$, say $\mu_l \cdot 2 \pi$, and this number $\mu_l$ serves as one quantum number of the state. These longitudinal quantum numbers, together with the transverse quantum numbers given by the nodal structures, provide a complete set of quantum numbers characterizing the state relative to its organization center. We expect all states which can be related to an organization center to be close to a product of a plane wave in the longitudinal direction of this organization center and an oscillator function in transverse directions.
In states belonging to classically chaotic motion, we do not see a simple and clear pattern in the density nor in the phase. Accordingly we are not able to give any assignment by quantum numbers to such states.
In the following, the eigenstates ${{\Phi}}_k$, $k = 1,\,2,\,\dots 496$ are sorted by increasing energy starting with the label 1 for the eigenstate with lowest energy.
Point organization center (Type (E1)) {#point-organization-center-type-e1 .unnumbered}
-------------------------------------
We start our analysis of the semiclassical wave functions at the lower end of the accessible energy interval. Since the Hamiltonian is dominated by quadratic anharmonicities, the smallest energy is realized by distributing the total excitation of 30 quanta (particles) evenly over the 3 basis modes (potential wells). In the classical picture, this corresponds to the case where all three actions $I_k$ are close to each other. Thus the three effective frequencies (\[eq-omegaeff\]) are very similar and frequency and phase locking is easily established by the resonant coupling terms in the Hamiltonian as explained in the beginning of section \[sec-class\]. In the classical configuration space, this mechanism restricts the trajectories to a small region of configuration space (cf. Fig. \[fig-class27\]). This behavior is confirmed in the quantum case. Here, the wave functions are organized around a point, as can be seen in Fig. \[fig-punktzentrum\], where the ground state and various excited states are plotted. State ${{\Phi}}_1$ is the ground state in this class. In this case the ground state of an organization center coincides with the energetic groundstate ${{\Phi}}_1$ of the whole system, but we will assign also a groundstate for the other types of guiding centers. The state ${{\Phi}}_2$ is the first transversal excitation in the antidiagonal direction, while the state ${{\Phi}}_3$ represents the first transversal excitation in the diagonal direction. The state ${{\Phi}}_4$ represents the second transversal excitation in the antidiagonal direction, and the state ${{\Phi}}_5$ is the combination of one transverse excitation in the diagonal and one in the antidiagonal direction. State ${{\Phi}}_9$ is the fourth excitation in the antidiagonal direction. A point center does not have any longitudinal directions. Accordingly, there are no phase advances in longitudinal directions to be counted for the assignment and any state of this class is characterized by the two transverse excitation numbers $(\mu_{td}, \mu_{ta})$, one in the diagonal direction and one in the antidiagonal direction. Thus we show only the density plots without the phases in Fig. \[fig-punktzentrum\].
In this scheme, the six states ${{\Phi}}_1$, ${{\Phi}}_2$, ${{\Phi}}_3$, ${{\Phi}}_4$, ${{\Phi}}_5$ and ${{\Phi}}_9$ have quantum numbers $(0,0)$, $(0,1)$, $(1,0)$, $(0,2)$, $(1,1)$ and $(0,4)$, respectively.
![\[fig-punktzentrum\] Gray scale plot of the squared modulus of the (a) ground state ${{\Phi}}_1(\psi_1,\psi_2)$ and the excited states (b) ${{\Phi}}_2$, (c) ${{\Phi}}_3$, (d) ${{\Phi}}_4$, (e) ${{\Phi}}_5$ and (f) ${{\Phi}}_9$. White color corresponds to low density and black to the highest density. The range of the $\psi_k$ is $[-\pi/2, 3\pi/2]$.](eps/punktzentruma_f){width="8cm"}
Note that the direction of excitation corresponds to the direction of oscillation of the classical periodic orbits shown in Fig. \[fig-class27\](b). The classical periods of these two orbits are $T_a= 6.112$ for the antidiagonal one and $T_d=3.502$ for the diagonal one. The quantum excitations in the corresponding direction increase the energy of the state by the classical frequency $\omega = 2 \pi/T$, where $T$ is the period of the orbit taken at an intermediate energy.
The quantum-classical correspondence can be described in the following way: All three original modes are frequency locked and the phases fluctuate around the coupling point. The motion is similar to the one in a two dimensional anharmonic oscillator centered around the point $(0,0)$. This oscillator has its own normal modes and the states presented in Fig. \[fig-punktzentrum\] can be interpreted as some of the low lying excitation of this oscillator and described by the excitation numbers of these normal modes. However, the reader should not confuse these modes of fluctuations around coupling points with the modes which are used to formulate the original Hamiltonian in Eqs. (\[eq-Hqm\])–(\[eq-Hqmb\]). Compare also with the discussion of the onset of coupling given in section \[sec-class\].
The wave functions in this class are therefore close to two dimensional oscillator functions and can be described approximately by $${{\Phi}}_{\mu_{td},\mu_{ta}}(\psi_1,\psi_2) \approx e^{iN\vartheta}\,\chi_{\mu_{td}}(\psi_1+\psi_2)\;
\chi_{\mu_{ta}}(\psi_1-\psi_2)\,,$$ where the functions $\chi_n(x)$ are eigenfunctions of a one dimensional oscillator with harmonic and anharmonic contributions. It is interesting to see what this means in the original coordinates $\varphi_k$, $I_k$. Using the transformation (\[eq-vartrans\]), one obtains for the idealized eigenfunctions $$\begin{gathered}
{{\Phi}}_{\mu_{td},\mu_{ta}}(\varphi_1,\varphi_2,\varphi_3) \\\approx e^{iN\varphi_2}\,
\chi_{\mu_{td}}(\varphi_1+\varphi_3-2\varphi_2)\;
\chi_{\mu_{ta}}(\varphi_1-\varphi_3)\,.\end{gathered}$$ All three degrees of freedom are entangled for this type of guiding center. The entanglement is the quantum analog of the phase locking in the classical picture. Altogether, we can assign 29 of the 496 eigenstates to this class of functions.
Organization center $\bm{\psi_1 = 0}$ (Type (C)) {#organization-center-bmpsi_1-0-type-c .unnumbered}
------------------------------------------------
The highest energies for a given number of particles are achieved by putting almost all excitation into one mode, with the other two modes having very low excitation. Classically, these two modes have similar effective frequencies, (see Eq. (\[eq-omegaeff\])), and therefore they are locked easily. In Fig. \[fig-psi10\] we show as examples the densities and phases for the states ${{\Phi}}_{461}$ and ${{\Phi}}_{433}$. In part (a) we see the density concentrated along the line $\psi_1 = 0$; thus, the transverse excitation number is $\mu_t =
0$. Along this line, the phase function is almost like a plane wave. The total phase advance along one cycle around the organization center is $26 \cdot 2
\pi$. Accordingly, the longitudinal excitation number is $\mu_l = 26$. Note that the phase function has singular points far away from the places of high density. In part (c) of the figure, we see the density concentrated along four lines in the $\psi_2$ direction. The four density crests are separated by 3 nodal lines, which can be seen very clearly as lines of discontinuities in the phase plot in part (d). Accordingly, the transverse excitation number of state ${{\Phi}}_{433}$ is $\mu_t = 3$. Along the density crests we count the total phase advance to obtain the longitudinal quantum number $\mu_l = 24$.
![\[fig-psi10\] Plot of the eigenfunctions ${{\Phi}}_{461}$ and ${{\Phi}}_{433}$ of the quantum system belonging to the $\psi_1=0$ guiding center. Plot (a) shows $|{{\Phi}}_{461}|^2$, (b) shows $\arg({{\Phi}}_{461}){\,\text{mod}\,}2\pi$, (c) shows $|{{\Phi}}_{433}|^2$, (d) $\arg({{\Phi}}_{433}){\,\text{mod}\,}2\pi$. In the phase plots, the degree of darkness from white to black indicates the phase advance from $0$ to $2\pi$.](eps/zentrumpsi1){width="8cm"}
The energy distance between two states which differ by one unit in $\mu_l$ and that have the same transverse quantum number is given by the frequency of the classical organizing center, the periodic orbit (central fiber in the quasiperiodic motion shown in Fig. \[fig-class40\](b)), taken at an intermediate energy.
The classical motion behind this class of states is as follows: Mode 3 runs with its own effective frequency independently of the other modes. The quantum number $\mu_l$ is its action due to the semiclassical assignment of the phase function $\eta(\psi_1,\psi_2)$ to the classical action integral, $$\eta(\psi_1,\psi_2) = \int\limits_\gamma \vec{J}\cdot d\vec{\psi}\,,$$ with $\vec{J} = (J_1,J_2)$ and $\vec{\psi} = (\psi_1,\psi_2)$. The phase $\eta(\psi_1,\psi_2)$ is defined by ${{\Phi}}=|{{\Phi}}|\exp\{i\eta\}$ and $\gamma$ is the classical guiding center. The path $\gamma$ is simply the line $\psi_1=0$ for this class and the the number of particles in mode 3 can be directly assigned to the quantum number $\mu_l$. Modes 1 and 2 run locked with total excitation, i. e. number of particles, $N-\mu_l$, and the quantum number $\mu_t$ characterizes the fluctuations of the coupled motion around the coupling point.
The eigenfunctions in this class can therefore be written approximately as $${{\Phi}}_{\mu_l,\mu_t}(\psi_1,\psi_2) \approx e^{iN\vartheta}\,e^{i\mu_l\psi_2}\,\chi_{\mu_t}(\psi_1)\,.$$ Now we transform this expression back to the original coordinates, where we can interpret the actions $I_k$ directly as the number of particles in the potential well $k$. Using again transformation (\[eq-vartrans\]), we can write the idealized wave functions of this class as $$\begin{gathered}
{{\Phi}}_{\mu_l,\mu_t}(\varphi_1,\varphi_2,\varphi_3) \\\approx e^{i\mu_l\varphi_3}\,e^{i(N-\mu_l)\varphi_2}
\,\chi_{\mu_t}(\varphi_1-\varphi_2)\,.\end{gathered}$$ This type of wave function shows entanglement between modes 1 and 2, while mode 3 separates. The number of particles in mode 3 is given by $\mu_l$ while the transversal quantum number $\mu_t$ describes the transversal excitation of the organization center. A total of 51 eigenstates can be assigned to this class of functions.
Organization center $\bm{\psi_2 = 0}$ (Type (B)) {#organization-center-bmpsi_2-0-type-b .unnumbered}
------------------------------------------------
The states of this class look very similar to those in the previous subsection, only with the roles of the modes 1 and 3 interchanged and hence with $\psi_1$ and $\psi_2$ interchanged. However, there is no perfect symmetry between classes C and B because there is no perfect equality between the modes 1 and 3. Remember that $\omega_1 = -\omega_3 \ne \omega_3$. This small perturbation of the symmetry is responsible that the states of class B loose their characteristics under smaller transverse excitations as the ones for class C. Accordingly we can assign less states to class B, namely 42 only, than we have assigned to class C.
Organization center $\bm{\psi_1 = \psi_2}$ (Type (D)) {#organization-center-bmpsi_1-psi_2-type-d .unnumbered}
-----------------------------------------------------
If almost all the action $K$ is in mode 2, then modes 1 and 3 have low actions and similar effective frequencies, whereas mode 2 has a quite different effective frequency. Even though the Hamiltonian does not contain a direct coupling between modes 1 and 3, sometimes the small indirect coupling is sufficient to cause locking between modes 1 and 3. Fig. \[fig-psi1psi2\] shows the states ${{\Phi}}_{420}$ and ${{\Phi}}_{359}$ as two examples of semiclassical wave functions in this class. The organization center is the diagonal $\psi_1 = \psi_2$. State ${{\Phi}}_{420}$ has the transverse quantum number $\mu_t = 0$ relative to this center and state ${{\Phi}}_{359}$ has $\mu_t = 1$. The phase functions show that $\mu_l = 6$ for state ${{\Phi}}_{420}$ and $\mu_l=8$ for state ${{\Phi}}_{420}$. The energy distance between two states, which differ by one unit in $\mu_l$ and that have the same transverse quantum number, is given by the frequency of the classical organizing center, namely the periodic orbit shown in Fig. \[fig-class40\](c) taken at an intermediate energy.
The classical motion carrying these states is the following: The coupled motion of modes 1 and 3 has the number of particles $\mu_l$ while the rest of the total excitation $N-\mu_l$ is in mode 2. The transverse quantum number $\mu_t$ again characterizes the fluctuations around the coupling point. For the idealized wave functions of the reduced system, we obtain $${{\Phi}}_{\mu_l,\mu_t}(\psi_1,\psi_2) \approx e^{iN\vartheta}\,e^{i\mu_l(\psi_1+\psi_2)/2}\,\chi_{\mu_t}(\psi_1-\psi_2)\,.$$ In the original coordinates, the wave function has the form $$\begin{gathered}
{{\Phi}}_{\mu_l,\mu_t}(\varphi_1,\varphi_2,\varphi_3) \\\approx e^{i(N-\mu_l)\varphi_2}\,e^{i\mu_l(\varphi_1+\varphi_3)/2}\,\chi_{\mu_t}(\varphi_1-\varphi_3)\,.\end{gathered}$$ In these coordinates, mode 2 separates from the other modes which are entangled. The number of particles in mode 2 is given by $N-\mu_l$, while the rest of the particles is in the entangled state of the other two modes, for which the quantum number $\mu_t$ is a measure of the fluctuations around the organization center. We can assign 8 eigenstates to this class of functions.
![\[fig-psi1psi2\] Plot of the eigenfunctions ${{\Phi}}_{420}$ and ${{\Phi}}_{359}$ of the quantum system belonging to the $\psi_1=\psi_2$ guiding center. Plot (a) shows $|{{\Phi}}_{420}|^2$, (b) $\arg({{\Phi}}_{420}){\,\text{mod}\,}2\pi$, (c) shows $|{{\Phi}}_{359}|^2$, (d) $\arg({{\Phi}}_{359}){\,\text{mod}\,}2\pi$.](eps/zentrumpsi1psi2){width="8cm"}
Organization center $\bm{T^2}$ (Type (A)) {#organization-center-bmt2-type-a .unnumbered}
-----------------------------------------
Fig. \[fig-torus\] shows the wave functions of the states ${{\Phi}}_{401}$ and ${{\Phi}}_{442}$, which do not show any coupling. These states belong to normal mode motion in the original modes. This does not necessarily mean that they have a constant density, but the density is without any clear structure and the phase function is close to a plane wave globally. As the two quantum numbers we count the phase advances around the two fundamental cycles of the toroidal configuration space. In part (b) of the figure we assign the quantum numbers $\mu_{l1}=2$, $\mu_{l2} =5$ and from part (d) we read off $\mu_{l1} =4$ and $\mu_{l2}=1$.
These states are described by the classical motion in the following way: The original mode 1 has the number of particles $\mu_{l1}$ and original mode 3 has $\mu_{l2}$ particles. The rest of the excitation $N-\mu_{l1}-\mu_{l2}$ is in mode 2. All three modes run independently with their own effective frequency. Thus phase functions of states of this class come close to a basis function (i.e. they resemble a plane wave), even though the wave function can be a strong mixture of several basis functions. The functional form of such states is therefore approximately given by $${{\Phi}}_{\mu_{l1},\mu_{l2}}(\psi_1,\psi_2) \approx e^{iN\vartheta}\,e^{i(\mu_{l1}\psi_1+\mu_{l2}\psi_2)}\,,$$ or written in the original coordinates as $${{\Phi}}_{\mu_{l1},\mu_{l2}}(\varphi_1,\varphi_2,\varphi_3) \approx
e^{i\mu_{l1}\varphi_1}\,e^{i(N-\mu_{l1}-\mu_{l2})\varphi_2 }\,e^{i\mu_{l2}\varphi_3}\,.$$ These idealized functions factorize and the three degrees of freedom are completely disentangled. There are 50 eigenstates in this class.
![\[fig-torus\] Plot of the eigenfunctions ${{\Phi}}_{401}$ and ${{\Phi}}_{442}$ of the quantum system belonging to the $T^2$ guiding center. Plot (a) shows $|{{\Phi}}_{401}|^2$, (b) $\arg({{\Phi}}_{401}){\,\text{mod}\,}2\pi$, (c) $|{{\Phi}}_{442}|^2$, (d) $\arg({{\Phi}}_{442}){\,\text{mod}\,}2\pi$.](eps/zentrumtorus){width="8cm"}
States based on chaotic motion (Type (E2)) {#states-based-on-chaotic-motion-type-e2 .unnumbered}
------------------------------------------
Finally, we give two examples of wave functions where we could not make any assignment to one of the organizing centers listed in the previous section. Fig. \[fig-chaos\] shows the densities and phases of states ${{\Phi}}_{100}$ and ${{\Phi}}_{146}$. Neither in the density plots nor in the phase plots, can we discover any clean pattern related to one of the organizing centers. The connection to the classical motion we interpret as follows: In classical chaos, any typical trajectory jumps around irregularly between the neighborhoods of various simple periodic orbits and therefore between various types of motion. The corresponding quantum wave function should be random interference patterns of the structures belonging to the various organizing centers involved in the classical chaotic motion. Sometimes we can demix these interference patterns by forming appropriate linear combinations of several eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian.
![\[fig-chaos\] Plot of the eigenfunctions ${{\Phi}}_{100}$ and ${{\Phi}}_{146}$ of the quantum system belonging to class (E2). Plot (a) shows $|{{\Phi}}_{100}|^2$, (b) $\arg({{\Phi}}_{100}){\,\text{mod}\,}2\pi$, (c) shows $|{{\Phi}}_{146}|^2$, (d) $\arg({{\Phi}}_{146}){\,\text{mod}\,}2\pi$.](eps/zentrumchaos){width="8cm"}
Concluding this section, we are able to characterize 180 of the 496 eigenstates within the scheme of guiding centers given by the classical motion (excluding chaotic motion). Our aim is not a complete assignment of all states, but rather to give an easy visual criterion in order to select states with different types of e.g. entanglement and localization properties as described in this section for each class. For these states, one can use the classical picture in order to understand the quantum mechanical structure, which allows a very intuitive treatment of the states. The above graphical classification of the semiclassical wave functions is not strict and some functions allow ambiguous assignments. Such functions show characteristics of different classes and it is only a matter of degree in which class to put them. For example, the phase functions in Fig. \[fig-psi1psi2\] could be interpreted as continuous deformations of plane waves and therefore they could be assigned to type (A) as well.
Comparison of the time dynamics
===============================
Finally, we wish to discuss the implications of our analysis for the time evolution in the classical description of the system. The classical system can be interpreted as an array of three Bose-Einstein condensates where the condensate in each well is described by the Gross-Pitaevskii equation and where the condensates interact weekly through Josephson tunneling [@Smer97; @Milb97].
In the previous section, we have used the classical system only to provide a tool for the classification of the quantum wave functions, and we have shown how close the quantum eigenfunctions resemble the classical guiding centers. In this section, we look in the other direction. Starting from the classical system, i.e. the mean-field equations, we want to ask what information the structure of the quantum system can provide in order to solve the mean-field equations: the analysis of a system of coupled nonlinear differential equations is very involved, while in the quantum system we only have to diagonalize the Hamiltonian numerically and plot the eigenfunctions in configuration space.
Since it is more convenient in this context to speak about complex occupation amplitudes, we introduce the new variables $$c_k = \sqrt{I_k}\,e^{i\varphi_k}\,.$$ In these variables, the classical Hamiltonian (\[eq-Hcl\]) can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
H &= \sum_{k=1}^3\bigl(\,\omega_k|c_k|^2+x_k|c_k|^4\,\bigr)\nonumber\\&\quad
-\frac{k_{12}}{2}(c_1c_2^*+c_2c_1^*)
-\frac{k_{23}}{2}(c_2c_3^*+c_3c_2^*)\,,\end{aligned}$$ with canonically conjugate variables $(c_k,ic_k^*)$ and corresponding equations of motion $$\label{eq-GPE}
\dot{c}_k= \frac{\partial H}{\partial(ic_k^*)} \quad\Longleftrightarrow\quad
i\,\dot{c}_k^*= \frac{\partial H}{\partial c_k}\;.$$ This system of three ordinary differential equations for the complex coefficients $c_k$ is equivalent to the six equations for the angles $\varphi_k$ and the actions $I_k$ with $k=1,2,3$. The equations can also be derived from the Gross-Pitaevskii equation in coordinate space using an expansion of the condensate wave function in Wannier functions [@Trom01]. One can also use the eigenstates of the one-particle Hamiltonian, the so-called Wannier-Stark functions, resulting in the disappearance of the linear tunneling terms in the Hamiltonian (\[eq-Hqm\]), while higher order coupling terms become important [@Thom03].
Now we choose the initial conditions $c_k(t=0)$ by using the semiclassical correspondence (\[eq-Inrel1\]) between the classical actions $I_k$ and the quantum numbers $n_k$ of a number state ${|n_1,n_2,n_3\rangle}$: $$\label{eq-Inrel}
I_k \longleftrightarrow n_k+\frac{1}{2}\,.$$ In this way, we can construct initial conditions $c_k(0)=\sqrt{I_k}$, where the action $I_k$ can be interpreted quantum mechanically via Eq. (\[eq-Inrel\]) as the number of particles in mode $k$. Furthermore, we can use this correspondence in order to construct initial conditions resembling the properties of the eigenstates of the system. Before we explain this in more detail we first discuss the case of the basis vectors.
Basis vectors
-------------
Here we investigate to which extend we can attribute the same characteristics to the quantum mechanical number states ${|n_1,n_2,n_3\rangle}$ and their classical analog defined by Eq. (\[eq-Inrel\]). Accordingly, we define the initial conditions for the time evolution of Eq. (\[eq-GPE\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-basisb}
&\vec{b}(t=0;n_1,n_2,n_3)=(c_1(0),c_2(0),c_3(0)) =\nonumber\\&\quad= (\sqrt{n_1+1/2},\sqrt{n_2+1/2},\sqrt{n_3+1/2})\,.\end{aligned}$$ In the following we will not explicitly write down the dependence of $\vec{b}(t;n_1,n_2,n_3)$ on the initial condition through the parameters $(n_1,n_2,n_3)$ and simply use $b(t)$. We fix the three initial phases to zero, which corresponds to zero imaginary part of the $c_k(0)$. With this initial conditions the time evolution can be calculated numerically, as shown in
 Time evolution of Eq. (\[eq-GPE\]) for an initial condition $\vec{b}(0) = (\sqrt{2.5},\sqrt{5.5},\sqrt{23.5})$. Shown are squared modulus (top) and the phase of the first (solid, black), second (dashed, green) and third (dash-dotted, red) mode. In the phase plot the first and second phase almost coincide and lie above the third phase which has a bigger phase velocity. The time is measured with respect to $T=2\pi/\omega$.](eps/basis_025235){width="8cm"}
Fig. \[fig-GPevolution\] for initial values $(\sqrt{2.5},\sqrt{5.5},\sqrt{23.5})$ using Eq. (\[eq-GPE\]). In this example the phases of $c_1$ and $c_2$ are locked, while $c_3$ evolves independently. The difference in the amplitudes between mode 3 and the other two prohibits a coupling. The amplitudes show a quite regular oscillation in all three modes. This is motion of type (C) introduced in section \[sec-class\]. Physically interpreted, the wells 1 and 2 couple through Josephson tunneling and the population between the two wells is exchanged periodically. In contrast, the number of particles of well 3 stays approximately constant and much higher than the population of the other wells. This behavior reflects the well-known macroscopic self-trapping found in the double well potential [@Smer97]. Another type of this self-trapping effect in the type (C) dynamics can occur, when wells 1 and 2 have approximately the same population $N/2$ and well 3 is nearly empty. One can also observe the other types of dynamics in the vectors $\vec{b}(t)$, except type (D), due to the very weak indirect coupling between modes 1 and 3. The different time evolutions $\vec{b}(t)$ can be easily assigned to the different guiding centers by looking at the phases:
 Time evolution for an initial condition $\vec{b}(t=0) = (\sqrt{23.5},\sqrt{7.5},\sqrt{0.5})$. Shown are squared modulus (top) and the phase of the first (solid, black), second (dashed, green) and third (dash-dotted, red) mode. The time is measured with respect to $T=2\pi/\omega$.](eps/basis_235005){width="8cm"}
[*Type (A)*]{}: All three phases behave independently and the amplitudes oscillate regularly. The individual condensates in the different wells are completely decoupled and the population in each well stays approximately constant.
[*Type (B)*]{}: The dynamics shows the same behavior as for type (C), but with phase locking between mode 2 and 3.
[*Type (D)*]{}: This type of motion is difficult to identify, because the indirect phase locking between modes 1 and 3 is very weak. This leads to the effect that the phase velocities of these two phases are very close, but still distinguishable. This is of course not a strict statement, and it depends on how long the time propagation is considered. The problems with the classification of this type can also be seen in the quantum case in Fig. \[fig-psi1psi2\]. In parts (b) resp. (d), the phase singularities are not sharp but rather smooth, so these states could be assigned to type (A) as well.
[*Type (E1)*]{}: In this case all three phases evolve with the same velocity and the amplitudes show similar regular oscillations as in types (B) and (C) for two locked phases.
[*Type (E2)*]{}: This class is characterized by intermittencies as illustrated in Fig. \[fig-GPevolution2\]. The dynamics can be interpreted in such a way that the trajectories jump irregularly between different coupling schemes. Accordingly, frequency locking between different pairs of modes is only established temporarily during the time evolution.
With this scheme, we can classify the dynamics of all possible basis states $\vec{b}(t)$, as shown in Fig. \[fig-basiscl\]. The interesting point is that we can compare these results with the information that we extract from the semiclassical wave functions. For this we compare for a given basis state ${|n_1,n_2,n_3\rangle}$ all eigenfunctions (\[eq-eigfred\]) to which the basis state contributes significantly and assign a type (A)–(E2) to this basis state if possible. The result is shown in Fig. \[fig-basisqm\].
 Characterization of the classical actions $I_k=|c_k|^2$ through direct numerical integration of Eq. (\[eq-GPE\]). The action $I_2$ is given by $I_2=K-I_1-I_3$. Plotted are time evolutions of type (A) ($\circ$, red), type (B) ($\triangledown$, green), type (C) ($\triangle$, blue), type (E1) ($*$, black) and type (E2) ($\square$, cyan).](eps/basis_cl){width="8cm"}
The points with no symbol indicate states which cannot be assigned uniquely to a certain type. However, for the shown basis states one can see a close correspondence between the classical and the quantum system. Only at the fringes are there small deviations. Therefore the quantum mechanical analysis provides a grid of initial conditions for which we can predict the behavior of the solutions of the mean-field equations. Finally, we remark, that the classification of the basis states in Fig. \[fig-basiscl\] holds in principle also for an arbitrary choice of the initial phases in Eq. (\[eq-basisb\]). Only at the fringes of the different zones does the behavior of the time dynamics depend crucially on the initial conditions and there it can deviate from this classification.
 Characterization of the classical actions $I_k=|c_k|^2$ through the semiclassical wave functions. The action $I_2$ is given by $I_2=K-I_1-I_3$. Plotted are actions whose quantum analog belongs to type (A) ($\circ$, red), type (B) ($\triangledown$, green), type (C) ($\triangle$, blue), type (D) ($\diamond$, magenta), type (E1) (\*, black), and type (E2) ($\square$, cyan).](eps/basis_qm){width="8cm"}
Eigenstates
-----------
In the last section we discussed the close resemblance between the quantum and the classical picture by assigning the same characterization scheme with types (A)–(E2) to the basis functions and the solutions of the mean-field equations. In this section we want to investigate, whether also the eigenstates of the quantum system can be reinterpreted classically, i. e. if they can be used to identify the different types of dynamical behavior in the system of the three Bose-Einstein condensates weakly coupled by Josephson junctions. We construct the classical analog of Eq. (\[eq-eigf\]) by defining the set of vectors $$\vec{B}(n_1,n_2,n_3) = (n_1+1/2,n_2+1/2,n_3+1/2)\,,$$ which are related to the vectors $\vec{b}(t=0)$ by $B_k=b_k^2(0)$ (cf. Eq. (\[eq-basisb\])). However, note that the vectors $\vec{B}(n_1,n_2,n_3)$, like the vectors $\vec{b}(t;n_1,n_2,n_3)$ of Eq. (\[eq-basisb\]), do not form a basis of ${\mathbb C}^3$. In analogy to Eq. (\[eq-eigexpansion\]) one can write $$\vec{{{\Phi}}}(t=0) = \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\sum_{n_1+n_2+n_3=N}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
c_{n_1,n_2,n_3}^2\,\vec{B}(n_1,n_2,n_3)\,,$$ where the real-valued coefficients $c_{n_1,n_2,n_3}$ are taken from Eq. (\[eq-eigf\]).
 Time evolution of the mean-field equations for an initial condition corresponding to the first quantum eigenstate. Shown are squared modulus (top) and the phase of the first ($-$, black), second ($--$, green) and third ($-\cdot-$, red) mode. The time is measured with respect to $T=2\pi/\omega$.](eps/eig_cl1){width="8cm"}
In this naive approach, the vector $\vec{{{\Phi}}}$ can be interpreted as the quantum expectation value of the action $\hat{\vec{I}}$ ($\hat I_k = \hat n_k+1/2$) in the quantum state ${|{{\Phi}}\rangle}$, $${\ensuremath{\langle {{\Phi}}| \hat I_k|{{\Phi}}\rangle}} = \sum_{n_1,n_2,n_3}c_{n_1,n_2,n_3}^2\,(n_k+{1}/{2})\,,$$ where we have simply used the representation (\[eq-eigexpansion\]) of the eigenfunctions. The initial phases are chosen equal zero like in the case of the basis vectors. In order to use this vector $\vec{{{\Phi}}}$ as initial conditions for the mean-field equations, we must take the square root of each component, and to this end we define the new vector $\vec{\phi}$ with components $\phi_k=\sqrt{\Phi_k}$. These vectors are normalized as $$|\vec\phi|^2=\sum_{k=1}^3\Phi_k= \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\sum_{n_1+n_2+n_3=N}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
c_{n_1,n_2,n_3}^2\,\sum_{k=1}^3 B_k=K\,,$$ where $K=31.5=N+3/2$ is the classically conserved total action of Eq. (\[eq-Kcl\]). In the context of the Gross-Pitaevskii equation, the norm of the condensate wave function gives the number of particles in the condensate. We get the additional term of $3/2$ for the number of particles compared to the many-particle Hamiltonian (\[eq-Hqm\]), since we use the semiclassical correspondence of Eq. (\[eq-Inrel1\]). For Bose-Einstein condensates with a number of particles much larger than $30$, one can ignore the term $1/2$ in Eq. (\[eq-Inrel1\]) and obtain the standard correspondence between the particle numbers. However, for $N=30$, semiclassical studies like the present work show that the identification (\[eq-Inrel1\]) gives a much better agreement between classical and quantum mechanics. In order to obtain the normalization $|\vec{\phi'}|^2=1$, one simply has to set $\vec{\phi}=\vec{\phi'}\sqrt{N}$ and replace the nonlinearities $x_k$ by $x_k=g/K$.
In Fig. \[fig-GPeig1\], the time evolution for the initial condition $\vec{{{\Phi}}}_1$ is shown. The time evolution shows approximately constant occupations $|c_k|^2$ (upper panel), and the three phases are locked. In the reduced system, this corresponds to a point in the neighborhood of a fixed point. For the parameter values chosen in this article, there does not exist an exact fixed point of the Hamiltonian flow of the reduced system, although this point serves as guiding center for the wave functions of type (E1). In that sense the semiclassical wave functions behave very similarly in the neighborhood of a guiding center, while the solutions of the Gross-Pitaevskii equation are very sensitive to small deviations due to the nonlinearity of the time-evolution.
Another example is shown in Fig. \[fig-GPeig444\] for a type (A) motion.
 Time evolution of Eq. (\[eq-GPE\]) for the initial condition ${{\Phi}}_{444}(0)$. Shown are squared modulus (top) and the phase of the first ($-$, black), second ($--$, green) and third ($-\cdot-$, red) mode. The time is measured with respect to $T=2\pi/\omega$.](eps/eig_cl444){width="8cm"}
The phases of the modes evolve independently and the amplitudes show tiny oscillations, due to the fact that the time evolution does not coincide with the corresponding idealized guiding center of type (A). Because the system is dominated by the anharmonicities the effective frequencies are almost linear in the actions according to Eq. (\[eq-omegaeff\]). Therefore the slopes of the phase curves are proportional to the average values of the corresponding actions.
To conclude, from the classical point of view the analysis of the corresponding quantum system offers a direct visual method for the understanding of the structure and can be used to identify the dynamical behavior of the system of the three weakly coupled Bose-Einstein condensates in the mean-field approximation simply by diagonalizing the quantum Hamiltonian and plotting the eigenfunctions in the appropriate basis.
Conclusion
==========
In our investigation of a Bose-Einstein condensate in a multi-well potential, we showed a close correspondence between the quantum mechanical description and a classical version where the bosonic creation and annihilation operators of the many particle system are replaced by c-numbers. We truncated the many-particle Hamiltonian to a few relevant modes and obtained a system of three coupled anharmonic oscillators. Whether the truncation at a small number of modes is justified depends crucially on an appropriate choice of the expansion basis and on the external potential. In order to compare the quantum system with its classical counterpart, we introduced the concept of the semiclassical wave functions defined on the same toroidal configuration space as in the classical system. This choice of the quantum mechanical representation allowed us to compare the quantum system directly with the classical system. In both cases, for the classical and the quantum system, we used the conserved particle number resp. total action to reduce the degrees of freedom to two. Classically, we can identify various geometric structures in phase space that are connected to different types of motion in the configuration space. These different types of motion belonging to the various guiding centers, are also found in the quantum mechanical wave functions. So we used these guiding centers firstly to sort a large number of wave function into these different classes, and secondly to assign uniquely geometric quantum numbers to the wave functions within one class. In this geometric picture, the wave functions describe the quantum excitations of the underlying classical dynamics. As an application, we can characterize the entanglement between the different modes and we can also determine the number of particles in each of the entangled modes using their associated quantum numbers.
In the last part of this article we analyzed the significance of the quantum mechanical classification of the wave functions for the classical dynamics. For this we studied classical trajectories which have initial conditions corresponding to quantum mechanical number states, or which correspond to the eigenstates directly. In both cases, we could obtain the characteristics of the semiclassical classification also from the classical trajectories, although the classical dynamics is much more sensitive to deviations from the idealized guiding centers.
Concluding, we showed that semiclassical wave functions provide an intuitive picture of the quantum mechanical many-particle eigenfunctions, and allow a direct classification of the dynamics.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank H. S. Taylor for interesting discussions. Support by DGAPA under grant number IN-118005 is gratefully acknowledged. We thank the anonymous referee for an unusually detailed and careful referee report which has helped us a lot to improve the final version of the manuscript. This work was supported by a fellowship within the Postdoc-Programme of the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD).
[10]{}
M. [Albiez, R. Gati, J. Fölling, S. Hunsmann, M. Cristiani and M. K. Oberthaler]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{} (2005) 010402
T. [Schumm, S. Hofferberth, L. M. Andersson, S. Wildermuth, S. Groth, I. Bar-Joseph, J. Schmiedmayer and P. Krüger]{}, Nature Physics [**1**]{} (2005) 57
A. Smerzi, S. Fantoni, S. Giovanazzi, and S. R. Shenoy, Phys. Rev. Lett. [ **79**]{} (1997) 4950
D. Witthaut, E. M. Graefe, and H. J. Korsch, Phys. Rev. A [**73**]{} (2006) 063609
J. Liu, B. Wu, and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{} (2003) 170404
Biao Wu and Qian Niu, New J. Phys. [**5**]{} (2003) 104
G. J. Milburn, J. Corney, E. M. Wright, and D. F. Walls, Phys. Rev. A [ **55**]{} (1997) 4318
A. Smerzi and Srikanth Raghavan, Phys. Rev. A [**61**]{} (2000) 063601
J. R. Anglin and A.Vardi, Phys. Rev. A [**64**]{} (2001) 013605
J. R. [Anglin, P. Drummond and A. Smerzi]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**64**]{} (2001) 063605
Q. Thommen, J. C. Garreau, and V. Zehnlé, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{} (2003) 210405
K. W. [Mahmud, H. Perry and W. P. Reinhardt]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**71**]{} (2005) 023615
E. L. Sibert III and A. B. McCoy, J. Chem. Phys. [**105**]{} (1996) 469
M. P. [Jacobson, C. Jung, H. S. Taylor, and R. W. Field]{}, J. Chem. Phys. [ **111**]{} (1999) 600
C. [Jung, H. S. Taylor and E. Atilgan]{}, J. Phys. Chem. A [**106**]{} (2002) 3092
C. Jung, C. Mejia-Monasterio, and H. S. Taylor, J. Chem. Phys. [**120**]{} (2004) 4194
E. M. Graefe, H. J. Korsch, and D. Witthaut, Phys. Rev. A [**73**]{} (2006) 013617
K. [Nemoto, C. A. Holmes, G. J. Milburn and W. J. Munro]{}, Phys. Rev. A [ **63**]{} (2000) 013604
P. [Buonsante, R. Franzosi and V. Penna]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{} (2003) 050404
R. Franzosi and V. Penna, Phys. Rev. E [**67**]{} (2003) 046227
P. [Buonsante, R. Franzosi and V. Penna]{}, J. Phys. B [**37**]{} (2004) S229
W. Kohn, Phys. Rev. [**115**]{} (1959) 809
M. P. A. Fisher, P. B. Weichman, G. Grinstein, and D. S. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B [**40**]{} (1989) 546
R.W. [Spekkens and J.E. Sipe]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**59**]{} (1999) 3868
W. Heisenberg, Z. Physik [**33**]{} (1925) 879
M. Brack and R. K. Bhaduri, [*Semiclassical physics*]{}, Addison Wesley, 1997
M. C. Gutzwiller, [*Chaos in Classical and Quantum Mechanics*]{}, Springer, New York, 1990
B. V. Chirikov, Phys. Rep. [**52**]{} (1979) 263
R. [Jost, M. Joyeux, S. Skokov and J. Bowman]{}, J. Chem. Phys. [**111**]{} (1999) 6807
T. [Azzam, R. Schinke, S. Farantos, M. Joyeux and K. Peterson]{}, J. Chem. Phys. [**118**]{} (2003) 9643
J. [Gomez Llorente, J. Zakrzewski and H. S. Taylor]{}, J. Chem. Phys. [**90**]{} (1989) 1505
A. Trombettoni and A. Smerzi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{} (2001) 2353
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Michael Anastos and Alan Frieze[^1]\
Department of Mathematical Sciences\
Carnegie Mellon University\
Pittsburgh PA15213\
U.S.A.
title: 'Hamilton cycles in random graphs with minimum degree at least 3: an improved analysis'
---
Introduction
============
In this paper we consider the existence of Hamilton cycles in the random graph $G=\gnm3$. This a random graph chosen uniformly from $\Gnm3$, the set of graphs with vertex set $[n]$, $m$ edges and minimum degree at least 3. Our ultimate goal is to prove that if $m=cn$ and $c>3/2$ is constant then $G$ is Hamiltonian w.h.p. In an earlier paper [@Hamd3], the second author showed that $c\geq 10$ is sufficient for this and in this paper we reduce the lower bound to $c>2.662...$. This new lower bound is the same lower bound found in Frieze and Pittel [@FP] for expansion of so-called Posá sets. In summary we prove,
\[th1\] W.h.p. $\gnm3$ is Hamiltonian for $m=cn,c>2.662...$.
One of the motivations for studying this problem arises from the fact that the 3-core of the random graph $G_{n,m}$ is distributed precisely as $G_{\nu,\mu}^{\delta\geq 3}$, where $\nu,\mu$ are the (random) number of vertices and edges in the 3-core. In particular, it is plausible that the first non-empty 3-core in the random graph process is Hamiltonian w.h.p. To prove this to be true, we would need to reduce the lower bound on $c$ to about 1.8. In addition, we note that Krivelevich, Lubtezky and Sudakov [@KLS] showed that w.h.p. the first non-empty $k$-core, $k\geq 15$, is Hamiltonian.
Proof of Theorem \[th1\]
========================
The game plan
-------------
The key to the proof Theorem \[th1\] is the following lemma:
\[lem:Ham3\] Let $V=[n]$ and $G=(V,E)$ and $E=E_1\cup E_2$ where $E_2=\{e_1,...,e_a\}\subset \binom{V_1}{2} \setminus E_1$. Let $G_1=(V,E_1)$ and let $\cP$ be a set of vertex disjoint paths in $G_1$ that covers $V$. Suppose that for some $0<\b<1$,
1. $|\cP|\leq \min{\left\{\frac{|E_2|}{n^{2-2\b}\log^2n},\frac{n^{\b}}{2\log n}\right\}}$.
2. Given $e_1,e_2,\ldots,e_{i-1}$, $e_i$ is chosen uniformly from $\binom{A_i}{2}$ where $A_i$ is a set of size at least $n-2i\log n$.
3. $X\subseteq V$, $|X| \leq n^{\beta}$ implies that $|N(X)|\geq 2 |X|$.\
(Here $N(X)={\left\{y\in V\setminus X:\exists x\in X\text{ such that }{\left\{x,y\right\}}\in E_1\right\}}$.)
Let $G=(V,E)$, where $E=E_1\cup E_2$. Then $G$ is Hamiltonian with probability $1-o(n^{-3})$.
Let $\cP=\{P_1,P_2,\ldots,P_\ell\}$ be a minimum cardinality set of vertex disjoint paths in $G_1$ that covers $V$ (and satisfies [**P1**]{}). Let the endpoints of $P_i$ be $v_{i,1}$ and $v_{i,2}$ for $i \in[\ell]$. Because $\cP$ is of minimum cardinality we have that ${\left\{v_{i,2}v_{i+1,1}\right\}}\notin E_1$ for $i\in [\ell]$ (here we identify $v_{\ell+1,1}$ with $v_{1,1}$). In addition, $H_0=v_{(1,1)},P_1,v_{(1,2)}v_{(2,1)},P_2,v_{(2,2)}v_{(3,1)}P_3,\ldots,v_{(\ell,1)}P_\ell $ $ v_{(\ell,2)}v_{(1,1)}, v_{(1,1)}$ is a Hamilton cycle in the graph $G_2=(V,E\cup R)$ where $R={\left\{{\left\{v_{i,2}v_{i+1,1}\right\}}:i\in[\ell]\right\}}$.
Starting with $H_0$, we find a Hamilton cycle in $G$ by removing the edges of $R$ from our cycle. We do this with at most $\ell$ rounds of an extension-rotation procedure. Fix $i\geq 0$ and suppose then that after $i$ rounds, we have a Hamilton cycle $H_i$ in the graph $\G_i=(V, E_1\cup R_i\cup F_1)$ where $R_i\subseteq R$ and $|R_i|\leq \ell-i$. Here $F_1={\left\{e_{b+1},\ldots,e_a\right\}}$ where $e_1,e_2,\ldots,e_b$ are the edges of $E_2$ that have been [*used*]{} so far. We explain used momentarily.
We start round $i+1$ by deleting an edge $e$ from $R_i$ to create a Hamilton path $Q_1$. We then use Posá rotations to try to find a Hamilton cycle in $\G_i-e$. Given a path $P=(x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_s)$ and an edge ${\left\{x_s,x_j\right\}}$ where $1<j<s-1$, the path $(x_1,\ldots,x_i,x_s,x_{s-1},\ldots,x_{i+1})$ is said to be obtained from $P$ by a rotation with $x_1$ as the fixed end vertex. The edge ${\left\{x_s,x_j\right\}}$ will be called the rotating edge.
First consider all Hamilton paths obtainable from $Q_1$ by a sequence of rotations with $x_1$ fixed. In these rotations, we are only allowed to use edges from $F_2=F_2(i)=(E_1\cup R_i\cup F_1)\setminus{\left\{e\right\}}$ as rotating edges. Next let $END(Q_1,x_1)$ denote the set of end vertices of these paths, other than $x_1$. If there exists $y\in END(Q_1,x_1)$ such that $e\neq {\left\{x_1,y\right\}}\in F_2$ then this round is complete. We have a Hamilton cycle containing one less member of $R$.
In the event there is no such $y$, we proceed as follows: Let $END(Q_1,x_1)={\left\{x_2,x_3,\ldots,x_q\right\}}$ and let $Q_i,i=2,\ldots,q$ denote a path from $x_1$ to $x_q$ found by rotations. Then, for $2\leq j\leq q$, we let $END(Q_j,x_j)$ denote the set of end vertices of paths obtainable from $Q_j$ by a sequence of rotations with $x_j$ fixed. If for some $j$ we find $y\in END(Q_j,x_j)$ such that $e\neq {\left\{x_j,y\right\}}\in F_2$ then, as before, this round is complete. We have a Hamilton cycle containing one less member of $R$.
Failing this, we will use the edges of $F_1$ to search for an edge of the form ${\left\{x_j,y_j\right\}}$ where $y_j\in END(Q_j,x_j)$. Posá’s lemma states that $|N(END(Q_j,x_j)|<2|END(Q_j,x_j)|$ and so we can assume that $q>n^\beta$ and that $|END(Q_j,x_j)|>n^\beta$ for all $1\leq j\leq q$.
For $1\leq l\leq a=|E_2|$ let $Y_l$ be the indicator for the event that (i) we have completed all rotations for round $i$ and (ii) $e_l={\left\{x_j,y\right\}}\in F_2(i)$ and (iii) $y\in END(Q_j,x_j)$. Let $Z=\sum_{l=1}^{|E_2|} Y_l$. From [**P3**]{}, we have, $${\operatorname{\bf Pr}}(Y_j=1)\geq \frac{\binom{n^{\beta}-2j\log n}{2}}{\binom{n}{2}} \geq \frac{n^{2\beta-2}}{5},$$ for $j\leq n^\b/2\log n$.
In the event that $G$ is not Hamiltonian, $Z\leq |\cP|$. But $Y_l ,1\leq l\leq a$ dominates a $Bernoulli(n^{2\beta-2}/5)$ random variable. This domination holds regardless of $Y_1,Y_2,\ldots,Y_{l-1}$. Hence, from [**P1**]{}, we have $${\operatorname{\bf Pr}}( G\text{ is not Hamiltonian }) \leq {\operatorname{\bf Pr}}(Binomial(n^{2 -2\beta}|\cP|\log^2 n,n^{2\beta-2}/5) \leq |\cP|) = o( n^{-3}).$$
Choice of $E_2$
---------------
Let $$s=n^{1/2}\log^{-2}n$$ and let $$\Omega={\left\{(H,Y):H\in \cG_{n,cn-s}^{\d\geq 3},
Y\subseteq\binom{[n]}{2},|Y|=s\text{ and }E(H)\cap Y=\emptyset\right\}}$$ where $\cG_{n,m}^{\d\geq 3}={\left\{G_{n,m}^{\d\geq 3}\right\}}$.
We consider two ways of randomly choosing an element of $\Omega$.
1. First choose $G$ uniformly from $\cG_{n,cn}^{\d\geq 3}$ and then choose an $s$-set $X$ uniformly from $E(G)\setminus E_3(G)$, where $E_3(G)$ is the set of edges of $G$ that are incident with a vertex of degree 3. This produces a pair $(G-X,X)$. We let ${\operatorname{\bf Pr}}_a$ denote the induced probability measure on $\Omega$.
2. Choose $H$ uniformly from $\cG_{n,cn-s}^{\d\geq 3}$ and then choose an $s$-set $Y$ uniformly from $\binom{[n]}{2}\setminus E(H)$. This produces a pair $(H,Y)$. We let ${\operatorname{\bf Pr}}_b$ denote the induced probability measure on $\Omega$.
The following lemma implies that as far as properties that happen [[**whp**]{}]{} in $G$, we can use Method (b), just as well as Method (a) to generate our pair $(H,Y)$. For a proof see Lemma 10.1 of [@Hamd3].
\[contig\] There exists $\Omega_1\subseteq \Omega$ such that
1. ${\operatorname{\bf Pr}}_a(\Omega_1)=1-o(1)$.
2. $\om=(H,Y)\in \Omega_1$ implies that ${\operatorname{\bf Pr}}_a(\om)=(1+o(1)){\operatorname{\bf Pr}}_b(\om)$.
It follows that we can take $E_2$ as the set $Y$ in the lemma and then we have $|E_2|=n^{0.5-o(1)}$ and this covers [**P2**]{} .
P1 and P3
=========
The main result of [@FP], (see Theorem 1.1 of that paper), is that if $m=cn$ and $c>2.6616\ldots$ then w.h.p. $|S|+|N(S)|\geq n^{1-o(1)}$. So, we see that we can take $\b=0.99$ in Lemma \[lem:Ham3\]. This covers [**P3**]{}.
Random Sequence Model {#refined}
=====================
We must now take some time to explain the model we use for $\gnm3$. We use a variation on the pseudo-graph model of Bollobás and Frieze [@BollFr] and Chvátal [@Ch]. Given a sequence $\bx = (x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_{2M})\in [n]^{2M}$ of $2M$ integers between 1 and $N$ we can define a (multi)-graph $G_{\bx}=G_\bx(N,M)$ with vertex set $[N]$ and edge set $\{(x_{2i-1},x_{2i}):1\leq i\leq M\}$. The degree $d_\bx(v)$ of $v\in [N]$ is given by $$d_\bx(v)=|{\left\{j\in [2M]:x_j=v\right\}}|.$$ If $\bx$ is chosen randomly from $[N]^{2M}$ then $G_{\bx}$ is close in distribution to $G_{N,M}$. Indeed, conditional on being simple, $G_{\bx}$ is distributed as $G_{N,M}$. To see this, note that if $G_{\bx}$ is simple then it has vertex set $[N]$ and $M$ edges. Also, there are $M!2^M$ distinct equally likely values of $\bx$ which yield the same graph.
Our situation is complicated by there being lower bounds of $2,3$ respectively on the minimum degree in two disjoint sets $J_2,J_3\subseteq [N]$. Initially $J_2=J_3=\emptyset$ but we will have to consider instances where they are non-empty, as our 2-matching algorithm progresses. (These sets are intrinsic to the algorithm G described in the next section and a 2-matching is a graph of maximum degree at most 2.) The vertices in $J_0=[N]\setminus (J_2\cup J_3)$ are of fixed bounded degree and the sum of their degrees is $D=o(N)$. So we let $$[N]^{2M}_{J_2,J_3;D}=\{\bx\in [N]^{2M}:d_\bx(j)\geq i\text{ for }j\in J_i,\,i=2,3\text{ and }\sum_{j\in J_0}d_\bx(j)=D\}.$$ Let $G=G(N,M,J_2,J_3;D)$ be the multi-graph $G_\bx$ for $\bx$ chosen uniformly from $[N]^{2M}_{J_2,J_3;D}$. It is clear then that conditional on being simple, $G(n,m,\emptyset,[n];0)$ has the same distribution as $G_{n,m}^{\d\geq 3}$. It is important therefore to estimate the probability that this graph is simple. For this and other reasons, we need to have an understanding of the degree sequence $d_\bx$ when $\bx$ is drawn uniformly from $[N]^{2M}_{J_2,J_3;D}$. Let $$f_k(\l)=e^\l-\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}\frac{\l^i}{i!}$$ for $k\geq 0$.
\[lem3\] Let $\bx$ be chosen randomly from $[N]^{2M}_{J_2,J_3;D}$. For $i=2,3$ let $Z_j\,(j\in [J_i])$ be independent copies of a [*truncated Poisson*]{} random variable $\cP_i$, where $${\operatorname{\bf Pr}}(\cP_i=t)=\frac{{\l}^t}{t!f_i({\l})},\hspace{1in}t=i,i+1,\ldots\ .$$ Here ${\l}$ satisfies $$\label{21}
\sum_{i=2}^3\frac{{\l}f_{i-1}({\l})}{f_i({\l})}|J_i|=2M-D.$$ For $j\in J_0$, $Z_j=d_j$ is a constant and $\sum_{j\in J_0}d_j=D$. Then $\{d_\bx(j)\}_{j\in [N]}$ is distributed as $\{Z_j\}_{j\in [N]}$ conditional on $Z=\sum_{j\in [n]}Z_j=2M$.
[[**Proof**]{}]{}This is Lemma 3.1 of [@Hamd3]. [\
\
]{}
To use Lemma \[lem3\] for the approximation of vertex degrees distributions we need to have sharp estimates of the probability that $Z$ is close to its mean $2M$. In particular we need sharp estimates of ${\operatorname{\bf Pr}}(Z=2M)$ and ${\operatorname{\bf Pr}}(Z-Z_1=2M-k)$, for $k=o(N)$. These estimates are possible precisely because $\E(Z)=2M$. Using the special properties of $Z$, a standard argument in an appendix of [@Hamd3] shows that where $N_\ell=|J_\ell|$ and $\N=N_2+N_3$ and the variances are $$\label{30}
\s_\ell^2=\frac{f_\ell({\l})({\l}^2f_{\ell-2}({\l})+{\l}f_{\ell-1}({\l}))-{\l}^2f_{\ell-1}({\l})^2}
{f_\ell({\l})^2}\text{ and }\s^2=\frac{1}{\N}\sum_{\ell=2}^3N_\ell\s_\ell^2,$$ that if $\N\s^2\rightarrow \infty$ and $k=O(\sqrt{\N}\s)$ then [$$\label{ll1}
{\operatorname{\bf Pr}}\left(Z=2M-k\right)=\frac{1}{\s\sqrt{2\p \N}}\left(1+
O{\left(\frac{k^2+1}{\N\s^{2}}\right)}\right).$$]{}
Given and $$\s_\ell^2=O({\l}),\qquad\ell=2,3,$$ we obtain
\[lem4\] Let $\bx$ be chosen randomly from $[N]^{2M}_{J_2,J_3;D}$.
(a)
: Assume that $\log \N=O((\N {\l})^{1/2})$. For every $j\in J_\ell$ and $\ell\leq k\leq \log \N$, [$$\label{f1}
{\operatorname{\bf Pr}}(d_\bx(j)=k)=\frac{{\l}^k}{k!f_\ell({\l})}
\left(1+O\left(\frac{k^2+1}{\N {\l}}\right)\right).$$]{} Furthermore, for all $\ell_1,\ell_2\in{\left\{2,3\right\}}$ and $j_1\in J_{\ell_1},j_2\in J_{\ell_2},\,j_1\neq j_2$, and $\ell_i\leq k_i\leq \log \N$, [$$\label{f2}
{\operatorname{\bf Pr}}(d_\bx(j_1)=k_1,d_\bx(j_2)=k_2)=\frac{{\l}^{k_1}}{k_1!f_{\ell_1}({\l})}\frac{{\l}^{k_2}}{k_2!
f_{\ell_2}({\l})}\left(1+O{\left(\frac{\log^2 \N}{\N {\l}}\right)}\right).$$]{}
(b)
: [$$\label{maxdegree}
d_\bx(j)\leq\frac{\log N}{(\log\log N)^{1/2}} \quad\qs\footnote{An event
$\cE=\cE(\N)$
occurs quite surely
(\qs, in short) if ${\operatorname{\bf Pr}}(\cE)=1-O(N^{-a})$ for any constant $a>0$}$$]{} for all $j\in J_2\cup J_3$.
[[**Proof**]{}]{}This is Lemma 3.2 of [@Hamd3]. [\
\
]{}
Let $\n_\bx^\ell(s)$ denote the number of vertices in $J_\ell,\ell=2,3$ of degree $s$ in $G_\bx$. Equation (\[ll1\]) and a standard tail estimate for the binomial distribution shows the following:
\[lem4x\] Suppose that $\log \N=O((\N {\l})^{1/2})$ and $N_\ell\to\infty$ with $N$. Let $\bx$ be chosen randomly from $[N]^{2M}_{J_2,J_3;D}$. Then , [$$\label{degconc}
\cD(\bx)=
\left\{\left|\n_\bx^\ell(j)-\frac{N_\ell {\l}^j}{j!f({\l})}\right|
\leq {\left( 1+{\left(\frac{N_\ell {\l}^j}{j!f({\l})}\right)}^{1/2} \right)}\log^2 N,\ k\leq j\leq \log N\right\}.$$]{}
[\
\
]{}
We can now show $G_\bx$, $\bx\in [n]^{2m}_{\emptyset,[n];0}$ is a good model for $G_{n,m}^{\d\geq 3}$. For this we only need to show now that [$$\label{simpx}
{\operatorname{\bf Pr}}(G_\bx\text{ is simple})=\Omega(1).$$]{} For this we can use a result of McKay [@McK]. If we fix the degree sequence of $\bx$ then $\bx$ itself is just a random permutation of the multi-graph in which each $j\in [n]$ appears $d_\bx(j)$ times. This in fact is another way of looking at the configuration model of Bollobás [@B2]. The reference [@McK] shows that the probability $G_\bx$ is simple is asymptotically equal to $e^{-(1+o(1))\r(\r+1)}$ where $\r=m_2/m$ and $m_2=\sum_{j\in [n]}d_{\bx}(j)(d_{\bx}(j)-1)$. One consequence of the exponential tails in Lemma \[lem4x\] is that $m_2=O(m)$. This implies that $\r=O(1)$ and hence that holds. We can thus use the Random Sequence Model to prove the occurrence of high probability events in $G_{n,m}^{\d\geq 3}$.
All that is left now is to show that we can find a covering collection of paths that satisfy [**P1**]{} e.g. $|\cP|\leq n^{0.48}$ will suffice. For this we need to analyse algorithm G of [@Hamd3], which was described in Section \[alg\].
Greedy Algorithm {#alg}
================
We now describe the algorithm G of [@Hamd3]. Our algorithm will be applied to the random graph $G=G_{n,m}^{\d\geq 3}$ and analyzed in the context of $G_\bx$. As the algorithm progresses, it makes changes to $G$ and we let $\G$ denote the current state of $G$. The algorithm grows a 2-matching $M$ and for $v\in [n]$ we let $b(v)$ be the number of edges in $M$ that are incident to $v$. We let
- $\m$ be the number of edges in $\G$,
- $V_{0,j}={\left\{v\in [n]:d_\G(v)=0,\,b(v)=j\right\}}$, $j=0,1$,
- $Y_k={\left\{v\in [n]:d_\G(v)=k\text{ and }b(v)=0\right\}}$, $k=1,2$,
- $Z_1={\left\{v\in [n]:d_\G(v)=1\text{ and }b(v)=1\right\}}$,
- $Y={\left\{v\in [n]:d_\G(v)\geq 3\text{ and }b(v)=0\right\}}$,This is $J_3$ of Section \[refined\].
- $Z={\left\{v\in [n]:d_\G(v)\geq2\text{ and }b(v)=1\right\}}$,This is $J_2$ of Section \[refined\].
- $M$ is the set of edges in the current 2-matching.
[**Algorithm** ]{}
Step 1 $Z_1 \cup Y_1\cup Y_2 \neq\emptyset$
: \
Choose a random vertex $v$ from $Z_1 \cup Y_1\cup Y_2$. Let $w$ be a random neighbor of $v$. (We allow the case $v=w$ as we are analyzing the algorithm within the context of $G_\bx$. This case is of course unnecessary when the input is simple i.e. for $G_{n,m}^{\d\geq k}$). Add $(v,w)$ to $M$ and delete it form $\G$. Update $b(v)=b(v)+1$, $b(w)=b(w)+1$. Delete all vertices in $V(\G)$ satisfying $b(u)\geq 2$ and the edges incident to them. Delete any isolated vertices.
Step 2: $Y_1\cup Y_2 \cup Z_1=\emptyset$
: \
Choose a random vertex $v$ from $Z_1 \cup Y_1\cup Y_2$. Let $w$ be a random neighbor of $v$. Add $(v,w)$ to $M$ and delete it to form $\G$. Update $b(v)=b(v)+1$, $b(w)=b(w)+1$. Delete all vertices in $V(\G)$ satisfying $b(u)\geq 2$ and the edges incident to them. Delete any isolated vertices.
The algorithm ends when there are at most $n^{2/5}$ vertices left in $\G$. The output of G is set of edges in $M$.
Analysis of G
=============
We will use the following additional notation to that given in Section \[alg\]:
- $m_i$: number of edges at time $i$.
- $Z_j,j\geq 2$ and $Y_j,j\geq 3$ resp. are the subsets of $Z$ and $Y$ respectively constisting of vertices of degree $j$.
- $y_i=|Y|,z_i=|Z|$ at time $i$.
- $\zeta_i= |Y_1|+2|Y_2|+|Z_1|$.
- $$p_{2,i} =\frac{2|Z_2|}{2m_i} \text{ and } p_{3,i}=\frac{3|Y_3|}{2m_i}.$$
We will show that w.h.p. [$$\label{goal}
\text{up until $m_i\leq n^{0.42}$ we have $\zeta_i\leq n^{0.41}=o(m_i)$}.$$]{} Every component in $M$ defines a path and the union of the vertices of these paths is $V$. The number $\k$ of components of the 2-matching $M$ output by G can be bounded as follows. $\k$ can be bounded by the number $\k_1$ of vertices of degree one or zero in $M$ plus $\k_2$, the number of cycles. For every vertex $v\in V$ that contributes to $\k_1$ there exists a step $i$ such that either (i) $v\in Z_1 \cup Y_1\cup Y_2$ and at step $i$ a neighbor of $v$ is matched and then removed from $\G$ or (ii) $v\notin Z_1 \cup Y_1\cup Y_2$, at least 1 neighbor of $v$ is removed from $\G$ and as a result at least $d(v)-2$ edges incident to $v$ are removed. If the above occurs then we say that step i witnesses an increase of $\k_1$.
For the number of cycles spanned by $M$, observe that at step $i$, $\k_2$ can increase by one only if we add an edge $\{u,v\}$ to $M$ where $u$ is connected to $v$ by a path in $M$. If the above occurs then we say that step i witnesses an increase of $\k_2$.
Since w.h.p the maximum degree of $G_0$, and hence of $\G$, is $\log n$ we have that step $i$ witnesses an increase of $\k_1+\k_2$ of magnitude at most $2\log n$ with probability at most $(2\log n) \zeta_i/2m_i + O(1/m_i)$. Let $\epsilon=10^{-4}$. If $\k_1+\k_2$ reaches $n^{0.42}$ then there are at least $\e n^{0.42}/2\log n$ steps with $m_i\in [n^{0.42+(r-1)\epsilon}, n^{0.42+r\epsilon}]$ for some integer $1\leq r\leq 1/\e$ that witness an increase of $\k_1+\k_2$. The probability that this occurs for a fixed $r$, while $\z_i\leq n^{0.41}$, is bounded by $$\binom{n^{0.42+r\e}}{\e n^{0.42}/2\log n} {\left(\frac{2n^{0.41}\log n}{n^{0.42+(r-1)\e}}\right)}^{\e n^{0.42}} \leq {\left( \frac{en^{0.42+r\e}\log n}{2\e n^{0.42}} \cdot \frac{2n^{0.41}\log n}{n^{0.42+(r-1)\e}} \right)}^{\e n^{0.41}} \leq n^{-5}.$$ Hence w.h.p. the total increase in $\k_1+\k_2$ up until $m_i\leq n^{0.42}$ or $\z_i>n^{0.41}$, is bounded by $n^{0.42}$. Once $m_i\leq n^{0.42}$, at most $n^{0.42}$ more components can be created, yielding in total at most $2n^{0.42}$ components.
We define the events $$\cA_i={\left\{(z_j+y_j)\la_j \geq \log^3 n \text{ for } j\leq i\right\}}\text{ and }\cB_i={\left\{(\lambda_i\geq m_i^{-0.2})\vee (y_i\geq m_i^{0.8})\right\}}.$$ We define the following random variables: $$\begin{aligned}
X_i&=(\zeta_{i+1}-\zeta_i) \mathbb{I}(\cA_i, \cB_i, m_i\geq n^{0.42},0<\zeta_i<n^{0.41}).\\
Y_i&=(\zeta_{i+1}-\zeta) \mathbb{I}(\cA_i,\neg \cB_i, m_i\geq n^{0.42},0<\zeta_i<n^{0.41}).\\
X_i'&=(\zeta_{i+1}-\zeta) \mathbb{I}(\neg \cA_i, m_i\geq n^{0.42},0<\zeta_i<n^{0.41}).\\
Y_i'&=(\zeta_{i+1}-\zeta) \mathbb{I}(\neg \cA_i, \neg\cB_i, m_i\geq n^{0.42}).\end{aligned}$$ For $i>0$ we have that while $m_i \geq n^{0.42}$, w.h.p. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{goaly}
\min\{ \zeta_{i}, n^{0.41}\} \leq M+\sum_{j=0}^{i-1}(X_i+Y_i+X_i'+Y_i')\end{aligned}$$ where $M=\log^2 n$ is such that the following holds: w.h.p. for every $i\geq 0$ with $\zeta_i=0$ we have that $\zeta_{i+1} \leq M$. Our bound for $M$ is justified by the fact that the maximum degree in $G$ is $o(\log n)$ w.h.p.
We now prove high probability upper bounds on the random variables in and only consider $i$ such that [$$\label{mi}
m_i\geq n^{0.42}.$$]{} We use the inequality $m_i\geq n^{0.42}$ to impose that if $\zeta_i\leq n^{0.41}$ then almost all of the vertices belong to $Y \cup Z$. We will see from the analysis below that w.h.p. [$$\label{important}
m_i\geq n^{0.42}\text{ implies }\zeta_i\leq n^{0.41}.$$]{}
Equation (80) of [@Hamd3] states that if $\cH_i$ denotes the history of the process up to the end of iteration $i$, assuming the event $\cA_i$ occurs, then [$$\label{neg}
\zeta_i>0\text{ implies }\E(\zeta_{i+1}-\zeta_i\mid \cH_i)\leq -\Omega(\min{\left\{1,\la_i\right\}}^2)+ O{\left(\frac{\log^2m_i}{\la_im_i}\right)}.$$]{} In the following cases we will assume that $\zeta_i>0$. The case $\z_i=0$ is handled by $M$ of .
**Case 1: $\cA_i \wedge \cB_i$**\
**Case 1a**\
If $\lambda_i\geq m_i^{-0.2}$ we have from that $$\E(X_i|\cH_i) \leq - c\lambda_i^2 \leq -cn^{-0.4}$$ for some constant $c>0$.
**Case 1b:**\
Assume now that $\la_i \leq m_i^{-0.2}$. In this case since $\cA_i$ occurs we have that for $i\geq 2$, $|Z_i|$ is approximately equal to the sum of $|Z_i|$ independent random variables that follow Poisson($\lambda_i$) conditioned on having value at least 2. More precisely, it follows from Lemma 3.3 of [@Hamd3] that as long as $\cA_i$ holds, we have $$\label{1}
\begin{split}
\frac{|Z_3|}{|Z_2|}&= \frac{\lambda_i}{3}{\left( 1+O(m_i^{1/2}\lambda_i\log^2m_i) \right)},\\
\frac{|Z_4|}{|Z_2|}&= \frac{\lambda_i^2}{12}{\left( 1+O(m_i^{1/2}\lambda_i\log^2m_i) \right)},\\
\sum_{i\geq 5} |Z_i|& \leq |Z_2| \lambda_i^3.
\end{split}$$ Similarly $$\label{2}
\begin{split}
\frac{|Y_4|}{|Y_3|}&= \frac{\lambda_i}{4}{\left( 1+O(m_i^{1/2}\lambda_i\log^2m_i) \right)},\\
\frac{|Y_5|}{|Y_3|}&= \frac{\lambda_i^2}{20}{\left( 1+O(m_i^{1/2}\lambda_i\log^2m_i) \right)},\\
\sum_{i\geq 6} |Y_i|& \leq |Y_3| \lambda_i^3.
\end{split}$$ Recall that if $\zeta_i>0$ then the algorithm will choose a vertex $v\in Z_1 \cup Y_1 \cup Y_2$ and it will match it to some vertex $w$. Thus initially $\zeta_{i}$ will decrease by 1.
For $w\in Z$ let $d(w,Y_3)$ and $d(w,Z_2)$ be the number of neighbors of $w$ in $Y_3$ and $Z_2\setminus \{v\}$. Also let $f(w)$ be the number of vertices that are connected to $w$ by multiple edges. We consider the following cases:
**Case a:** $w\in Y_2 \cup Y_1 \cup Z_1$ then $\zeta_{i+1}-\zeta_i=-2$.\
**Case b:** $w \in Y$ then $\zeta_{i+1}-\zeta_i=-1$.\
**Case c:** $w\in Z_2$ and $d(w,Z_2)=1$ then $\zeta_{i+1}-\zeta_i=0$.\
**Case d:** $w\in Z_2$ and $d(w,Y_3)=1$ then $\zeta_{i+1}-\zeta_i=1$.\
**Case e:** $w\in Z_2$ and $d(w,Z_2)+d(w,Y_3)=0$ then $\zeta_{i+1}-\zeta_i=-1$.\
**Case f:** $w\in Z \setminus Z_2$ then $\zeta_{i+1}-\zeta_i\leq -1+d(w,Z_2)+2d(w,Y_3)+O(f(w))$.
Differentiating cases c,d,e,f will be helpful later when we bound $\sum_{i\geq 0} Y_i$.
Summarizing we have, $$\label{cases}
\zeta_{i+1}- \zeta_i
\begin{cases}
= -2, & \text{ Case a: probability } (\zeta_i/2m_i)(1+O(m_i^{-1})) .\\
= -1, & \text{ Case b: probability } p_{3,i} (1+O(m_i^{-1})).\\
= 0, & \text{ Case c: probability } p_{2,i}^2 (1+O(m_i^{-1})).\\
= +1 & \text{ Case d: probability } p_{2,i}p_{3,i}(1+O(m_i^{-1}).\\
= -1 & \text{ Case e: probability } p_{2,i}(1-p_{2,i}-p_{3,i})(1+O(m_i^{-1})).\\
\leq -1+d(w,Z_2)\\ \ +2d(w,Y_3)+O(f(w)) & \text{ Case f: }
\end{cases}$$ The net contribution of Cases c,d,e to $\E(X_i|\cH_i)$ is [$$\label{def}
-p_{2,i}+p_{2,i}(p_{2,i}+2p_{3,i})= -{\operatorname{\bf Pr}}(w \in Z_2) +p_{2,i}(p_{2,i}+2p_{3,i}).$$]{} Similarly, the contribution of Case f to $\E(X_i|\cH_i)$ is at most $$\begin{aligned}
\label{problematic}
&\E\big[-1+(d(w)-1)(d(w,Z_2)+2d(w,Y_3))+O(f(w)))\mathbb{I}(w\in Z\setminus Z_2) |\cH_i\big]\nonumber\\
&=-{\operatorname{\bf Pr}}(w\in Z\setminus Z_2)+ {\left( (3-1) \frac{3|Z_3|}{2m_i}+(4-1)\frac{4|Z_4|}{2m_i} \right)}(p_{2,i}+2p_{3,i})+ O{\left( \frac{\lambda_i\log^2m_i}{m_i^{1/2}} + \lambda_i^3 \right)}.\nonumber\\
&= -{\operatorname{\bf Pr}}(w\in Z\setminus Z_2)+p_{2,i}\bigg(\lambda_i +\frac{\lambda_i^2}{2} \bigg)(p_{2,i}+2p_{3,i})
+ O{\left( \frac{\lambda_i\log^2m_i}{m_i^{1/2}} + \lambda_i^3 \right)}.\end{aligned}$$ The -1 in the $d(w)-1$ expression accounts for the edge ${\left\{v,w\right\}}$. Then the next term accounts for the other $d(w)-1$ neighbors of $w$ and the possibility that they belong to either $Z_2$ or $Y_3$. To go from the second to the third line we used .
Finally observe that , imply that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{total}
1&= \frac{2|Z_2|+3|Z_3|+4|Z_4|}{2m_i}+\frac{3|Y_3|+4|Y_4|+5|Y_5|}{2m_i}+\frac{\zeta_i}{2m_i}+ O{\left( \frac{\lambda_i\log^2m_i}{m_i^{1/2}}+\lambda_i^3 \right)} \nonumber
\\&= p_{2,i}\bigg(1+ \frac{\lambda_i}{2}+ \frac{\lambda_i^2}{6} \bigg)
+ p_{3,i}\bigg(1 +\frac{\lambda_i}{3}+ \frac{\lambda_i^2}{12}\bigg)+\frac{\zeta_i}{2m_i} + O{\left( \frac{\lambda_i\log^2m_i}{m_i^{1/2}}+\lambda_i^3 \right)}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\E(X_i|\cH_i)&\leq {\left( -\frac{2\zeta_i}{2m_i}- {\operatorname{\bf Pr}}(w \in Y) + [- {\operatorname{\bf Pr}}(w \in Z_2) + p_{2,i}(p_{2,i}+2p_{3,i})] \right)} {\left( 1+O{\left(\frac{1}{m_i}\right)} \right)}\nonumber\\
&+{\left( -{\operatorname{\bf Pr}}(w \in Z \setminus Z_2)+ p_{2,i}\bigg(\lambda_i +\frac{\lambda_i^2}{2} \bigg)(p_{2,i}+2p_{3,i}) \right)} + O{\left( \frac{\lambda_i\log^2m_i}{m_i^{1/2}}+\lambda_i^3 \right)}\nonumber\\
&= -1-\frac{\zeta_i}{2m_i}
+ p_{2,i}{\left( 1+\lambda_i +\frac{\lambda_i^2}{2} \right)}(p_{2,i}+2p_{3,i}) +\nonumber\\ &O{\left( \frac{\lambda_i\log^2m_i}{m_i^{1/2}}+\lambda_i^3 \right)}.\qquad\text{Note that $\cA_i$ implies that $\frac{1}{m_i}\ll \frac{\lambda_i\log^2m_i}{m_i^{1/2}}$}.\nonumber\\
\noalign{Now use \eqref{total} to replace -1 by the squared expression to obtain}
& \leq - \bigg[ p_{2,i}\bigg(1+ \frac{\lambda_i}{2}+ \frac{\lambda_i^2}{6} \bigg)
+ p_{3,i}\bigg(1+ \frac{\lambda_i}{3}+ \frac{\lambda_i^2}{12}\bigg)+\frac{\zeta_i}{2m_i} \bigg]^2 \nonumber\\
& + p_{2,i}\bigg( 1+ \lambda_i+ \frac{\lambda_i^2}{2} \bigg)(p_{2,i}+2p_{3,i})- \frac{\zeta_i}{2m_i} + O{\left( \frac{\lambda_i\log^2m_i}{m_i^{1/2}}+\lambda_i^3 \right)}\nonumber\\
&= - \frac{\lambda_i^2 p_{2,i}^2}{12}+2 p_{2,i}p_{3,i} \bigg( \frac{\lambda_i}{6} +\frac{\lambda_i^2}{12} \bigg)
- p_{3,i}^2 \bigg(1+ \frac{2\lambda_i}{3} +\frac{5\lambda_i^2}{18} \bigg) -\frac{\zeta_i}{2m_i}\nonumber\\
&+O{\left( \frac{\lambda_i\log^2m_i}{m_i^{1/2}}+ \lambda_i^3 \right)}\nonumber\\
& = - {\left( \frac{ \lambda_i p_{2,i}}{4} - p_{3,i}{\left( \frac{2}{3} +\frac{\lambda_i}{3} \right)} \right)}^2 - \frac{\lambda_i^2 p_{2,i}^2}{48} -p_{3,i}^2{\left( \frac{5}{9} +\frac{2\la_i}{9}+\frac{\la_i^2}{6} \right)} -\frac{3\zeta_i}{2m_i}\nonumber\\
&+O{\left( \frac{\lambda_i\log^2m_i}{m_i^{1/2}}+\lambda_i^3 \right)}\nonumber\\
& \leq - \frac{\lambda_i^2 p_{2,i}^2}{48} -\frac{5p_{3,i}^2}{9} -\frac{\zeta_i}{2m_i}+ O{\left( \frac{\lambda_i\log^2m_i}{m_i^{1/2}}+\lambda_i^3 \right)}. \label{EX}\end{aligned}$$ In Case 1b we have that the events $\cA_i \wedge \cB_i$, $\lambda_i \leq m_i^{-0.2}, m_i\geq n^{0.42}$ occur. $\cA_i$ and $\lambda_i \leq m_i^{-0.2}$ implies that $y_i\geq m_i^{0.8}$ and so $p_{3,i}+p_{2,i}= \Omega(1)$ and $p_{3,i}\geq m_i^{-0.2}$. Therefore $$\E(X_i|\cH_i ) \leq -c' m^{-0.4}_i \leq -c n^{-0.4}.$$ Thus if Case 1 occurs we have by the Azuma inequality that $$\sum_{\ell\geq 0} {\operatorname{\bf Pr}}\bigg( \sum_{i=0}^j X_i \geq n^{0.405} \bigg)
\leq m_0 \max_{0\leq j\leq m_0} \exp \bigg\{- \frac{(n^{0.405}+ cjn^{-0.4})^2}{j\log^2n} \bigg\} +n^{-6} =o(1).$$ The $n^{-6}$ term accounts for the probability that the degree of $G$ exceeds $\log n$. The maximum degree bounds $|\zeta_{i+1}-\zeta_i|$.
**Case 2: $\cA_i\wedge\neg\cB_i$**\
To bound $\sum_{i\geq 0}^j Y_i$, let $R_i$ be the indicator of the event that $\neg \cB_i \wedge {\left\{\zeta_i\leq n^{0.41}\right\}}$ plus one of the cases (a),(b),(d),(e) and(f) from occurs. Then, just as in Case 1, since the contribution of Case c to $\E(X_i |\cH_i)$ is 0 and $Y_i=0$ if $\zeta_i\geq n^{0.41}$, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EY}
\E(Y_i R_i |\cH_i ) &\leq - \frac{\lambda_i^2 p_{2,i}^2}{48} -\frac{5p_{3,i}^2}{9} -\frac{\zeta_i}{2m_i} + O{\left( \frac{\lambda_i\log^2m_i}{m_i^{1/2}}+\lambda_i^3 \right)} \nonumber
\\&\leq - \frac{\lambda_i^2 p_{2,i}^2}{48} + O{\left( \frac{\lambda_i\log^2m_i}{m_i^{1/2}}+\lambda_i^3 \right)} \nonumber
\\& \leq O(m_i^{-1}\log^4 m_i).\end{aligned}$$ For the last inequality we used that in the event $\mathcal{A}_i \wedge \neg \mathcal{B}_i$ , and imply that $p_{2,i}=1-o(1)$. In addition $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{\bf Pr}}(R_i=1)&\leq{\operatorname{\bf Pr}}(\text{Case(a)})+{\operatorname{\bf Pr}}(\text{Case(b)})+ {\operatorname{\bf Pr}}(\text{Case(d)})+{\operatorname{\bf Pr}}(\text{Case(e)})+{\operatorname{\bf Pr}}(\text{Case(f)})\nonumber\\
& =O\bigg( \frac{\zeta_i}{2m_i}+ p_{3,i}+p_{2,i}p_{3,i}+p_{2,i}(1-p_{3,i}-p_{2,i})+\lambda_i\bigg)=O\bigg( \frac{\zeta_i}{2m_i} +p_{3,i}+\lambda_i\bigg). \label{oneof}\end{aligned}$$ where we have used $1-p_{3,i}-p_{2,i}=O(\la_i)$.
In the event $\neg \cB_i$ we have that $\lambda_i \leq m^{-0.2}$ and $y_i \leq m_i^{0.8}$ and hence $p_{3,i} \leq m_i^{-0.2}$. Hence, if $\zeta_i\leq n^{0.41}$ then ${\operatorname{\bf Pr}}(R_i=1) \leq m_i^{-0.2}$. Let $\bar{R_i}=R_i\mathbb{I}(\zeta_i < n^{0.41})$, then, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j=0}^{m_0} {\operatorname{\bf Pr}}{\left( \sum_{i=0}^j \bar{R_i} >n^{0.803} \right)}
& \leq \sum_{j=0}^{m_0} {\operatorname{\bf Pr}}{\left( \sum_{i=0}^j \bar{R_i}\mathbb{I}(m_i>n^{0.8}) >n^{0.803}-n^{0.8} \right)}
\\&\leq m_0 \exp\bigg\{ -\frac{(n^{0.803}-n^{0.8}-\sum_{m =1}^{m_0} m^{-0.2})^2}{2m_0} \bigg\} =o(1).\end{aligned}$$ To obtain the exponential bound, we let $Z_j=\sum_{i=0}^j \bar{R_i}\mathbb{I}(m_i>n^{0.8})$. We have\
$\E{Z_j}\leq \sum_{m =1}^{m_0} m^{-0.2}=O(n^{0.8})$ and then we can use the Chernoff bounds, since our bounds for $\bar{R_i}=1$ hold given the history of the process so far.
It follows that, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Y}
\sum_{j=0}^{m_0} {\operatorname{\bf Pr}}\bigg( \sum_{i=0}^j Y_i \geq n^{0.405} \bigg)&= \sum_{j=0}^{m_0} {\operatorname{\bf Pr}}\bigg( \sum_{i=0 }^j Y_i \bar{R_i} \geq n^{0.405}\bigg) \nonumber
\\& \leq \sum_{j=0}^{m_0} {\operatorname{\bf Pr}}(\sum_{i=0}^j \bar{R_i} >n^{0.803})+\sum_{j=0}^{m_0} {\operatorname{\bf Pr}}\bigg( \sum_{i=0 }^j Y_i \bar{R_i} \geq n^{0.405}|\sum_{i=0}^j \bar{R_i} \leq n^{0.803} \bigg) \nonumber
\\&\leq o(1) + m_0
\max_{j\leq n^{0.0803}} \exp\bigg\{-\frac{\big(n^{0.405}-\sum_{i =0}^{m_0} m_i^{-1}\log^3 m_i\big)^2}{j\log ^2n}\bigg\} \nonumber
\\& \leq o(1)+ m_0 \max_{j\leq n^{0.0803}} \exp\bigg\{-\frac{\big(n^{0.405}-n^{o(1)}\big)^2}{j\log^2 n}\bigg\} =o(1).\end{aligned}$$ To obtain the third line we use the fact that w.h.p. $|Y_i|\leq \log n$, which follows from a high probability bound of $o(\log n)$ on the maximum degree of $G$.
**Cases 3 & 4: $\neg\cA_i$**\
Let $T_1=\max{\left\{i:(\cA_i\text{ occurs})\wedge (m_i\geq n^{0.42})\right\}}$. At time $T_1$ we have $(z_{T_1}+y_{T_1})\la_{T_1}\geq m_{T_1} \log^3 n$ and hence the estimates , hold. Thereafter $|z_{T_1+1}-z_{T_1}|, |y_{T_1+1}-y_{T_1}|, |m_{T_1+1}-m_{T_1}| = O( \Delta(G_{T_1-1}))$. The maximum degree of $\Delta(G_{T_1})$ is bounded w.h.p. by $\log n$. At time $T_1+1$ we have $(z_{T_1+1}+y_{T_1+1})\la_{T_1+1}< m_{T_1+1} \log^3 n$ hence $\la_{T_1}\leq \frac{2\log^3n}{m_{T_1}}$ and so subsequently for $i\geq T_1$ we have [$$\label{smallsets}
|Y_4|,|Z_3|=O(\log^3n)\text{ and }Y_j=Z_{j-1}=\emptyset\text{ for }j\geq 5.$$]{}
**Case 3: $\neg\cA_i \wedge B_i$**\
Given the above we replace by [$$\label{total1}
1=p_{2,i}+p_{3,i}+\frac{\zeta_i}{2m_i}+O{\left(\frac{\log^3n}{m_i}\right)}.$$]{} Following this we replace by [$$\label{EX1}
\E(X_i'\mid\cH)\leq -\frac{5p_{3,i}^2}{9} +O{\left(\frac{\log^3n}{m_i}\right)}.$$]{} In the events $\neg\cA_i \wedge \cB_i$, $y_i\geq m_i^{0.8}$ and so $p_{3,i}\geq m_i^{-0.2}$. Therefore $$\E(X_i'|\cH_i ) \leq -c' m^{-0.4}_i \leq -c n^{-0.4}.$$ Thus if Case 3 occurs we have by the Azuma inequality that $$\sum_{\ell\geq 0} {\operatorname{\bf Pr}}\bigg( \sum_{i=0}^j X_i' \geq n^{0.405} \bigg)
\leq m_0 \max_{0\leq j\leq m_0} \exp \bigg\{- \frac{(n^{0.405}+ cjn^{-0.4})^2}{j\log^2n} \bigg\} +n^{-6} =o(1).$$ The $n^{-6}$ term accounts for the probability that the degree of $G$ exceeds $\log n$. The maximum degree bounds $|\zeta_{i+1}-\zeta_i|$.
**Case 4: $\neg\cA_i \wedge \neg B_i$**\
As in Case 2 we have $$\E(Y_i' R_i |\cH_i ) \leq O(m_i^{-1} \log^4 n)$$ where $R_i$ (and subsequentially $\bar{R_i}$) is defined exactly as in Case 3. Hence, just as in we get $$\sum_{j=0}^{m_0} {\operatorname{\bf Pr}}\bigg( \sum_{i=0}^j Y_i '\geq n^{0.405} \bigg)=o(1).$$ The above analysis and equation shows that w.h.p. $$\min\{\zeta_i,n^{0.41}\}\leq \log^2 n +4n^{0.405} <n^{0.409}.$$ Hence w.h.p. there does not exist $i$ such that $m_i\geq n^{0.42}$ and $\zeta_i> n^{0.41}$. And this therefore completes the proof that w.h.p. $\zeta_i\leq n^{0.41}$ up to the point where $m_i\leq n^{0.42}$, verifying .
Conclusion
==========
We have made significant progress in determining the number of random edges needed for Hamiltonicity when we condition on minimum degree at least three. Further progress will lie on improving the bound on the number of edges needed to apply Posá’s theorem that is given in [@FP]. This may not be so easy, as explained in Remark 4.1 of [@FP].
[99]{} B. Bollobás, [*A probabilistic proof of an asymptotic formula for the number of labelled regular graphs*]{}, European Journal on Combinatorics 1 (1980) 311-316. B.Bollobás and A.M.Frieze, On matchings and hamiltonian cycles in random graphs, [*Annals of Discrete Mathematics*]{} 28 (1985) 23-46. V. Chvátal, Almost all graphs with 1.44$n$ edges are 3-colourable, [*Random Structures and Algorithms*]{} 2 (1991) 11-28. A.M. Frieze, On a Greedy 2-Matching Algorithm and Hamilton Cycles in Random Graphs with Minimum Degree at Least Three, [*Random structures and Algorithms*]{} 45 (2014) 443-497. A.M. Frieze and M. Karoński, Introduction to Random Graphs, Cambridge University Press. 2015. On a sparse random graph with minimum degree three: Likely Posa’s sets are large, [*Journal of Combinatorics*]{} 4 (2013)123-156 [*Random Structures and Algorithms*]{} 43 (2013) 1-15. M. Krivelevich, E. Lubetzky and B. Sudakov Cores of random graphs are born Hamiltonian, Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 109 (2014), 161-188. B. McKay, Asymptotics for 0-1 matrices with prescribed line sums, in [*Enumeration and Design*]{}, (Academic Press, 1984) 225-238.
[^1]: Research supported in part by NSF Grant DMS1363136
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We repeat our previous calculation of the spectrum distortion of massless neutrinos in the early universe with a considerably better accuracy and corrected for a missing numerical factor in one of the two ways of calculations presented in our paper [@dhs]. Now both ways of calculations are in perfect agreement and we essentially reproduce our old results presented in the abstract of the paper and used in the calculations of light element abundances. We disagree with the criticism of our calculations presented in ref. [@gnedin].'
---
= -1.0 cm 0.0cm 0.3cm
.06in [**[Nonequilibrium Corrections to the Spectra of Massless Neutrinos in the Early Universe – Addendum.]{}** ]{}\
[**A.D. Dolgov [^1] [^2], S.H. Hansen[^3]\
[*[Teoretisk Astrofysik Center\
Juliane Maries Vej 30, DK-2100, Copenhagen, Denmark ]{}*]{}**]{}\
[**D.V. Semikoz[^4]**]{}\
[*[Institute of Nuclear Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences\
60th October Anniversary Prospect 7a , Moscow 117312, Russia ]{}*]{}\
Introduction
============
In ref. [@dhs] we accurately calculated the distortion of the spectrum of primordial massless neutrinos due to the interaction with hotter electrons and positrons in the primeval cosmic plasma. Our results are in a reasonable agreement with the previous approximate or less accurate calculations (the list of references can be found in ref. [@dhs]). Recently a considerably different result was presented in ref. [@gnedin]. In view of that, we have redone our calculations with a better accuracy and also corrected for a missing numerical factor in one of the two different but equivalent ways of calculations presented in ref. [@dhs] (see below). Due to this error the results obtained by the two different methods were somewhat different. Now both ways of calculations are in perfect agreement and we essentially reproduced our old results with a better precision[^5].
The increase in the energy density of neutrinos and the distortion of the spectrum of electronic neutrinos have little effect on light element abundance, but it was recently pointed out that the corresponding increased fraction of cosmic relativistic matter has an impact on the CMB anisotropies, which may be detectable by coming satellite experiments [@gnedin; @lopez].
Description of calculation procedure
====================================
Two ways of calculation
-----------------------
In our previous paper on the subject [@dhs] we used two different approaches for calculating the distortion of the neutrino spectra. We numerically solved the system of equations both for the full neutrino distribution functions, $f_{\nu _j}$, and for the deviations from equilibrium, $\delta_j = (f_{\nu_j}-f_\nu^{eq})/f_\nu^{eq} $. In the last case the contributions to the collision integrals for all the processes vanish for vanishing $\delta$, except for the interactions of neutrinos with electrons, where the “driving force” term, proportional to the temperature difference between $\nu$ and $e^\pm$, gives a nonzero contribution. Moreover, for small $x<1$ this contribution is also very small because the temperature difference is approximately $T_\gamma/T_\nu \approx 1 + 0.005 x^{2.3}$ which is close to 1 for small x. Here we have defined $T_\nu = 1/a$.
However, in the case with the full distribution we erroneously omitted the factor 1.22 (from the Planck mass) for some of the reactions, which created somewhat different results for the two different approaches. Now, after we corrected for this factor, the results are in perfect agreement.
In the recent paper [@gnedin] the factor 2 in the rate of the reaction $\nu_a \nu_a \rightarrow \nu_a \nu_a $ is missing. Fortunately, the difference in neutrino energy density due to this factor is very small, $\sim 10^{-6}$, which is well below the numerical precision.
We can define the effective number of neutrino species at asymptotically large time as: $$N_{\mbox{eff}} = \frac{\rho_{\nu_e}+2 \rho_{\nu_\mu}}{\rho_{\nu}^{eq}}
\frac{\rho_\gamma^{eq}}{\rho_\gamma} ~,
\label{N_eff}$$ where the photon energy density is $\rho_\gamma=(\pi^2/15) (a T_{\gamma})^4$ and the equilibrium quantities are $\rho_{\nu}^{eq}=(7/8)(\pi^2/15)/a^4$ and $\rho_\gamma^{eq}=
(\pi^2/15)(a T_{\gamma}^{eq})^4$.
In the last two columns in tables 1 and 2 we present $N_{\mbox{eff}}$ from eq. (\[N\_eff\]). The error on $N_{\mbox{eff}}$, $\delta N_{\mbox{eff}}$, comes from the numerical error in the definition of $aT_\gamma^{eq}=1.40102$ (see section \[timeevolv\]). We denote this error $\delta(aT_\gamma^{eq})$ in tables 1 and 2.
--------------- -------- ------------------ ------------------------------- ------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------- ------------------ -------------------------
Program points $a T_\gamma$ $\delta(a T_\gamma^{eq})$ $\delta\rho_{\nu_e}/\rho_{\nu_e} $\delta\rho_{\nu_{\mu}}/\rho_{\nu_{\mu}} $N_{\mbox{eff}}$ $\delta N_{\mbox{eff}}$
$ $
100 1.399130 0.000031 0.9435% 0.3948% 3.03392 -0.0003
$\delta(x,y)$ 200 1.399135 0.000031 0.9458% 0.3971% 3.03395 -0.0003
400 1.399135 0.000031 0.9459% 0.3972% 3.03396 -0.0003
100 1.399079 -0.000024 0.9452% 0.3978% 3.03398 0.0003
$f(x,y)$ 200 1.399077 -0.000023 0.9459% 0.3986% 3.03401 0.0003
400 1.399077 -0.000023 0.9461% 0.3990% 3.03402 0.0003
--------------- -------- ------------------ ------------------------------- ------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------- ------------------ -------------------------
: Two ways of calculation.
Initial conditions
------------------
Now, let us discuss the choice of the initial time $x_{in}$. We made the runs for the system of kinetic equations with three different values $x_{in}=0.1, 0.2$ and $0.5$. We found that the results of the runs with $x_{in}=0.1$ and $x_{in}=0.2$ are the same with an accuracy of $10^{-5}$. This means that for $x \le 0.2$ we can neglect the non-equilibrium corrections to the neutrino distribution functions.
Let us note that already at $x_{in}=0.1$ the dimensionless photon temperature differs from unity, $a \, T \neq 1$. For our calculations we took two possible sets of initial conditions. The first was used in the paper [@dhs]: $$f_{\nu_{e (\tau)}} = f_{eq} = \frac{1}{e^{y} + 1} ~~,~~ a \,
T(x_{in}=0.1)=1.00006~.
\label{in_1}$$
These conditions correspond to separate energy conservation in the electromagnetic plasma before the time $x_{in}$. Note, that even though $a T$ is very close to $1$, we need to keep $a T \neq 1$, because our precision for the equilibrium temperature is of the order $0.00003$. The second set of initial conditions is similar to the one we used in the paper [@massive]:
$$f_{\nu_{e (\tau)}} = \frac{1}{e^{y/T} + 1} ~~,~~ a \, T(x_{in}=0.1)=1.00003~.
\label{in_2}$$
These conditions correspond to the neutrinos being in thermal equilibrium with the electromagnetic plasma before $x_{in}$. We found that both initial conditions give the same results for the neutrino energy density and other essential quantities for $x_{in}=0.1$, i.e. the difference in the results is less than our numerical errors. If one instead would choose $x_{in}=0.2$ then the condition (\[in\_2\]) is more precise.
Momentum grid
-------------
We took the dimensionless momentum interval $0 \le y \le 20$. For equilibrium neutrinos $\rho_\nu(y>20)/\rho_\nu \approx 3~\times~ 10^{-6}$. Because the nonequilibrium correction to the neutrino energy density is of the order $1\%$, neglecting $y>20$ does not affect the result for the neutrino energy density even if the calculation is done with $1\%$ precision of the effect. There is a somewhat bigger correction in the reaction rates due to the preexponential factor, $ \sim p^2$, but even for that the momentum cut-off at $y=20$ provides a sufficient accuracy.
In order to choose the distribution of the momentum grid properly let us take a look on the differential energy density of the neutrinos $d\rho_\nu/dy = (1/\pi^2) y^3 f(y)$. $97.5 \%$ of the energy density comes from particles with momentum in the interval $1<y<10$. Particles with momentum $0.1<y<1$ give $1.4 \%$ of the total energy density and particles with $10<y<20$ give $1.1 \%$ of the total energy density. Also note that non-equilibrium corrections are particularly important for particles with large momenta.
These arguments advocate the use of a linear distribution in the region $0\le y \le 20$ or log(y) distribution in the region $0.1 \le y \le 20$. We found that the difference between these approaches with the same number of points in grid is about $10^{-6}$ for the neutrino energy density.
The authors of the paper [@gnedin] chose log(y) distribution of points in grid $10^{-5.5}<y<10^{1.7}$ with 40 points per decade. With such a choice more than half of the points lie in the region $y<0.1$, which gives only $0.0002 \%$ contribution to the neutrino energy density. In the most important decade $1<y<10$ they have only 40 points.
In order to check the errors connected with a finite number of points in grid we took the 100, 200 and 400 point grids. The results hereof are presented in table 1.
Time evolution {#timeevolv}
---------------
We used three different methods of time evolution.
1\) Euler method. We control the errors connected with a finite number of points in time $x$ in the following way. First, we run the program with some fixed number of points in $x$, distributed in the time interval $x_{in}<x<x_f$ in such a way that the distribution functions do not change significantly at any momentum point $y$ during one time iteration $dx$. Then we run the program for the entropy conservation law (i.e. with equilibrium neutrinos) with the same values of time $x_i$ as in the first run. Finally we compare the asymptotical values of the temperature ratios with the theoretical value which is $T_\gamma/T_\nu=(11/4)^{1/3} = 1.40102$. In order to have good precision we require that the numerical error in these temperature ratio should not be larger than $ \sim 0.00003$ (fourth column in table 1).
2\) Bulirsch-Stoer method. Instead of the simple time evolution we used the Bulirsch-Stoer method, described in the book [@numrec].
3\) Method for stiff equations. In order to compare our results with the results of the paper [@gnedin] we made calculations with their method for stiff equations.
We found that the most precise (in calculation of $T_\gamma^{eq}$) is the Bulirsch-Stoer method, but in the region of small time $x_{in}<x<1$ it requires 10 times more processor time than the Euler or the stiff method. Moreover, in the case that we take $x_{in} \ll 0.1$ only the stiff method takes a reasonably small number of time steps.
In the region of large time $x>1$ the situation is the opposite. The Bulirsch-Stoer method requires 10 times fewer time steps than the Euler method. Unfortunately, we cannot control the precision of the stiff equations method in this time region. The problem is that the energy conservation law, which we use for the evaluation of the photon temperature, is [*not*]{} a stiff equation. In our calculations with the stiff method we therefore evolved the photon temperature as $T_\gamma = T_\gamma^{eq} + \delta T$. The value of the equilibrium photon temperature $T_\gamma^{eq}$ is taken from the entropy conservation equation, while for the evolution of the small $\delta T$ we use the same time steps as we have for the kinetic equations in the stiff method.
--------------- -------- ------------------ ------------------------------- ------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------- ------------------ -------------------------
Program points $a T_\gamma$ $\delta(a T_\gamma^{eq})$ $\delta\rho_{\nu_e}/\rho_{\nu_e} $\delta\rho_{\nu_{\mu}}/\rho_{\nu_{\mu}} $N_{\mbox{eff}}$ $\delta N_{\mbox{eff}}$
$ $
$\delta(x,y)$ 100 1.399130 0.000031 0.9435% 0.3948% 3.03392 -0.0003
Euler
$f(x,y)$ 100 1.399079 -0.000024 0.9452% 0.3978% 3.03398 0.0003
Euler+BS
$f(x,y)$ 100 1.399100 $10^{-7}$ 0.9463% 0.3981% 3.03401 $10^{-6}$
BS
$f(x,y)$ 100 1.399060 0.9518% 0.3976% 3.03440
stiff
$f(x,y)$ 100 1.399085 0.9399% 0.3934% 3.03401
stiff+BS
--------------- -------- ------------------ ------------------------------- ------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------- ------------------ -------------------------
: Different time evolution algorithms.
In the calculations with the corrections, $\delta(x,y)$, to the distribution functions we used the Euler method. In calculations with the total distribution functions, $f(x,y)$, we used the Euler method for $x<1$ and the Bulirsch-Stoer method for $x>1$. In order to compare our results with the paper [@gnedin], we also made the calculations using the stiff method in two different ways: with the stiff method evolution for all $x$, and with a combination of the stiff method for $x<1$ and the Bulirsch-Stoer method for $x>1$. In table 2 we compare the results for these ways of calculation with 100 points grid. We found that all ways of calculation give an effective number of neutrino species around $N_{eff}=3.0340$, except the stiff method which gives a slightly larger value $N_{eff}=3.0344$.
Conclusion
==========
We have seen, that the effect of non-equilibrium neutrinos can be calculated with a very good accuracy if one takes a large enough number of momentum points in the important region $1 < y < 10$ and a precise algorithm for the time evolution. Finally let us present our results for late times. Photon temperature: $(a T_\gamma)_{final} = 1.39910 \pm 0.00003~ $, correction to the energy density of electron neutrino: $\delta\rho_{\nu_e}/\rho_{\nu_e}
= 0.946 \pm 0.001~$, correction to the energy density of muon neutrino: $\delta\rho_{\nu_\mu}/\rho_{\nu_\mu}
= 0.398 \pm 0.001~$, and effective number of neutrino species: $N_{eff} = 3.0340 \pm 0.0003~$.
[**Acknowledgment.**]{} We thank Sergio Pastor for pointing out the error of 1.22 in the early version of our program.
The work of AD and SH was supported in part by the Danish National Science Research Council through grant 11-9640-1 and in part by Danmarks Grundforskningsfond through its support of the Theoretical Astrophysical Center. The work of DS was supported in part by the Russian Foundation for Fundamental Research through grants 97-02-17064A and 98-02-17493A.
[99]{} [dhs]{} A.D. Dolgov, S.H. Hansen and D.V. Semikoz, “Nonequilibrium Corrections to the Spectra of Massless Neutrinos in the Early Universe”, TAC-1997-10; Nucl. Phys. B [**503**]{} (1997) 426-444; hep-ph/9703315. [gnedin]{} N.Y. Gnedin and O.Y.Gnedin, “Cosmological Neutrino Background Revisited”, POP-740, astro-ph/9712199. [lopez]{} R.E. Lopez, S. Dodelson, A. Heckler and M.S. Turner, “Precision Detection of the Cosmic Neutrino Background”, astro-ph/9803095 [massive]{} Dolgov A.D., Hansen S.H. and Semikoz D.V. “Effect of a massive tau-neutrino on primordial nucleosynthesis. Exact calculations”, Preprint TAC-1997-035, 29 p; hep-ph/9712284. [numrec]{} W.H.Press et al., “Numerical Recipes in C: the art of scientific computing”, Cambridge U. Press, 1992.
[^1]: Also: ITEP, Bol. Cheremushkinskaya 25, Moscow 113259, Russia.
[^2]: e-mail: [email protected]
[^3]: e-mail: [email protected]
[^4]: e-mail: [email protected]
[^5]: The results quoted in the abstract of ref. [@dhs] as well as the results used in the calculation of $\Delta Y_{He}$ are the correct ones.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
.3in
**Market application of the percolation model: Relative price distribution**
.2in
**Anirban Chakraborti**$ ^{(a),\: (b),\: } $[^1]
*$ ^{(a)} $Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics*, *1/AF Bidhan Nagar,*
*Kolkata-700 064, India.*
*$ ^{(b)} $Institute for Theoretical Physics, Cologne University,*
*50923 Cologne, Germany*
.3in
**Abstract**
We study a variant of the Cont-Bouchaud model which utilizes the percolation approach of multi-agent simulations of the stock market fluctuations. Here, instead of considering the relative price change as the difference of the total demand and total supply, we consider the relative price change to be proportional to the “relative” difference of demand and supply (the ratio of the difference in total demand and total supply to the sum of the total demand and total supply). We then study the probability distribution of the price changes.
0.5in
*Keywords*: Econophysics, Monte Carlo Simulation, Cont-Bouchaud model.
Introduction
============
Statistical physics contains the methods for extracting the average properties of a macroscopic system (matter in bulk) from the microscopic dynamics of the systems. It also gives us precise knowledge of the fluctuations (above these averages) of these quantities [@Stat]. Scaling laws, experimental or theoretical, have been of special interests to physicists. Hence, physicists are trying to employ these methods to study the fluctuations of the stock markets (the study of which began with the work of Louis Bachelier in 1900 [@LB]) as well. With access to large sets of data from financial markets, an extensive search for such scaling laws has begun recently [@Ecophy]. Fluctuations over the average, say in some stock prices, are of immense interest to the economists also. The nature of these fluctuations, whether random or otherwise, are of extreme importance. Stigler [@Stig] studied the market fluctuations by employing Monte Carlo methods more than thirty years back. The fluctuations are believed to follow a Gaussian distribution for long time intervals. Mandelbrot [@Man] was first to observe a clear departure from Gaussian behaviour for these fluctuations for short time intervals. There have been various explanations and descriptions for it, ranging from power laws, exponentials to multi-fractal behaviour.
The percolation [@SAS] approach of Cont and Bouchaud [@CB] is one of the simplest of the numerous multi-agent simulations of the stock market fluctuations. Monte Carlo simulations of the above model made at the percolation threshold, show power-law “fat” tails for short time intervals and exponential truncation for longer time intervals. The model is also consistent with the weak correlations between successive changes of price and strong correlations between successive values of changes of price. There has been various variants of the Cont-Bouchaud model [@ECB]. Here, we study another variant of the Cont-Bouchaud model where instead of considering the relative price change coming from the difference of the total demand and total supply, we consider the relative price change to be proportional to the “relative” difference of demand and supply (i.e., the ratio of the difference in demand and supply to the sum of demand and supply).
The model and results
=====================
We human beings are “social animals” and hence like to stay together and are influenced by others at all spheres of life. At most occasions, we form “clusters”, which for simplicity, will be considered as random. As in the case of percolation theory of random graphs, the traders are assumed to just form random clusters and share their opinions. The history of the price changes and the limitations in the disposable capital of each trader are ignored.
The original Cont-Bouchaud model [@CB] considered the mean-field limit of infinite-range interactions instead of the usual nearest-neighbour percolation on lattices [@SAS]. In the variant models [@ECB], the sites of a $ d $-dimensional lattice are randomly occupied with probability $ p $ and empty with probability ($ 1-p $) and the occupied nearest-neighbours form clusters. Each cluster containing $ N_{t} $ traders decides randomly, to buy (with probability $ a $), sell (also with the same probability $ a $), or to remain inactive (with probability $ 1-2a $). So far, the relative change of the price was considered to be proportional to the difference between the total demand and the total supply. Hence, for any time step $ \Delta t $, we first find the existing clusters and the number $ n_{s} $ of clusters, each containing $ s $ traders. Then each cluster randomly decides whether to buy, sell or remain inactive with the above mentioned probabilities. The parameter $ a $ is called the “activity” and the increase in activity is equivalent to the increase in the time unit, since $ a $ is the fraction of traders which are active per unit time. Thus small $ a $ correspond to small time intervals and large $ a $ (with the maximum of $ 0.5 $) correspond to large time intervals. Then, the relative price change for one time step is considered proportional to the difference of the total demand and total supply: $$\label{pr1}
R(t)=\ln P(t+\Delta t)-\ln P(t)\propto \sum _{s}n_{s}^{buy}s-\sum _{s}n_{s}^{sell}s$$
where the constant of proportionality is taken to be unity.
If we take one time step $ \Delta t $ to be very small so that only one cluster of traders can trade during this time interval (the number of clusters trading in one time step $ N=aN_{t}\sim 1 $), then the probability distribution $ P(R) $ is completely symmetric about zero (as in real stock markets) and just follows the distribution $ n_{s} $ of clusters. The distribution, right at $ p=p_{c} $ is $ n_{s}\propto 1/s^{\tau } $ with $ 2<\tau <2.5 $ in two to infinite dimensions [@SAS]. If the time step $ \Delta t $ is large so that all the traders can trade in each time step ($ N\sim N_{t} $), then the probability distribution $ P(R) $ is closer to a Gaussian. When the time step is in the intermediate range so that $ 1\ll N\ll N_{t} $ the price changes are bell-shaped with power-law tails. This crossover to Gaussian behaviour with the variation of $ a $ is observed in reality also [@SK].
In our model, the relative price change is proportional to the “relative” difference of demand and supply, i.e., the ratio of the difference in demand and supply, and the grand total of demand and supply: $$\label{pr2}
R(t)=\ln P(t+\Delta t)-\ln P(t)\propto \left( \sum _{s}n_{s}^{buy}s-\sum _{s}n_{s}^{sell}s\right) /\left( \sum _{s}n_{s}^{buy}s+\sum _{s}n_{s}^{sell}s\right)$$
where the constant of proportionality is again taken to be unity.
Our computer simulations first distribute sites randomly on the square lattice of dimensions $ L\times L $ at the percolation threshold ($ p=p_{c}=0.592746 $) and then determine the clusters. For each time step $ \Delta t $, we allow each cluster to decide randomly whether to trade or remain inactive. The trading clusters then again randomly decide to buy or sell, and then equation (\[pr1\]) or equation (\[pr2\]) determine the relative price change. We average over many lattice configurations to find the probability distribution $ P(R) $. Programs in C and FORTRAN, based on the Hoshen-Kopelman algorithm in two dimensions (where we have considered site percolation with free boundary conditions) are available from the author.
The histograms of price changes which we get when the relative price changes are determined according to equation (\[pr1\]) and those according to equation (\[pr2\]) are shown in Fig. 1, with $ p_{c}=0.592746 $. In the Cont-Bouchaud model, we also see a crossover from a power-law to a bell-shaped behaviour (within the accuracy of the computer simulations) for increase in activity $ a $ (not shown in the figure) showing its similarity with real stock markets. In this model, since the magnitude of the relative price change always lies between zero and unity, we observe a sharp cut-off in the histogram, unlike in real markets. Thus the original Cont-Bouchaud model is superior to this model, in this respect.
Discussions and Summary
=======================
We study a variant of the Cont-Bouchaud model: the relative price changes are defined as the ratio of the difference in demand and supply to the sum of demand and supply, $ R(t)=\left( \sum _{s}n_{s}^{buy}s-\sum _{s}n_{s}^{sell}s\right) /\left( \sum _{s}n_{s}^{buy}s+\sum _{s}n_{s}^{sell}s\right) $, where the constant of proportionality is taken to be unity. We also present some of the previous results of a variant of the Cont-Bouchaud model for comparison. We observe a sharp cut-off in the histogram for this model, unlike in real markets, which shows that the original Cont-Bouchaud model is superior to this model in this respect. This model too could be made more realistic, e.g., including the history of the price changes.
0.3in
**Acknowledgements**
The author is grateful to D. Stauffer for his warm hospitality and useful discussions, and the Graduate College of Scientific Computing, Cologne University, for partial financial support.
0.3in
**Figure captions**
0.2in
**Fig. 1 :** Histogram of relative price changes plotted in the linear-logarithmic scale, obtained from computer simulations made at the percolation threshold for $ 5000 $ square lattices of size $ 1001\times 1001 $, $ 1000 $ time intervals and activity $ 0.01 $.
[1]{} F. Reif, *Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Physics*, McGraw-Hill, Singapore (1985); R. K. Pathria, *Statistical Mechanics*, Second Edition, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford (1996); L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, *Statistical Physics*, 3rd Edition (Part I), Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 79-82 (1998). L. Bachelier, *Annales Scientifiques de l’Ecole Normale Superieure* **III-7**, 21 (1900). See e.g., R. N. Mantegna and H. E. Stanley, *An Introduction to Econophysics*, Cambridge University Press, New York (2000); S. Moss de Oliveira, P. M. C. de Oliveira and D. Stauffer, *Evolution, Money, War and Computers*, B. G. Teubner, Stuttgart-Leipzig (1999); J. P. Bouchaud and M. Potters, Theory of Financial Risk, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000); H. Levy, M. Levy and S. Solomon, *Microscopic Simulation of Financial Markets*, Academic Press, New York (2000). G. J. Stigler, *Journal of Business* **37**, 117 (1964). B. Mandelbrot, *International Economic Review* **1**, 79 (1960). D. Stauffer and A. Aharony, *Introduction to Percolation Theory*, Taylor and Francis, London (1994); M. Sahimi, *Applications of Percolation Theory*, Taylor and Francis, London (1994). R. Cont and J. P. Bouchaud, *Macroeconomic Dynamics* **4**, 170 (2000). D. Stauffer and T. J. P. Penna, *Physica* **A 256**, 284 (1998); D. Stauffer, *Advances in Complex Systems* **4**, 19 (2001). P. Gopikrishnan, V. Plerou, A. N. Amaral, M. Meyer and H. E. Stanley, *Physical Review* **E 60**, 5305 (1999); L. Kullmann, J. Toyli, J. Kertesz, A. Kanto and K. Kaski, *Physica* **A 269**, 98 (1999).
[^1]: *email address* : [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
**To the problem of cross-bridge tension in steady muscle shortening and lengthening**
.
By Valery B. Kokshenev
.
Submitted to the Journal of Biomechanics 14 April 2009, BM-D\_09-00317
.
*Departamento de Física, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Instituto de Ciências Exatas, Caixa Postal 702, CEP 30123-970, Belo Horizonte, Brazil, [email protected]*
.
**Abstract.** Despite the great success of the Huxley sliding filament model proposed half a century ago for actin-myosin linkages (cross-bridges), it fails to explain the force-velocity behavior of stretching skeletal muscles. Huxley’s two-state kinetic equation for cross-bridge proportions is therefore reconsidered and a new solution to the problem of steady muscle eccentric and concentric contractions is reported. Instead of numerical modeling the contractive-force data by appropriate choice of the seemingly arbitrary heterogeneity of attachment and detachment rates of myosin heads to actin filament cites, Huxley’s idea on mechanical equilibrium is probed into thermodynamic equilibrium in the whole overlapped actin-myosin zone. When the second law of statistical thermodynamics is applied to cross-bridge proportions, the weakly bound states appear to be correlated to the strongly bound states via structural and kinetic intrinsic muscle characteristics. A consequent substantial reduction of the number of free parameters in cross-bridge proportions is also due to the overall self-consistency (normalization) of attachment-detachment stochastic events. The explicit force-velocity curve is found to be generic when applied to the reduced tension in a single cross bridge, sarcomere, fiber, or muscle as a whole during its active shortening or lengthening. This universal curve fits the empirical tension-velocity data on frog muscle shortening using only one adjustable parameter, while the Huxley model employed four parameters. The established normally distributed cross-bridges, detaching slowly near equilibrated states in steady lengthening muscle and quickly in shortening muscle, are in qualitative agreement with recent data on the force enhancement following muscle stretching.
.
**1. Introduction**
The early studies of muscle fibers under the light microscope revealed cross-striations running normal to the fiber axis. It was observed that during either concentric or eccentric contractions, the length changes occurred via an increase or decrease in the extent of the I-band with the A-band remaining unchanged. Two groups laid the foundations for the cross-bridge (CB)* *theory when they simultaneously suggested that muscle contractions occur due to the relative sliding of the thick myosin filaments past the thin actin filaments, mediated by the ATP-dependent actin-myosin linkages (H. E. Huxley and Hanson, 1954) working as independent force generators (A. F. Huxley and Niedergerke, 1954).
A. F. Huxley (1957) evaluated muscle tension caused by shortening, in fact, based on the idea of the existence of *mechanical* equilibrium of myosin heads at the regular sites of actin filaments. His famous two-state (bound-unbound) sliding filament model was determined on the basis of the simplest standard kinetic equation controlled by the velocity-independent rates of attachment and detachment of myosin heads. In spite of the great success in illuminating the force generation and power liberation during muscle shortening, the Huxley approach generally failed to explain the ascending branch of the phenomenologically established tension-velocity equation (see e.g. Harry et al., 1990 and references therein).
Exploring the fact that the sliding filament model leaves a free choice of the attachment and detachment rate functions, many researchers successfully simulated a range of muscle properties in lengthening by fitting the empirical data by linear functions and constants suggested by Huxley (1957) for the CB proportions or by bilinear and exponential functions. Likewise, considerable efforts have been made to modify the rate functions (Zahalak, 1981; Harry et al., 1990; Ma and Zahalak, 1991; Cole et al., 1996) or to find an exact *numerical* solution to Huxley’s model (Wu et al., 1997). Very recently, controversies surrounding Huxley’s approach were brought forth by Mehta and Herzog (2008) in their careful studies of force exposed by a single CB during lengthening.
The theoretical problem of self-consistency in the two-state sliding filament models was thoughtfully discussed by Hill and co-workers (Hill et al., 1975). Considering the conditions of CB *thermodynamic* equilibrium besides the minimum of mechanical energy (Huxley, 1957), they demonstrated that the original Huxley model has a low efficiency in comparison to its modified versions. Moreover, it was noted by Eisenberg et al. (1980) that “there is no in vitro evidence for ... the basic (Huxley’s) assumption that the cross-bridge detaches slowly”. The lacking data were provided by Mehta and Herzog (2008).
In this study, I develop a statistical approach to the filament sliding mechanism and show that only linear functions for the attachment-detachment rates are compatible with the concept of thermodynamic equilibrium. A new analytical solution to Huxley’s two-state kinetic equation is proposed and verified using the available from the literature data on tension in steady muscle lengthening and shortening.
.
**2. Methods**
*2.1. Model by Huxley (1957) revisited*
At a fixed muscle *contraction velocity* $V$, the number of bound CB states $N_{V}$ combining myosin filament with actin filament of the total number of sites $N_{0A}$ obeys the common “balance” kinetic equation$$\frac{d}{dt}N_{V}(x,t)=\frac{\partial N_{V}}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial N_{V}}{\partial x}\cdot\frac{dx}{dt}=\text{ }f(x)(N_{0A}-N_{V})-g(x)N_{V}.
\label{A1}$$ Here $f$ and $g$ are *attachment* and *detachment rates* of the corresponding unbound and bound states located in time $t$ at a distance $x$ estimated from the nearest site $x=0$. The steady process determined by late times $t\gg f^{-1},$ $g^{-1}$ providing $\partial N_{V}(x,\infty)/\partial
t=0$ in Eq. (\[A1\]), reduces Eq. (\[A1\]) to$$-\frac{V}{2}\frac{d}{dx}n_{V}(x)=\text{ }f(x)(1-n_{V})-g(x)n_{V}\text{,}
\label{sta eq}$$ i.e., to Huxley’s Eq. (4)where the *proportion* $n_{V}(x)=N_{V}(x,\infty)/N_{0A}$ of CBs during *steady shortening*. According to Huxley, the force output $F(x)=kx$ is produced when $x$ decreases at a positive velocity of sliding of the actin filament $V_{A}$ and a negative velocity of myosin filament $V_{M}$, i.e., $V_{A}=-V_{M}=-dx/dt>0$. The contraction velocity per one-half sarcomere $V/2$ determines the contraction *velocity* $V$* *of the muscle ** as a whole, when modeled by $V=V_{A}-V_{M}=2V_{A}$. As can be derived from Huxley’s Eq. (6) with the preservation in part its notations, the overall generated force $$F_{V}^{(total)}=\lim_{L\rightarrow\infty}\frac{sN_{0M}}{L}\int_{-L}^{+L}F(x)n_{V}(x)\frac{dx}{2l_{A}}\text{,} \label{A2}$$ was evaluated via the force $F(x)$ per one *myosin site*, as one actin site is carried past it. Here $s$ is the sarcomere length, $l_{A}$ is the *trial* distance between the nearest sites in the actin filament *evaluated* in Huxley’s Eq. (15), and $N_{0M}$ is the number of sites in the thick filament in the overlapping zone of length $L$.
The solution to Eq. (\[sta eq\]) for the shortening regime (hereafter distinguished by index $1$) was found as a combination of the *localized* (short-domain) and *delocalized* (large-domain) spatially correlated (bound) states. The corresponding proportions reproduced exactly from Huxley’s Eqs. (7) and (8) are$$n_{V}^{(loc)}(x)=n_{01}\left( 1-\exp\left[ \frac{V_{1}}{V}\left(
\frac{x^{2}}{h^{2}}-1\right) \right] \right) \text{, }0\leq x\leq h
\label{A4}$$ and$$n_{V}^{(deloc)}(x)=n_{01}\left[ 1-\exp\left( -\frac{V_{1}}{V}\right)
\right] \exp\left( 2x\frac{g_{1}^{\prime}}{V}\right) \text{, }-\infty
<x\leq0\text{,} \label{A5}$$ though parameterized here by$$n_{01}=\frac{f_{1}}{f_{1}+g_{1}}\text{ and }V_{1}=h(f_{1}+g_{1})\text{.}
\label{A6}$$ In turn, this description of the two CB states follows from the rates *postulated* by linear functions, namely$$f(x)=f_{1}\frac{x}{h}\text{ and }g(x)=g_{1}\frac{x}{h}\text{, for }0\leq x\leq
h\text{,} \label{A3}$$ and two constants $f^{\prime}(x)=0$, $g^{\prime}(x)=g_{1}^{\prime}$, for $-\infty<x<0$. The muscle concentric steady tension $P_{V}$ reduced to the model isometric tension $P_{0}$ found on the basis of Eqs. (\[A2\])-(\[A3\]), namely$$\frac{P_{V}^{(short)}}{P_{0}}=1-\frac{V}{V_{1}}\left[ 1-\exp\left(
-\frac{V_{1}}{V}\right) \right] \left( 1+\frac{VV_{1}}{2h^{2}g_{1}^{\prime2}}\right) \text{, for }V>0\text{,} \label{A7}$$ was fitted by the widely cited four model parameters: $f_{1}=43.3$ $s^{-1}$ and $g_{1}=10.0$ $s^{-1}$, indicating slow detachment of the localized CBs, and $f_{1}^{\prime}=0$ with $g_{1}^{\prime}=209$ $s^{-1}$, for delocalized states. In addition, two more adjustable parameters $h\thickapprox15$ $nm$ and $V_{1}=V_{\max}^{(\exp)}/4$, where $V_{\max}^{(\exp)}$ is the empirical maximum shortening velocity, were indirectly employed when tested by Hill’s empirical equation (see Chapter IV in Huxley, 1957). It is noteworthy that the nearest-site distance in the actin filament treated as a free parameter was estimated as $l\thickapprox h$, i.e. close to the known nearest-molecular distance in the myosin filament $l_{M}=14.5$ $nm$ (Craig and Woodhead, 2006). However, the ratio $P_{-\infty}/P_{0}=(f_{1}+g_{1})/g_{1}=5.33$ reported by Huxley (1957) for the muscle lengthening regime, contrasts to the observed ratios falling between $1.8$ and $2.0$ (e.g. Harry et al., 1990).
.
*2.2. A new solution to Huxley’s steady equation*
Beyond any specific suggestions, the formal solution to the steady-state Eq. (\[sta eq\])$$n_{V}(x)=n_{0}(x)+\Delta n_{V}(x)=n_{0}+(1-n_{0})c_{V}\exp\left( -\frac
{1}{\overset{\cdot}{x}}\int_{0}^{x}[f(x^{\prime})+g(x^{\prime})]dx^{\prime
}\right) ,\text{ }\overset{\cdot}{x}\equiv\frac{dx}{dt}=\mp\frac{V}{2}\text{,} \label{nx}$$ is valid for any contraction shortening velocity $V$ ($=-$ $2\overset{\cdot
}{x}>0$) and lengthening velocity $V$ ($=2\overset{\cdot}{x}<0$), leaving an arbitrary choice of the rate functions $f(x)$ and $g(x)$. A differential equation of the first order possesses as common only one free constant, denoted by $c_{V}$, whereas$$n_{0}(x)=\frac{f(x)}{f(x)+g(x)} \label{n0}$$ straightforwardly following from Eq. (\[sta eq\]) taken at $V=0$, describes maximal CB proportions limited by intrinsic rates. In the Huxley model, the constant $c_{V}=-n_{01}(1-n_{01})^{-1}\exp(-V_{1}/V)$ in Eq. (\[nx\]) results from his *boundary condition* $n_{V}(h)=0$ providing the *non-Gaussian* proportion (\[A4\]) for CB localized states during muscle shortening.
Besides the boundary conditions considered below, let us employ the property of periodicity in the overlapping part of the actin filamentof length $Nd$ having $N$ *occupied* *cells*. Since the Huxley proportion $n_{V}(x)$ in Eq. (\[nx\]) plays the role of the late-time *probability* of finding one of the two myosin heads attached at a position $x$ between two nearest equivalent sites (see also Hill et al. 1975, p. 346), the total force output in a *finite* overlapped zone is$$F_{V}^{(zone)}=NF_{V}=\int_{-Nd}^{+Nd}F(x^{\prime})n_{V}(x^{\prime})\frac{dx^{\prime}}{2d}=N\int_{-d}^{d}F(x)n_{V}(x)\frac{dx}{2d}\text{, where
}x^{\prime}=xN\text{.} \label{Ftot}$$ Here $F(x)$ is the active force *per one* *actin site*, substituting that per one myosin cite in Eq. (\[A2\]). Such a consideration suggests the statistical equivalence of all the occupied cells in the actin filament treated as a one-dimensional crystal of lattice constant $d$ ($=36$ $nm$, e.g. Hill et al., 1975). In order to be consistent with Eqs. (\[Ftot\]) and (\[A2\]), the normalization conditions for the CB distributions (proportions)$$\int_{-d}^{+d}n_{V}(x)\frac{dx}{2d}=\int_{0}^{d}n_{V}(x)\frac{dx}{d}=\int
_{-d}^{0}n_{V}(x)\frac{dx}{d}=1\text{ } \label{n-str-sh}$$ must be taken into consideration.
Furthermore, extending Huxley’s idea on the minimum of mechanical energy at $x=0$ over the minimum of Gibbs energy (Eisenberg et al., 1980), the CB state with $F(0)=0$ is treated as the locally equilibrated state, having *maximum configurational entropy* at $x=0$. As the consequence of one of the most general principle (second law) of statistical thermodynamics, the distribution of bound states $n_{V}(x)$ given in Eq. (\[nx\]) must have Gaussian form centered at $x=0$ (see e.g. Chapter 12 in Landau and Lifshitz, 1989). One can see from Eq. (\[nx\]), that the thermodynamical principle ensured by the *sign requirement* $\overset{\cdot}{x}x>0$ can be satisfied solely by the linear parameterization of the rate functions, namely $$\begin{aligned}
f(x) & =f_{m}\frac{x}{x_{m}}\text{, }g(x)=g_{m}\frac{x}{x_{m}}\text{,}\nonumber\\
\text{for }x_{m} & =x_{+}\geq x\geq0\text{ or }x_{m}=-x_{-}\leq
x\leq0\text{,} \label{fx-gx}$$ Consequently, the normalization constant$$c_{V}=\frac{d}{|x_{m}|}\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi v}}\operatorname{erf}\left(
\frac{1}{\sqrt{v}}\right) ^{-1}\text{, }v=\frac{V}{V_{m}}=\frac
{2\overset{\cdot}{x}}{(f_{m}+g_{m})x_{m}}>0\text{,} \label{cv}$$ readily follows from the normalization conditions (\[n-str-sh\]), where the standard *error function* $\operatorname{erf}(y)=(2/\sqrt{\pi})\int
_{0}^{y}\exp(-t^{2})dt$, lying between $0$ \[$=\operatorname{erf}(0)$\] and $1$ \[$=\operatorname{erf}(\infty)$\], is employed.
.
**3. Results**
*3.1. CB proportions in steady muscle shortening and lengthening*
As seen in Eq. (\[nx\]), a given CB is characterized by the equilibrated velocity-independent *ground* state and the *excited* non-equilibrated state described, respectively, by uniform proportion $n_{0}=f_{m}/(f_{m}+g_{m})$ and non-uniform, heterogenous stochastic proportion $\Delta n_{V}(x)$, having the meaning of probabilities normalized in Eq. (\[n-str-sh\]). The requirement of signs ( $\overset{\cdot}{x}x>0$), while in particular ensuring the self-consistency with the ground state (when $x\rightarrow0$, $\Delta n_{V}(x)\rightarrow0$), also constrains possible domains for both CB states, as shown in Eq. (\[fx-gx\]). Indeed, both kinds of domains ($0\leq x\leq x_{0}$ and $-x_{0}\leq x\leq0$, otherwise $n_{0}(x)=0$) are generally possible for the ground state, whereas only the negative domain, $-x_{-}\leq x\leq0$, satisfies the requirement of self-consistency of the solution given in Eq. (\[nx\]). In this way, the CB boundary conditions are not postulated as in Eqs. (\[A4\])-(\[A3\]), but result from the minimum of Gibbs energy, also giving rise to the CB *mechanical constraints*, consistent with the simultaneous observations of directions of both the force output and contraction velocity, as illustrated in Fig. 1.
.
**Place Fig. 1**
.
The analysis in Fig. 1 specifies domains of the *short-domain* CB states which, being incorporated in the trial Eq. (\[nx\]) with the help of Eq. (\[cv\]), yield$$n_{V}(x)=n_{0}\Theta_{0}(x)+(1-n_{0}\frac{x_{0}}{d})\frac{d}{x_{-}}\frac
{2}{\sqrt{\pi v}}\frac{\exp\left( -\frac{x^{2}}{vx_{m}^{2}}\right)
}{\operatorname{erf}\left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{v}}\right) }\Theta_{V}(x)\text{.}
\label{nV}$$ Here, the auxiliary functions $\Theta_{0}(x)=\Theta(\pm x)-\Theta(x\mp x_{0})$ and $\Theta_{V}(x)\equiv\Theta(-x)-\Theta(x+x_{-})$ are introduced by the standard Heaviside (step) function $\Theta(y)$, which is one for $y\geq0$ and zero for $y<0$.
.
*3.2. Muscle tension in steady shortening and lengthening*
The mean force output $F_{V}$ generated by a single cell of the actin filament is evaluated using Eqs. (\[Ftot\]) and (\[nV\]), namely$$F_{V}=F_{0}+\Delta F_{V}=k\int_{-d}^{+d}xn_{V}(x)\frac{dx}{2d}=F_{0}-k\frac{x_{-}}{2}(1-n_{0}\frac{x_{0}}{d})\Phi(v)\text{, }F_{0}=\pm\frac
{kx_{0}^{2}}{2d}n_{0}\text{,} \label{FV}$$ via the CB *stiffness* $k=F(x)/x$ (Huxley, 1957; Huxley and Simmons, 1971), shown to be a velocity-independent intrinsic muscle quantity (e.g. Lombardi and Piazzesi, 1990), where $$\Phi(v)=2\sqrt{\frac{v}{\pi}}\frac{1-\exp(-\frac{1}{v})}{\operatorname{erf}(\frac{1}{\sqrt{v}})}\text{; with }\Phi(0)=0\text{, }\Phi(1)=0.846\text{, and
}\Phi(\infty)=1\text{.} \label{Fi}$$ The upper and lower signs in the velocity-independent limiting steady force $F_{0}$ (\[FV\]) correspond to shortening and lengthening (see Fig. 1). In this way, Huxley’s Eq. (\[A7\]) is transformed into a unique equation$$\frac{P_{V}}{P_{0}}=\frac{F_{V}}{F_{0}}=1\mp\sigma_{m}\Phi\left( v\right)
\text{, with }\sigma_{m}=\frac{(d-n_{0}x_{0})x_{-}}{n_{0}x_{0}^{2}}\text{, }
\label{PV}$$ for the reduced CB tension and force output in both concentric and eccentric muscle contractions conducted at positive and negative steady velocities $V=vV_{m}$ (\[cv\]), respectively.
The *one-parameter* fitting analysis of the proposed theory is conducted on the basis of Eq. (\[PV\]) and the available experimental data. In Fig. 2, the muscle shortening is described by$$\begin{aligned}
\text{ }\frac{P_{V}^{(short)}}{P_{01}} & =1-\frac{\Phi\left( \frac{\lambda
V}{V_{\max}}\right) }{\Phi(\lambda)}\text{, }0\leq V\leq V_{\max}\text{,
}\nonumber\\
V_{\max} & =\lambda V_{m1}\text{, }V_{m1}=x_{m1}(f_{m1}+g_{m1})\text{,}
\label{psh}$$ where $\lambda$ is an adjustable parameter.
.
**Place Fig. 2**
.
.
**Place Fig. 3**
.
The steady muscle lengthening is fitted in Fig. 3 by$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{F_{V}^{(stret)}}{F_{02}} & =1+\Phi\left( \frac{V}{V_{m2}}\right)
\text{, }-\infty<V\leq0\text{, }\nonumber\\
V_{m2} & =-x_{m2}(f_{m2}+g_{m2})<0\text{.} \label{pst}$$ using the characteristic velocity $V_{m2}$ as a free parameter. Other parameters describing two distinct regimes are specified as $x_{-}=x_{m1}$, $f_{m}=f_{m1}$, $g_{m}=g_{m1}$, for shortening, and $x_{-}=x_{m2}$, $f_{m}=f_{m2}$, $g_{m}=g_{m2}$, for lengthening. One can see that $V_{\max}$ plays the role of the maximum shortening velocity at which $P_{V}^{(short)}=0$, and $V_{m2}$ is a characteristic velocity separating slow and fast lengthening. Also, the limiting tension in the fastest steady lengthening is $P_{-\infty}^{(stret)}=2P_{0}$.
.
*3.3. CB domains*
The force-velocity fitting analysis alone does not provide details on the CB attachment-detachment rates or the domains. Physically, these domains follow from the conditions of realization of thermodynamic stability described by a minimum of Gibbs energy (Hill et al., 1975). Nevertheless, the overall curve conditions of observation can be established here by the inequalities $\sigma_{m1}^{(\exp)}>1\geq\sigma_{m2}^{(\exp)}$, resulting from Eqs. (\[psh\]) and (\[pst\]), where the fitting parameter $\sigma_{m1}^{(\exp
)}=\Phi(0.85)^{-1}=1.22$ is found for muscle shortening and $\sigma
_{m2}^{(\exp)}$, generally lying between $0.8$ and $1.0$, for lengthening.
Alternatively, the observation conditions of the predicted branches of the master curve can be reformulated in terms of the CB rigor state proportions $n_{01}<x_{m1}dx_{01}^{-1}(x_{01}+x_{m1})^{-1}$ and $n_{02}\geq x_{m2}dx_{02}^{-1}(x_{02}+x_{m2})^{-1}$, obtained with the help of Eq. (\[PV\]). This finding can be improved when the CB geometrical constraints shown in Fig. 1 are taken into account. Indeed, since the tail of the myosin molecule is longer than heads, one should expect a geometrical constraint $x_{m2}>x_{m1}$, providing $n_{02}>n_{01}$. Under the simplified requirements of periodicity ($x_{01}+x_{m1}=d$ and $x_{02}=x_{m2}=d$), the CB proportions underlying the observation of the master curve are specified in the insets in Figs. 2 and 3.
.
**4.** **Discussion**
Huxley’s model of the establishment of mechanical equilibrium of myosin heads near actin-filament sites is based on the simplest kinetic equation determining a balance between unbound and bound actin-myosin states. In a muscle contracting at constant velocity $V$, these two states are described by the proportions $1-n_{V}(x)$ and $n_{V}(x)$, satisfying the steady-state kinetic equation (\[sta eq\]) at generally arbitrary rates $f(x)$ and $g(x)$. Such a property, following evidently from the solution $n_{V}(x)$ found for a general case in Eq. (\[nx\]), implies that the kinetic equation accounts for the most general features of muscle relaxation, regardless of details underlying the attachment-detachment mechanism of myosin heads. Consequently, theoretical studies exploring an arbitrary choice of the functional form of the attachment-detachment rates, which involved increasing number of numerical parameters, guarantee good fit to phenomenological data, but do not shed light on the muscle intrinsic characteristics.
After work by Rayment et al. (1993) on the structural study of force generators in contracting muscles, the observations of catalytic domains of myosin being initially weakly attached to actin are commonly associated with the *weakly bound* CB states, and the following structural changes resulting in tight binding of actin-myosin linkages are associated with *strongly bound* CB states. Since the steady-state equation (\[sta eq\]) is a late-time part of more general kinetic equation (\[A1\]), the proportions $n_{V}(x)$ are also part of the non-steady solutions, as demonstrated by Lombardi and Piazzesi (1990) and recently by Walcott and Herzog (2008) employing Huxley’s Eqs. (\[A4\]) and (\[A5\]). It seems therefore plausible to associate Huxley’s short-domain proportion $n_{V}^{(loc)}(x)$ and large-domain proportion $n_{V}^{(deloc)}(x)$ with respectively weak and strong late-time CB states. In this study, the actin-myosin bound state is composed of the equilibrated and excited states distributed by Gaussian function dictated by the second law of thermodynamics.
Within the proposed framework of stochastic approach to the attachment-detachment events of myosin heads, a common requirement of normalization of the random proportion $n_{V}(x)$ specifies the heterogeneity of the CB distribution via the correlated intrinsic structural ($x_{m}$, $d$), kinetic ($f_{m}$, $g_{m}$) and dynamic ($V_{m}$) muscle characteristics \[see e.g. Eq. (\[cv\])\], that decreases the number of free parameters. Moreover, the trend of weakly bound myosin heads to achieve maximum structural-domain entropy in the vicinity of actin-filament sites ($x\approx0$) requires a correlation in signs between the head displacements ($x$) and velocities ($\overset{\cdot}{x}$). Consequently, the conceivable CB domains for both bound states schematically shown in Fig. 1 are eventually described by Heaviside functions in Eq. (\[nV\]). A geometrical selection of the main components of theforce resulting in the power stroke in a direction consistent with the vector of contraction velocity are also shown in Fig.1.
The explicit solution (\[nx\]) to Huxley’s kinetic equation for CB proportions $n_{0}(x)$ and $\Delta n_{V}(x)$, distributing respectively strongly and weakly bound states over the actin filament cells, results in the velocity-independent (isometric) force $F_{0}$ and contractive force $\Delta
F_{V}$, components of the CB force output $F_{V}$ (\[FV\]). In Fig. 2, famous Huxley’s comparative analysis with Hill’s data on muscle concentric tension (Huxley, 1957, p. 287) is revisited. The high-velocity wing of the tension curve above $V/V_{\max}=0.5$ controlled mostly by weak CB states is well fitted by both non-Gaussian (\[A5\]) and Gaussian (\[nV\]) proportions. It is not the case of the low velocity region $0.2<V/V_{\max
}<0.5$, where a discrepancy between Huxley’s curve (\[A7\]) and the data indicate a disadvantage of the short-domain ($x<h<d$) weak CBs exerting negative force $\Delta F_{V}$ and eventually reducing the total produced tension. In contrast to the postulated retarded detachment ($g_{1}<f_{1}$) discussed in Eqs. (\[A4\]) and (\[A3\]), the Gaussian strong and weak CBs require faster detachment than attachment ($g_{m1}>f_{m1}$) in muscle shortening, as derived from Hill’s data and shown in the inset in Fig. 2. The regular deviation of Gaussian CBs from the data at very low velocities is associated with a simplified modeling of the channel of relaxation of weak states to strong states. Indeed, the fit analyses can be improved when the proportion of a new weak-to-strong transient Gaussian CB spreads its domain symmetrically within the range $-\delta\leq x\leq\delta$, extending the weak CB state in the vicinity of $x\approx0$, as shown by the dotted line in the inset in Fig. 2 for the case $V/V_{\max}=0.1$.
In Fig. 3, the upper branch of the force-velocity curve (\[PV\]) drawn at a single adjustable parameter ($V_{m2}=-288$ $nm/s$) fits well the empirical data on CB force in muscle stretching. Similar to shortening, the fitting analysis could be improved at low stretch velocities when a transient bound state is additionally introduced, as independently proposed by Mehta and Herzog (2008, Fig. 3). These authors also raised the central question on the existence of Huxley’s proportions favoring myosin head attachment events at large distances with an increase in contraction velocity. One therefore infers that although non-Gaussian large-domain CBs (\[A5\]) numerically fit the empirical data (Fig. 2), they do favor neither thermodynamic equilibrium in the overlapped zone nor high cycle efficiency (Hill et al., 1975).
The microscopic structures of the short-domain bound states are provided above via observation conditions of the generic curve (\[PV\]) equally applied to the reduced tension in a single CB, sarcomere, fiber, or muscle as a whole during its steady shortening or lengthening. It is also demonstrated (inset in Fig. 3) how the two-state muscle cycle *duty ratio* $\beta$ derived from real experiments can be helpful in a characterization of the Gaussian CB *rate ratio* $\alpha=f_{m}/g_{m}$ \[$=(1-\beta)/\beta$\] and strong bound state proportion $n_{0}$ ($=1-\beta$). To summarize a comparative analysis of structural and kinetic characteristics of CBs, one can see that *steady* muscle eccentric and concentric contractions are well distinguished via the attachment-detachment rate rations, with $\alpha_{stret}>1>\alpha_{short}$, the strongly-bound occupation numbers, with$\ n_{0}^{(stret)}>n_{0}^{(short)}$, supported by the directly observable cycle duty ratios $\beta_{stret}<\beta_{short}$ (Mehta and Herzog, 2008). Within this context, the working hypothesis by Mehta and Herzog (2008) “that a stretched cross-bridge might remain attached longer than a cross-bridge that had been shortened while attached” combined with the main finding by Lombardi and Piazzesi (1990) that “reattachment (in steady lengthening is)... faster than attachment in the isometric condition or during shortening ... in the same domain of $x$” results in the predictions $\alpha_{stret}>1$, $n_{0}^{(stret)}>1/2$, and $\beta_{stret}<1/2$, which are generally consistent with the CB parameters derived in the insets in Figs. 2 and 3.
To conclude, the provided statistical thermodynamic analysis of the attachment-detachment CB process, modifying Huxley’s mechanical sliding filament model, can also be figured out as an two-headed steady walking of synchronous myosin molecules over periodical sites of actin filaments with multiple $36$-$nm$ steps, as directly observed by Sakamoto et al. (2008). The fluctuating steps are statistically scattered by the normal distribution, having the zero mean and variance linear with muscle contraction velocity. The proposed steady contraction dynamics is universally observable through the two branches of the force-velocity curve generic for steady shortening and lengthening of a muscle as a whole or its counterparts. The microscopic structural muscle characteristics appear to be strongly correlated to kinetic and dynamic characteristics distinguished by the force output directions generated in distinct muscle regimes. At a macroscopic level, similar kind of correlations driven by maximum generated force were revealed via the primary muscle functions well distinguished though the muscle structure adapted to efficient eccentric, isometric, or concentric contractions (Kokshenev, 2008).
.
**Acknowledgements**
.
The author thanks Scott Medler for helpful comments. The financial support by CNPq is also acknowledged.
.
**References**
Cole, G. K., Bogert, A. J., Herzog W., Gerritsen, K. G. M., 1996. Modelling of force production in skeletal muscle undergoing stretch. Journal of Biomechanics, 29, 1091-1104.
Craig, R., Woodhead, J. L., 2006. Structure and function of myosin filaments. Current Opinion in Structural Biology, 16, 204–212.
Eisenberg, E., Hill, T.L., Chen, Y.D., 1980. Cross-bridge model of muscle contraction. Quantitative analysis, Biophysical Journal, 29, 195-227.
Harry, J. D., Ward, A. W., Heglund, N.C., Morgan, D. L., McMahon, T. A., 1990. Cross-bridge cycling theories cannot explain high-velocity lengthening behavior in frog muscle, Biophysical Journal, 57, 201-208.
Hill, A. V., 1938. The heat of shortening and the dynamic constants of muscle. Proceedings of Royal Society of London, 126, 136-195.
Hill, T.L., Eisenberg, E., Chen, Y., Podolsky, R. J., 1975. Some self-consistent two-state sliding filament models of muscle contraction. Biophysical Journal, 15, 335-372.
Huxley, A. F., 1957. Muscle structure and theories of contraction. Progress in Biophys. Biophys. Chemistry, 7, 255-318.
Huxley, H. E., Hanson, J., 1954. Changes in the cross-striations of muscle during contraction and stretch and their structural interpretation. Nature, 173, 973-976.
Huxley, A. F., Niedergerke, R., 1954. Interefrenec microscopy of living muscle fibers. Nature 173, 971-973.
Huxley, A. F., Simmons, R. M., 1971. Proposed mechanism of force generation in striated muscle. Nature 233, 533-538.
Huxley, A.F., 1998. Biological motors: Energy storage in myosin molsecules. Current Biology, 8, R485-R488.
Kokshenev, V. B., 2008. A force-similarity model of the activated muscle is able to predict primary locomotor functions. Journal of Biomechanics, 41, 912–915.
Landau L. D., Lifshitz, E. M., 1989. Statistical Physics, Pergamon Press, London.
Lombardi, V., Piazzesi, G., 1990. The contractile response during steady lengthening of stimulated frog muscle fibres. The Journal of Physiology 431, 141-171.
Ma, S., Zahalak, G. I., 1991. A distribution-moment model of energetics in skeletal muscle. Journal of Biomechanics, 24, 21-35.
Mehta, A., Herzog, W., 2008. Cross-bridge induced force enhancement? Journal of Biomechanics, 41, 1611-1615.
Rayment, I., Holden, H. M., Whittaker, M., Yohn, C.B., Lorenz, M., Holmes, K.C., Milligan, R.A., 1993. Structure of the actin-myosin complex and its implications for muscle contraction. Science, 261, 58-65.
Sakamoto, T., Webb, M. R., Forgac, E., Howard, D. White, H. D., Seller, J.R. 2008. Direct observation of the mechanochemical coupling in myosin Va during processive movement. Nature 455, 128-132.
Walcott, S., Herzog W., Modeling residual force enhancement with generic cross-bridge models, 2008. Mathematical Biosciences, 216, 172–186.
Wu, J.Z., Herzog W., Cole G. K., 1997. Modeling dynamic contraction of muscle using the cross-bridge theory, Mathematical Biosciences, 139, 69-78.
Zahalak, G. I., 1981. A distribution-moment approximation for kinetic theories of muscular contraction. Mathematical Biosciences, 55, 89-114.
**Figure Legends**
{width="\hsize"}
**Figure 1.** Mechanical scheme of the force generation by combining myosin heads with periodic actin filament. Each of the two heads of the effective CB may be attached to actin filament either in equilibrated ground state (shown by the open circle) with the uniform probability $n_{0}$, within the domains $x\leq\pm x_{0}$, or in the non-equilibrium, excited state (closed circle) with the probability $\Delta n_{V}(x)$, within the domains $x\leq-x_{1},-x_{2}$. The *arrows* indicate the directions of the sliding velocity of the actin filament $V_{A}$ and the myosin filament $V_{M}$. During concentric muscle contraction with a *positive* velocity $V$, the velocity-independent portion of the generated force $F_{0}$ is also positive, whereas the ATP hydrolysis results in the negative portion of the contractive force $\Delta F_{V}$ . During eccentric contractions commonly associated with the *negative* direction of velocity $V$, both the forces are also negative.
{width="\hsize"}
**Figure 2**. Analysis of the theoretically predicted tension-velocity curve using available data on the reduced tension during steady muscle shortening. The *points* and *dashed-point curve* are the famous data by Hill (1938) for isolated frog muscles modeled by Huxley (1957), drawn respectively by the phenomenological equation $P^{(\exp)}/P_{0}=a(1-V/V_{\max
})/(a+V/V_{\max})$, with $a=0.25$ and Eq. (8), fitted by Huxley’s parameters listed above. The *solid line* is Eq. (19) taken at $\lambda=0.85$. *Inset:* The attachment-detachment rates and CB proportions predicted in Eq. (15) within the CB domains at distinct shortening velocities reduced to the maximum velocity. The CB structure discussed in the Results is exemplified by the model parameters $x_{01}^{(\operatorname{mod})}=2d/3$ and $x_{m1}^{(\operatorname{mod})}=-d/3$, as well as by $n_{01}^{(\operatorname{mod})}=0.47$, providing the *rate ratio* $\alpha
_{1}=f_{m1}/g_{m1}=0.88$. The *dotted line* shows a proportion for the modeled transient CB state schematically drawn for $V/V_{\max}=0.1$.
{width="\hsize"}
**Figure 3**. Steady force induced by one cross-bridge versus the stretching velocity. The *open circles* are the mean datapoints of the forces (re-scaled by $|F_{0}|=1.95$ $pN$ ) measured by Lombardi and Piazzesi (1990, Fig. 7) in frog muscle fibers at stretch velocities lying between $75$ and $1030$ $nm/s$ and scaled here by $d=36$ $nm$. The *closed square* indicates the force per one CB reported by Mehta and Herzog (2008) for unspecified velocities. The theoretical curve is drawn based on Eq. (20) with $V_{m2}^{(\operatorname{mod})}=-8$ $d/s$. *Inset:* The attachment-detachment rates within the CB domains and CB proportions predicted in Eq. (15) at three distinct velocities reduced to the found $V_{m2}^{(\operatorname{mod})}$. They are exemplified by model parameters $x_{02}^{(\operatorname{mod})}=$ $x_{m2}^{(\operatorname{mod})}=-d$, consistent with the observation conditions discussed in the Results, as well as by $n_{02}^{(\exp)}=1-\beta_{2}^{(\exp)}=0.93$, where the stretch *cycle* *duty ratio* $\beta_{2}^{(\exp)}=7.35\%$ (the time of attachment $f_{m}^{-1}$ related to total CB cycling time $f_{m}^{-1}+g_{m}^{-1}$, i.e., $\beta=1-n_{0}$) studied by Mehta and Herzog (2008) is employed. Moreover, the relation $|V_{m2}^{(\operatorname{mod})}|=f_{m2}^{(\exp)}x_{m2}^{(\operatorname{mod})}/[1-\beta_{2}^{(\exp)}]$ derived from Eq. (20) provides a crude model estimate for the CB domain $x_{m2}^{(\operatorname{mod})}\thickapprox1.2$ $d$, if their characteristic attachment time $[f_{2}^{(\exp)}]^{-1}=$ $0.167$ $s$ is also employed. The rates (shown by *dashed lines*) are determined by the ratio $f_{m2}^{(\exp)}/g_{m2}^{(\operatorname{mod})}=13$, corresponding to the model estimate $[g_{m2}^{(\operatorname{mod})}]^{-1}=$ $2.2$ $s$. The *dotted line* shows a proportion for the assumed transient CB state schematically drawn for $V/V_{m2}^{(\operatorname{mod})}=0.1$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a linear system of difference equations whose entries are expressed in terms of theta functions. This linear system is singular at $4m+12$ points for $m \geq 1$, which appear in pairs due to a symmetry condition. We parameterize this linear system in terms a set of kernels at the singular points. We regard the system of discrete isomonodromic deformations as an elliptic analogue of the Garnier system. We identify the special case in which $m=1$ with the elliptic Painlevé equation, hence, this work provides an explicit form and Lax pair for the elliptic Painlevé equation.'
address:
- 'Caltech, 1200 E California Blvd, Pasadena CA 91125'
- 'Caltech, 1200 E California Blvd, Pasadena CA 91125'
author:
- 'Chris M. Ormerod'
- 'Eric M. Rains'
bibliography:
- 'C:/Mathematics/TeX/refs.bib'
title: An elliptic Garnier system
---
Introduction
============
The nonlinear differential equations governing isomonodromic deformations of linear systems of ordinary differential equations play an important role in the theory of integrable systems. The Garnier system is a nonlinear system of commuting ordinary differential equations characterizing the isomonodromic deformations of a second order Fuchsian system with $N+3$ simple poles, three of which are fixed at $0$, $1$ and $\infty$, and where the remaining $N$ simple poles may be considered to be time variables [@Okamoto1981; @Garnier]. When $N=1$, the Garnier system is equivalent to the sixth Painlevé equation [@Fuchs1; @Fuchs2]. We recently presented four distinct classes of discrete integrable systems that may be considered to be discrete analogues of the Garnier system [@Ormerod2016], three of which were new and one of which coincided with the $q$-Garnier system of Sakai [@Sakai:Garnier]. The aim of this work is to present an elliptic analogue of the Garnier system.
Our generalization is based on a discrete analogue of isomonodromy for linear systems of difference equations [@Borodin:connection; @Sakai:qP6; @Ormerodlattice; @Gramani:Isomonodromic; @rains:isomonodromy]. These works concern linear systems of difference equations, which may written in matrix form as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Alinear}
\sigma Y(z) = A(z)Y(z),\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma$ is a shift operator. The cases that have recieved the most attention have been when $\sigma = \sigma_h : f(z) \to f(z+h)$ or $\sigma = \sigma_q: f(z)\to f(qz)$ and $A(z)$ is a rational matrix. When this is the case, the notion of monodromy is based on the existence of two canonical solutions defined by series solutions that are convergent in neighborhoods of $\Re z = \pm \infty$ in the case of $\sigma_h$ and $z = 0, \infty$ in the case of $\sigma_q$ [@Birkhoff; @Birkhoffallied; @BirkhoddAdamsSum]. The matrix of connection coefficients relating these two solutions plays a role that is analogous to the monodromy matrices. A discrete isomonodromic deformation is induced by an second linear system of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Rlinear}
\tau Y(z) = R(z)Y(z),\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau$ is some shift operator acting on some auxiliary variables. The compatibility of these two systems ($\sigma \circ \tau Y(z) = \tau \circ \sigma Y(z)$) imposes the condition $$\label{asymcomp}
(\sigma R(z)) A(z) = (\tau A(z)) R(z),$$ where the entries of $A(z)$ satisfy nonlinear difference equations as functions of the auxiliary variables of $\tau$. The first discrete analogue of isomonodromy appeared in the work of Papageorgiou et al. [@Gramani:Isomonodromic], where the authors derived a discrete analogue of the third Painlevé equation from . The connection to the work of Birkhoff was made later in a study that introduced a $q$-analogue of the sixth Painlevé equation by Jimbo and Sakai [@Sakai:qP6]. It was shown that imposing where $R(z)$ satisfies preserves the connection matrix of a regular (Fuchsian) system of linear $q$-difference equations where $A(x)$ is rational and singular at four values of $z$ [@Sakai:qP6]. Discrete isomonodromic deformations shift pairs of these singular values, which we may think of as being proportional to an auxiliary time variable, say $t$, while shifting different pairs give transformations that commute with the evolution in $t$ [@Ormerodlattice].
The discrete Garnier systems presented in [@Ormerod2016] arose from systems of linear difference equations of the form and , where $A(x)$ is a rational $2\times 2$ matrix with an even number of singular points. An important property of two of the systems introduced was that the solutions satisfied an additional symmetry property, which we can generalize (see [@Ormerod2016a]) to systems of the form satifying the additional property $$Y(z) = Y(\eta -z),$$ in the case $\sigma = \sigma_h$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{symmetry}
Y(z) = Y\left( \dfrac{\eta}{z} \right),\end{aligned}$$ in the case in which $\sigma = \sigma_q$. This implies that the matrix $A(z)$ necessarily possesses some additional structure, as does any resulting deformation of the form . We call any Lax pair, and , with this additional property a [*symmetric Lax pair*]{} [@Ormerod2016a].
In this study, the elliptic Garnier system arises from a linear system of the form with the property where $\sigma=\sigma_q$ where the entries $A(z)$ are [*explicit meromorphic theta functions*]{} as opposed to rational functions. In this way, the coefficients of the system of difference equations have an interpretation as holomorphic sections of a line bundle on an elliptic curve. This work serves as a particular example of a linear system of difference equations on an elliptic curve, the moduli spaces of which were studied in a previous paper [@Rains2013].
In contrast with previous discrete Garnier systems, the matrix $A(z)$ in is singular at $4m+12$ points, which come in pairs due to . These pairs play the role of the auxiliary time variables. The elliptic Garnier system is defined to be the system of discrete isomonodromic deformations, which are described in terms of two fundamental types of involutions, the compositions of which are of infinite order. In this way, the fundamental involutions we present generate copies of the infinite dihedral group, which is a more natural setting for describing the difference equations arising as discrete isomonodromic deformations of symmetric linear systems of difference equations.
In the case in which $m=1$, we obtain a system of difference equations on an elliptic curve whose relevant 2-dimensional moduli space is a rational surface which may be identified through [@Rains2013] with the surface of initial conditions for the elliptic Painlevé equation [@Sakai:Rational]. This means we are able provide a new and explicit Lax pair for the elliptic Painlevé equation [@NoumiYamada:ellE8Lax; @rains:isomonodromy]. In this way, our system generalizes the elliptic Painlevé equation in the same way that the Garnier system and discrete Garnier systems generalize the sixth Painlevé equation and the discrete analogues of the sixth Painlevé equation respectively.
This article is organized as follows: In §\[Background\] we review the basic background, including a brief recapitulation of the notation used for elliptic functions and some modern notion of what it means to be a discrete isomonodromic deformation in this setting. In §\[linearprob\] we give explicit representations of the entries of the associated linear problem for the elliptic Garnier system. In §\[isomonodromic\] we outline the two canonical types of transformations that generate the elliptic Garnier system. Lastly, in §\[ellipticPE8\] we demonstrate how specializing to the case $m=1$ gives the elliptic Painlevé equation.
Background {#Background}
==========
We fix a $q \in \mathbb{C}^{*}$ such that $|q| < 1$. We denote the $q$-Pochhammer symbol by $$\begin{aligned}
(z;q)_\infty &= \prod_{k=0}^{\infty} (1-q^{k} z),\\
(z;q)_k &= \dfrac{(z;q)_{\infty}}{(q^kz;q)_{\infty}},\end{aligned}$$ for $k \in \mathbb{Z}$ and $$(z_1,z_2,\ldots,z_n;q)_{k} = \prod_{i=1}^n (z_i;q)_k.$$ The building block for our associated linear problem is the $q$-theta function (see [@GasperRahman]), given by $$\begin{aligned}
\theta_q(z) &= (z,q/z;q)_{\infty},\\
\theta_q(z_1,\ldots,z_n) &= \prod_{k=1}^{n} \theta_q(z_k),\end{aligned}$$ which satisfies the relations $$\label{thetaidentity}
\theta_q(z) = - z \theta_q(qz) = -z \theta_q\left( \dfrac{1}{z} \right).$$ The Jacobi triple product formula can be stated in our notation as $$\theta_q(z) = \dfrac{1}{(q;q)_{\infty}} \sum_{n= -\infty}^{\infty} (-1)^{n}q^{{n \choose 2}} z^n.$$ Many identities may be derived from the properties of theta functions as holomorphic sections of an line bundle. For example, the addition law may be derived from the fact that the space of theta functions with two zeros and fixed multiplier form a 2-dimensional vector space. Working out the precise linear dependence involves direct substitution. One of the many equivalent forms is given by $$\label{addition}
a \theta_q \left(\frac{z}{a},a z,\frac{b}{c},b c\right)-b \theta_q \left(\frac{a}{c}, a c,\frac{z}{b},b z\right)+b \theta_q \left(\frac{a}{b},a b,\frac{z}{c},c z\right) = 0.$$ Such relations mean that there are multiple ways of expressing the same function. Unlike the field of rational functions, there is no canonical form for a given theta function, hence, we cannot guarantee that any particular presentation is the simplest possible presentation.
\[divisibility\] If $f(z)$ is a holomorphic theta function, satisfying $f(pz) = Cz^{-k} f(z)$, and $f(x) = 0$, then $f(z)/\theta_p(z/x)$ is also a holomorphic theta function.
This lemma allows gives us an easy formulation of divisibility, allowing us to factor theta functions without relying on numerous identities or relying on a particular choice of basis. One last function required is the elliptic Gamma function, $$\label{Gamma}
\Gamma_{p,q}(z) = \prod_{i,j \geq 0} \dfrac{1-p^{i+1}q^{j+1}/z}{1-p^iq^jz},$$ which satisfies the relations $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{p,q}(pz) &= \theta_q(z) \Gamma_{p,q}(z),\\
\Gamma_{p,q}(qz) &= \theta_p(z) \Gamma_{p,q}(z),\\
\Gamma_{p,q}(pq/z) &= \Gamma_{p,q}(z)^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$
In relation to linear systems parameterized in terms of other elliptic functions [@Mumford1983a; @Mumford1983], we have that the four Jacobi theta functions, $\vartheta_1(z;\tau),\ldots, \vartheta_4(z;\tau)$ may be expressed in terms of $\theta_q(x)$. By letting $q = \exp(i \pi \tau)$, we have the relations $$\begin{aligned}
\vartheta_1(z;\tau) &= i q^{1/4}(q^2;q^2)_{\infty} e^{-\pi i z} \theta_{q^2}(e^{2\pi i z}),\\
\vartheta_2(z;\tau) &= \vartheta_1\left(z + \dfrac{1}{2};\tau\right),\\
\vartheta_3(z;\tau) &= (q^2;q^2)_{\infty} \theta_{q^2}(-qe^{2\pi i z}),\\
\vartheta_4(z;\tau) &= \vartheta_3\left(z+\dfrac{1}{2}; \tau \right).\end{aligned}$$ One could equally use the Jacobi elliptic theta function, $\vartheta = \vartheta_3$, to parameterize the global sections of an elliptic curve. Note that the quasi-periodicity is now expressed in terms of the functional equation $$\vartheta(z) = \vartheta(z+1) = - e^{-i \pi z}\vartheta(z + 2\tau).$$ In this way, a coherent theory of linear systems may be expressed either in terms of Jacobi elliptic functions, $\vartheta$, or $q$-theta functions with associated difference operators given by $\sigma_h$ and $\sigma_q$ respectively. An analytic approach to linear systems of difference equations involving a parameterization in terms of Jacobi theta functions was presented by Krichever [@Krichever2004]. We remark that the conditions imposed in [@Krichever2004] are not satisfied by the system we present in the next section. The Jacobi theta functions may also be used to express Jacobi’s elliptic functions, $\mathrm{sn}$, $\mathrm{cn}$ and $\mathrm{dn}$ and the second derivative of $\log \vartheta$ is also the Weierstass $\wp$-function (plus a constant), which may also be used in conjunction with other related functions such as $\zeta$ and $\sigma$ [@Nijhoff2016].
We now turn directly to the theory of linear systems of the form with the additional symmetry condition, . If we assume , then we have two equivalent ways of calculating $Y(qx)$ in terms of $Y(\eta/x)$ given by $$Y(qz) = Y\left( \dfrac{\eta}{qz} \right) = A\left(\dfrac{\eta}{q z}\right)^{-1}Y\left(\dfrac{1}{z}\right) = A(z)Y\left(\dfrac{\eta}{z}\right).$$ For this evolution to be consistent, we require that $A(z)$ satisfies the relation $$\label{Asym}
A(z) A\left( \dfrac{\eta}{qz} \right) = I,$$ when $A(z)$ is not singular. The following lemma is useful in characterizing the space of matrices, $A(z)$, satisfying this property.
\[lem:existencegenatu\] Let $\mathbb{L}/\mathbb{K}$ be a quadratic field extension and $A \in \mathrm{GL}_n(\mathbb{L})$ be a matrix such that $\bar{A}A = I$, where $\bar{A}$ is the conjugation of $A$ in $\mathbb{L}$ over $\mathbb{K}$. Then there exists a matrix $B \in \mathrm{GL}_n(\mathbb{L})$ such that $A = \bar{B}B^{-1}$ and $B$ is unique up to right-multiplication by $\mathrm{GL}_n(\mathbb{K})$.
This is the same specialization of Hilbert’s Theorem 90 that we used in [@Ormerod2016] applied to the field of elliptic functions with the same periods. If the entries of $A(x)$ are in the field of elliptic functions, we apply Lemma \[lem:existencegenatu\] where $\bar{A}(x) = A(\eta/qx)$ is the conjugation in this field to show that there exists a $B(z)$ with entries in the field of elliptic functions with the same period such that $$\label{product}
A(z) = B\left(\dfrac{\eta}{qz} \right)^{-1} B(z).$$ We could consider the moduli space of symmetric matrices, $A(z)$, up to constant gauge transformations, i.e., a constant guage transformation corresponds to conjugation of $A(z)$ by constant matrices, which in turn corresponds to multiplication of $B(z)$ on the right by some matrix. In light of , $B(z)$ itself is only defined up multiplication on the left by a constant matrix, hence, the moduli space of symmetric matrices, $A(z)$, up to constant guage transformations is related to the moduli space of $B(z)$ matrices up to multiplication on the left and right by constant matrices.
In order to consider our Garnier system the result of a discrete isomonodromic deformation, we require that the transformations preserve some sort of structure. The analogous notion of monodromy for systems of difference and $q$-difference equations is given by a connection matrix [@Birkhoff; @Birkhoffallied]. Given a regular system of difference equations and $q$-difference equations of the form of , there exists two fundamental solutions defined in terms of series solutions that are convergent in two different regions of the complex plane. The connection matrix, which is usually denoted $P(z)$, defines the relation between these fundamental solutions in the same way that the monodromy matrices define the relation between two solutions, one of which is the solution obtained by integrating around a singularity.
A modern interpretation of the ideas of monodromy lies in the Galois theory of difference equations [@Etingof1995; @vanderPutSinger; @Sauloy] which is closely related to differential Galois theory [@VanderPut2003]. The relevant difference field is obtained by adjoining either the formal symbolic solutions satisfying or the meromorphic solutions of . The group of automorphisms preserving the difference ring structure is called the difference Galois group [@vanderPutSinger]. When the two fundamental solutions exist, we have two different, yet isomorphic, difference fields. The connection matrix defines an isomorphism between these two difference fields, hence, we obtain automorphisms of the difference field by considering elements of the form $P(u)^{-1} P(v)$ when defined [@Etingof1995]. The meromorphic functions solving both and arise as a corollary of the following theorem.
\[Praagman\] Let $G$ be a group of automorphisms of $\mathbb{P}^1$, $L$ is the limit set of $G$ and $U$ a component of $\mathbb{P}^1\setminus L$ such that $G(U) = U$. If there is a map, $G \to \mathrm{GL}_m(\mathcal{M}_U)$, $g \to A_g(x)$ satisfying $$A_{gh}(x) = A_g(h(z)) A_h(z),$$ then the system of equations $$Y(\gamma(z)) = A_{\gamma}(z) Y(z) ,\hspace{2cm} \gamma \in G,$$ possesses a meromorphic solution.
In the context of $q$-theta functions, the relevant group, $G$, is given by $$\begin{aligned}
G = \left\langle \tau_1, \tau_2 | \tau_1(x) = \dfrac{\eta}{qx}, \tau_2(x) = \dfrac{\eta}{x} \right\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ If we let $A_{\tau_2} = I$ in each case and $A_{\tau_1}(x)$ be, $A(x)^{-1}$, we recover and . This is the same logic used in [@Ormerod2016] applied to a characteristically different class of linear problem.
The Tannakian structure of the category of difference modules gives us an intrinsic definition of the Galois group. The consequence is that isomorphic difference modules have isomorphic Galois groups. Since isomonorphisms of difference modules are defined by transformations of the form we may draw the following conclusion.
\[corintegrability\] Two systems, $\sigma Y(x) = A(x)Y(x)$ and $\sigma \tilde{Y}(x) = \tilde{A}(x)\tilde{Y}(x)$, related by defines a transformation that preserves the Galois group.
This defines an appropriate notion of monodromy that exists regardless of the existence of any connection matrix. It is in this sense that the transformations we may consider are discrete isomonodromic deformations.
A more precise formulation of isomonodromy specific to $p$-theta $q$-difference equations may be found in [@rains:isomonodromy] which associates to every $p$-theta $q$-difference equation a $q$-theta $p$-difference equation. It is shown that the constructed $q$-theta $p$-difference equation is invariant under transformations of the form satisfying . Moreover, the correspondence between the system of $p$-theta $q$-difference equations and the system of $q$-theta $p$-difference equations established in [@rains:isomonodromy] is invertible by the same construction. This may effectively be used to establish an analogous Riemann-Hilbert type correspondence for systems of elliptic difference equations [@rains:isomonodromy].
The associated linear problem {#linearprob}
=============================
Our aim is to present a matrix $A(z)$ whose entries lie in the space of theta functions with some fixed multiplier. We may easily relate such matrices to those with coefficients in the field of elliptic functions with the same period via gauge transformations by elliptic Gamma functions. In this way, we relate $A(z)$ to a matrix $B(z)$ via whose entries are in the space of holomorphic theta functions. The conditions we impose on the entries of $B(z)$ are as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\tag{$A_1$}\label{C1}&\begin{array}{p{14cm}}The determinant of $B(z)$ vanishes at points $u_0$, \ldots, $u_{2m+5}$ and is nonzero.\end{array}\\
\tag{$A_2$}\label{C2}&\begin{array}{p{14cm}}The kernel of $B(u_k)$ is $\langle ( x_k, y_k )\rangle$ for $0 \leq k \leq 2m+2$.\end{array}\\
\tag{$A_3$}\label{C3}&\begin{array}{p{14cm}}The images of $B(z)$ at $z= u_{2m+3}$, $u_{2m+ 4}$ and $u_{2m+5}$ are $\langle (1,1)\rangle$, $\langle (0,1)\rangle$ and $\langle (1,0)\rangle$ respectively.
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ So long as $u_0, \ldots, u_{2m+5}$ are distinct, and since the entries of $B(z)$ lie in a $(m+3)$-dimensional vector space, these conditions are sufficient to specify $B(z)$ up to multiplication by some scalar matrix, i.e., this is sufficient to uniquely define $A(z)$. To succinctly specify $B(z)$, we first define the following notation; we fix an $m$, then if $S \subset \mathbb{Z}_{2m+3} = \{ 0,1,\ldots, 2m+2\}$, then we define $$\begin{aligned}
&x_S = \prod_{i \in S} x_i && u_S= \prod_{i \in S} u_i, && y_S = \prod_{i \in S} y_i,\\
&x_{\bar{S}} = \prod_{\stackrel{i \in \mathbb{Z}_{2m+3}}{i \notin S}} x_i && u_{\bar{S}}= \prod_{\stackrel{i \in \mathbb{Z}_{2m+3}}{i \notin S}} u_i, && y_{\bar{S}}= \prod_{\stackrel{i \in \mathbb{Z}_{2m+3}}{i \notin S}} y_i.\end{aligned}$$ We claim that we may satisfy conditions , and by letting $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Bentries}
B(z) = \begin{pmatrix} B_{11}(z) & B_{12}(z) \\ B_{21}(z) & B_{22}(z) \end{pmatrix}\end{aligned}$$ where the entries may be specified by
\[BGarnier\] $$\begin{aligned}
B_{11}(z) =
\dfrac{\theta_p\left(\frac{z}{u_{2m+4}}\right)}
{\theta_p\left(\frac{u_{2m+3}}{u_{2m+4}}\right)}
&\sum_{\stackrel{S\subset \mathbb{Z}_{2m+3}}{|S|=m+1}}
\dfrac{x_{S}y_{\bar{S}}}{u_{\bar{S}}u_{2m+4}}
\theta_p\left(\frac{u_{S}u_{2m+4}z}{L},\frac{u_{\bar{S}}u_{2m+4}}{L}\right) \\
&\times \prod_{i\in S} \theta_p\left(\frac{z}{u_i}\right) \prod_{\stackrel{i\in S}{j\notin S}} u_j^{-1}\theta_p\left(\dfrac{u_i}{u_j}\right)^{-1},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
B_{12}(z) =
\frac{\theta_p\left(\frac{z}{u_{2m+4}}\right)}
{\theta_p\left(\frac{u_{2m+3}}{u_{2m+4}}\right)}
&\sum_{\stackrel{S\subset \mathbb{Z}_{2m+3}}{|S|=m+2}} \dfrac{(-1)^mx_Sy_{\bar{S}}}{u_{S}u_{2m+4}}
\theta_p\left(\frac{u_{2m+4}u_S}{L}, \frac{u_{2m+4}zu_{\bar{S}}}{L}\right)
\\
&\times \prod_{i\notin S} \theta_p\left(\frac{z}{u_i}\right) \prod_{\stackrel{i\in S}{j\notin S}} u_j^{-1}\theta_p\left(\dfrac{u_i}{u_j}\right)^{-1},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
B_{21}(z) =
\dfrac{\theta_p\left(\frac{z}{u_{2m+5}}\right)}
{\theta_p\left(\frac{u_{2m+3}}{u_{2m+5}}\right)}
&\sum_{\stackrel{S\subset \mathbb{Z}_{2m+3}}{|S|=m+1}} \dfrac{x_Sy_{\bar{S}}}{u_{\bar{S}}u_{2m+5}}
\theta_p\left(\frac{u_{2m+5}u_Sz}{L},
\frac{u_{2m+5}u_{\bar{S}}}{L}\right)\\
&\times \prod_{i\in S} \theta_p\left(\frac{z}{u_i}\right)
\prod_{\stackrel{i\in S}{j\notin S}} u_j^{-1}\theta_p\left(\dfrac{u_i}{u_j}\right)^{-1},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
B_{22}(z) =
\dfrac{\theta_p\left(\frac{z}{u_{2m+5}}\right)}
{\theta_p\left(\frac{u_{2m+3}}{u_{2m+5}}\right)}
& \sum_{\stackrel{S\subset \mathbb{Z}_{2m+3}}{|S|=m+2}} \dfrac{(-1)^mx_Sy_{\bar{S}}}{u_{S}u_{2m+5}}\theta_p\left(\frac{u_{2m+5}u_S}{L},
\frac{u_{2m+5}u_{\bar{S}} z}{L}\right)
\\
&\times \prod_{i\notin S} \theta_p\left(\frac{z}{u_i}\right)
\prod_{\stackrel{i\in S}{j\notin S}} u_j^{-1}\theta_p\left(\dfrac{u_i}{u_j} \right)^{-1},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
where $L$ satisfies $$\label{Ldef}
L^2 = \prod_{j=0}^{2m+5} u_j.$$ Firstly, each of these entries have the property $f(pz) = L z^{-(m+3)}f(z)$, which defines the fixed multiplier. Secondly, while the entries of $B(z)$ depend the specific choices of homogeneous coordinates, $(x_k,y_k) \in \mathbb{C}^2$, the entries are homogeneous, and thus $A(z)$ depends only on the corresponding points in $\mathbb{P}^1$.
The matrix $B(z)$ has properties , and , furthermore, $A(z)$ is uniquely determined by , and .
To show and for $z= u_{2m+4}$, $z = u_{2m+5}$, we see that $$B_{11}(u_{2m+4}) =B_{11}(u_{2m+4}) = B_{21}(u_{2m+5}) = B_{22}(u_{2m+5}) = 0,$$ showing that $\det B(u_{2m+4}) = \det B(z_{2m+5}) = 0$ and that $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{Im}B(u_{2m+4}) = \left\langle (0,1) \right\rangle, \hspace{.5cm} \mathrm{Im}B(u_{2m+5}) = \left\langle (1,0) \right\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ To show and for $z = u_{2m+3}$, we evaluate $B_{11}(z) - B_{21}(z)$ at $z = u_{2m+3}$ to see $$\begin{aligned}
B_{11}&(u_{2m+3}) - B_{21}(u_{2m+3}) = \sum_{\stackrel{S\subset \mathbb{Z}_{2m+3}}{|S|=m+1}} \dfrac{x_{S}y_{\bar{S}}}{u_{\bar{S}}} \left[u_{2m+4}^{-1} \theta_p\left( \dfrac{u_Su_{2m+3}u_{2m+4}}{L}, \dfrac{u_{\bar{S}}u_{2m+4}}{L}\right)\right. \\
&\left. - u_{2m+5}^{-1}\theta_p\left( \dfrac{u_Su_{2m+3}u_{2m+5}}{L}, \dfrac{u_{\bar{S}}u_{2m+5}}{L}\right) \right] \prod_{i\in S} \theta_p\left(\frac{z}{u_i}\right) \prod_{\stackrel{i\in S}{j\notin S}} u_j^{-1}\theta_p\left(\dfrac{u_i}{u_j}\right)^{-1},\end{aligned}$$ where the term inside the square brackets is $0$, which can be shown using and . We see that $B_{12}(u_{2m+3}) = B_{22}(u_{2m+3})$ for similar reasons. This shows that $$B(u_{2m+3}) \begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \in \langle \begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \rangle, \hspace{1cm} B(u_{2m+3}) \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \in \langle \begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \rangle,$$ which shows that $\mathrm{Im}B(u_{2m+3}) = \langle (1,1) \rangle$ and hence $\det B(u_{2m+3}) = 0$.
To show , and complete the proof of property , we let $k \in \{ 0, \ldots, 2m+2\}$, for which we claim that $$\label{keruk}
x_k B_{11}(u_k) + y_k B_{12}(u_k) = x_k B_{21}(u_k) + y_k B_{22}(u_k) = 0.$$ The summands of $B_{11}$ in which $k \in S$ vanish at $z= u_k$, hence, we write $B_{11}$ as a sum over subsets of $\mathbb{Z}_{2m+3}\setminus\{k\}$ of size $m+1$. Similarly, the summands of $B_{12}$ vanish if $k \notin S$, but given a subset of $\mathbb{Z}_{2m+3}$ of size $m+1$ in which $k\notin S$, taking the union with $\{k\}$ defines a one-to-one correspondence with the subsets of $\mathbb{Z}_{2m+3}$ of size $m+2$ that include $k$. We may use this to write the left hand side of as a single sum over subsets of $\mathbb{Z}\setminus\{k\}$ of size $m+1$. In this way, we may write the left hand side of as $$\begin{aligned}
&x_k B_{11}(u_k) + y_k B_{12}(u_k) = \dfrac{\theta_p\left(\frac{u_k}{u_{2m+4}}\right)}{\theta_p\left(\frac{u_{2m+3}}{u_{2m+4}}\right)} \sum_{\stackrel{S\subset \mathbb{Z}_{2m+3} }{\stackrel{|S|=m+1}{k\notin S}}} \dfrac{x_k x_S y_{\bar{S}}}{u_{2m+4}} \theta_p\left(\frac{u_{S}u_{2m+4}u_k}{L}, \frac{u_{2m+4}u_{\bar{S}}}{L}\right)\\
& \left[\dfrac{1}{u_{\bar{S}}}\prod_{i\in S} \theta_p\left(\dfrac{u_k}{u_i}\right) +\dfrac{(-1)^m}{u_S} \prod_{i\notin S} \theta_p\left(\dfrac{u_k}{u_i}\right) \left(\prod_{j \notin S} u_j^{-1} \theta_p\left(\dfrac{u_k}{u_j} \right) \right)^{-1} \prod_{i \in S} u_k^{-1} \theta_p\left(\dfrac{u_i}{u_k} \right) \right] \times \prod_{\stackrel{i \in S}{j \notin S}} u_j^{-1} \theta_p \left( \dfrac{u_i}{u_j} \right),\end{aligned}$$ where the term inside the square brackets vanishes due to .
To show that the overall determinant is non-zero we specialize the kernels in the following way, if we let $P = \{ 1,\ldots, m+1\}$ and $Q = \{m+2,\ldots, 2m+2\}$ $$(x_k,y_k) = \left\{ \begin{array}{c p{5cm}}
(1,1) & if $k = 0$, \\
(1,0) & if $k \in P$,\\
(0,1) & if $k \in Q$.
\end{array}\right.$$ Specializing the kernels of $B(z)$ in this way means each entry of $B(z)$ has just one non-zero summand. This simplifies $B(z)$ to the following $$\begin{aligned}
B(z) =& u_0^{-1}\prod_{\stackrel{i \in P}{j \in Q}} u_j^{-1} \theta_p\left(\frac{u_i}{u_j}\right)^{-1}
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{\theta_p\left(\frac{z}{u_{2m+4}} \right) }{u_{2m+4} \theta_p\left( \frac{u_{2m+3}}{u_{2m+4}}\right)} & 0 \\
0 &\frac{\theta_p\left(\frac{z}{u_{2m+5}} \right) }{u_{2m+5} \theta_p\left( \frac{u_{2m+3}}{u_{2m+5}}\right)}
\end{pmatrix} \\
& \begin{pmatrix}
\theta_p \left(\dfrac{u_{2m+4}zu_P}{L},\dfrac{u_{2m+4}u_0u_Q}{L}\right) &
\theta_p \left(\dfrac{u_{2m+4}u_0u_P}{L},\dfrac{zu_{2m+4}zu_Q}{L}\right)\\
-\theta_p \left(\dfrac{u_{2m+5}zu_P}{L},\dfrac{u_{2m+5}u_0u_Q}{L}\right) &
-\theta_p \left(\dfrac{u_{2m+5}u_0u_P}{L},\dfrac{u_{2m+5}zu_Q}{L}\right)
\end{pmatrix}\\
& \prod_{i\in I_1} \begin{pmatrix} \dfrac{\theta_p\left( \frac{z}{u_i} \right)}{u_0 \theta_p\left( \frac{u_i}{u_0} \right)} & 0 \\
0 & -\dfrac{1}{u_i} \end{pmatrix}
\prod_{j\in I_2} \begin{pmatrix} \dfrac{1}{u_j} & 0 \\
0 & \dfrac{\theta_p\left( \frac{z}{u_j} \right)}{u_j \theta_p\left( \frac{u_0}{u_j} \right)} \end{pmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ It is clear from this factorization that the determinant is non-zero provided $$\begin{aligned}
\theta_p \left(\dfrac{u_{2m+4}zu_P}{L},\dfrac{u_{2m+4}u_0u_Q}{L},\dfrac{u_{2m+5}u_0u_P}{L} ,\dfrac{u_{2m+5}zu_Q}{L}\right) - \\
\theta_p \left(\dfrac{u_{2m+4}u_0u_P}{L},\dfrac{zu_{2m+4}zu_Q}{L} \dfrac{u_{2m+5}zu_P}{L},\dfrac{u_{2m+5}u_0u_Q}{L}\right)\neq 0,\end{aligned}$$ which is generically non-zero. Furthermore, by degree considerations, these are the only zeroes on $\mathbb{C}^*/\langle p \rangle$.
For the second part of the proof, we suppsoe $\tilde{B}(z)$ is a matrix satisfying , and , then let $C(z) := B(z)\tilde{B}(z)^{-1}$. It should be clear the matrix $C(z)$ has elliptic entries, has constant determinant due to and has (simple) poles only at $z= u_{2m+3}$, $u_{2m+4}$ and $u_{2m+5}$. Both the image and kernel of the residue of $C(z)$ at $z = u_{2m+3}$ are $\langle (1,1)\rangle$. Similarly, the residues of $C(z)$ at $z= u_{2m+4}$ and $z_{2m+5}$ have images and kernels in $\langle (0,1)\rangle$ and $\langle (1,0)\rangle$. These conditions are sufficient to show that these three residues are proportional to $$\begin{pmatrix} 1 & -1 \\ 1 & -1 \end{pmatrix}, \hspace{.5cm} \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 \end{pmatrix}, \hspace{.5cm} \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix}$$ respectively. Since the diagonal entries have only one nonzero residue, they must be constant, and thus $C(z)$ is actually holomorphic at $z=u_{2m+3}$. But then the off-diagonal entries have only one nonzero residue, making $C(z)$ holomorphic at $u_{2m+4}$ and $u_{2m+5}$ as well. In particular, it follows that $C(z)$ is constant. Since $C(z)\tilde{B}(z)=B(z)$, $C(z)$ must preserve the images of $\tilde{B}(z)$ at $z=u_{2m+3}$, $u_{2m+4}$ and $u_{2m+5}$, and thus must be a scalar matrix.
The values of the spectral parameters in which $\det B(z)$ vanishes, in this case $u_0,\ldots, u_{2m+5}$, are considered as independent auxiliary parameters that change under the action of discrete isomonodromic deformations [@Borodin:connection; @Sakai:qP6; @Ormerodlattice; @Sakai:Garnier]. While simplifying the determinant of $B(z)$ using the relations such as and for general $m$ might be possible, we circumvent the use of these identities by using Lemma \[divisibility\]. By and Lemma \[divisibility\] we have that $$\det (B(z)) = C \prod_{k \in \mathbb{Z}_{2m+6}} \theta_p\left(\dfrac{z}{u_k} \right),$$ for some constant $C$. We seek isomonodromic deformations that change the values of the $u_i$ in the next section.
It is convenient to endow this linear system with the natural action of the symmetric group on a finite set of $2m+6$ symbols, $S_{2m+6}$, which acts on the $u_i$ by permutation. We denote the generators by $$S_{2m+6} = \langle s_i \cdot u_i \leftrightarrow u_{i+1} | i = 0,\ldots, 2m+4 \rangle$$ whose nontrivial effect on the kernels of $B(z)$ is specified by the following lemma.
The matrix $A(x)$ is invariant under the action of the symmetric group, $S_{2m+6}$, where the action of the generators, $s_i$, on $(x_k:y_k)$ is trivial for $i = 2m+3$ and $i = 2m+4$, specified by $$\begin{aligned}
s_i \cdot (x_k:y_k) = \left\{ \begin{array}{c p{5cm}} (x_k:y_k) & for $k \neq i, i+1$\\
(x_i:y_i) & if $k=i+1$,\\
(x_{i+1}:y_{i+1}) & if $k = i$,
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ for $i = 0, \ldots, 2m+1$, and for $i = 2m+2$ is specified by $$\begin{aligned}
s_{2m+2} \cdot (x_{2m+2}:y_{2m+2}) = (B_{12}(u_{2m+3}) : - B_{11}(u_{2m+3})).\end{aligned}$$
If we permute $u_{2m+3}$, $u_{2m+4}$ and $u_{2m+5}$ so that the image subspaces are not $\langle (1,1) \rangle$, $\langle (1,0) \rangle$ and $\langle (0,1) \rangle$ respectively, we have a matrix that sends the images $B(u_{2m+3})$, $B(u_{2m+4})$ and $B(u_{2m+5})$ back to the subspaces $\langle (1,1)\rangle$, $\langle (1,0)\rangle $ and $\langle (0,1)\rangle$ respectively. Since $A(z)$ is invariant under left multiplication of $B(z)$ by a constant matrix, this action is considered trivial with respect to $A(z)$. Similarly, if we swap $u_i$ with $u_{i+1}$ for $i = 0,\ldots, 2m+1$, we need only swap the relevant kernels. The only nontrivial action occurs if we swap a $u_i$ associated with a kernel with one that is associated with an image, i.e., this only happens for the generator $s_{2m+2}$. When we swap $u_{2m+2}$ with $u_{2m+3}$, then $(x_{2m+2}:y_{2m+2})$ is sent to the kernel of $B(u_{2m+3})$, which is as shown above, whereas we may send the image of $u_{2m+2}$ to $\langle (1,1) \rangle$ while fixing $\langle (0,1) \rangle$ and $\langle (1,0) \rangle$ by a constant (diagonal) matrix multiplication on the left which does not change $A(z)$.
The discrete isomonodromic deformations {#isomonodromic}
=======================================
Having established the properties of the associated linear problem, we need to describe the group of isomonodromic deformations. Following the previous cases of discrete Garnier systems, what is required is that the translations that define the Garnier system are specified by taking two roots of the determinant, $z = u_i$ and $z= u_j$, and shifting them in some natural manner [@Sakai:Garnier; @Ormerod2016]. As a $q$-difference equation in the variable $z$, where $z$ appears in the arguments of $p$-theta functions, we expect to move the variables $u_i$ and $u_j$ by multiplication by $q$, which has the interpretation in terms of the addition law on an elliptic curve.
We wish to specify two canonical involutive forms of discrete isomonodromic deformations as actions on $B$; those induced by an action on the left, and those induced by an action on the right. This is the natural setting for symmetric systems of difference equations as discrete isomonodromic deformations of the form , in which the transformation relating $A(z)$ and $\tilde{A}(z)$, given by , is equivalent to multiplying $B(z)$ by $R(z)^{-1}$ on the right, while $B(z)$ itself is only defined up to multiplication on the left. For the following discussion, we fix $i$ and $j$ and denote the discrete isomonodromic action induced by left multiplication by a matrix $R_l(z)$ by
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{left}
\lambda_l(z) (E_{i,j} B(z)) = R_l(z) B(z),\end{aligned}$$
while we denote the discrete isomonodromic deformation induced by multiplication on the right by $R_r(z)$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{right}
\lambda_r(z) (F_{i,j} B(z)) = B(z)R_r(z),\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda_{l}(z)$ and $\lambda_{r}(z)$ are scalar factors. These scalar factors play no role in the definition of the Galois group, hence, we consider multiplying $A(z)$ by a scalar to be a trivial action. The consistency with requires that $R_l(x)$ and $R_r(x)$ have the symmetry $$\begin{aligned}
R_l(z) &= R_{l}\left(\dfrac{\eta}{qz} \right), \\
R_r(z) &= R_{r}\left( \dfrac{\eta}{z} \right).\end{aligned}$$
If we are taking the points $u_i$ and $u_j$, we set $\det R_l(u_i) = \det R_l(u_j) =0$ ($\det R_r(u_i) = \det R_r(u_j) = 0$) then from the symmetry, we expect $\det R_l(\eta/qu_i) = \det R_l(\eta/qu_j)= 0$ ($\det R_r(\eta/u_i) = \det R_r(\eta/u_i) = 0$). In particular, by Lemma \[divisibility\] we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_l(z)^2\det (E_{i,j} B(z)) = \det R_l(z) B(z) = \theta_p\left( \dfrac{z}{u_i},\dfrac{z}{u_j}\right)^2\theta_p\left( \dfrac{qzu_i}{\eta}, \dfrac{qzu_j}{\eta}\right)C_l(z),\\
\lambda_r(z)^2\det (F_{i,j} B(z)) = \det B(z)R_r(z) = \theta_p\left( \dfrac{z}{u_i},\dfrac{z}{u_j}\right)^2\theta_p\left( \dfrac{zu_i}{\eta}, \dfrac{zu_j}{\eta}\right)C_r(z),\end{aligned}$$ indicating that the action of $E_{i,j}$ and $F_{i,j}$ fixes $u_{k}$ for $k \neq i,j$ and transforms $u_i$ and $u_j$ as follows $$E_{i,j} \cdot u_{i,j} \to \dfrac{\eta}{qz}, \hspace{1cm} F_{i,j} \cdot u_{i,j} \to \dfrac{\eta}{z},$$ where the action on the kernels of $B(z)$ are yet to be specified. Secondly, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_{l}(u_i) = \lambda_l(u_j) = \lambda_r(u_i) = \lambda_r(u_j)= 0.\end{aligned}$$ It follows that we may take $$\lambda_l(z) = \lambda_r(z) = \theta_p\left( \dfrac{z}{u_i},\dfrac{z}{u_j}\right).$$ We start with the conditions that define $R_{r}(z)$. We have that the entries of $R_r(z)$ are expressible in terms of functions of the form of $\theta_p(z/a, \eta/zqa)$ so that the symmetry constraint is satisfied. Setting $z= u_i$ and $z= u_j$ in tells us $$\begin{aligned}
\tag{$R_1$}\label{R1}&\begin{array}{p{14cm}} The determinant of $R_r(z)$ vanishes at points $z=u_i$ and $z=u_j$ and is nonzero.\end{array}\\
\tag{$R_2$}\label{R2}&\begin{array}{p{14cm}} The images of $R_r(u_i)$ and $R_r(u_j)$ are contained in the kernel of $B(u_i)$ and $B(u_j)$ respectively.\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ In order to avoid any confusion, we simply define $(x_k:y_k)$ for general $k \in \mathbb{Z}_{2m+6}$ to be any vector $(x_k,y_k)$ generating the kernel of $B(u_k)$ which is consistent with $(x_k:y_k)$ for $k \in \mathbb{Z}_{2m+3}$. If the entries are in the space of theta functions with a fixed multiplier and two zeros, these conditions only determine $R_r(z)$ up to some diagonal matrix. We impose the additional constraint that $$\begin{aligned}
\tag{$R_3$}\label{R3}\begin{array}{p{14cm}} There is a fixed $v$ such that $R_r(v) = I$.\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ This was implicitly done in the $q$-difference and $h$-difference cases for $v = \infty$, however, in the case of elliptic functions, no such distinguished point exists. We just need to specify a basis for the entries of $R_{r}(z)$ and determine the coefficients in accordance with , and . We claim the following is a presentation of the required matrix: $$\begin{aligned}
R_r(x) = \frac{1}{x_jy_i - x_iy_j}& \left( \begin{array}{c c}
x_j y_i \dfrac{\theta_p\left(\frac{z}{u_i},\frac{zu_i}{\eta} \right)}{\theta_p\left(\frac{v}{u_i},\frac{vu_j}{\eta} \right)} - x_i y_j \dfrac{\theta_p\left(\frac{z}{u_j},\frac{zu_j}{\eta} \right)}{\theta_p\left(\frac{v}{u_j},\frac{vu_j}{\eta} \right)}
& x_ix_j \left(\dfrac{\theta_p\left(\frac{z}{u_j},\frac{zu_j}{\eta} \right)}{\theta_p\left(\frac{v}{u_j},\frac{vu_j}{\eta} \right)}- \dfrac{\theta_p\left(\frac{z}{u_i},\frac{zu_i}{\eta} \right)}{\theta_p\left(\frac{v}{u_i} ,\frac{vu_i}{\eta} \right)}\right)\\
y_iy_j\left( \dfrac{\theta_p\left(\frac{z}{u_i} ,\frac{zu_i}{\eta} \right)}{\theta_p\left(\frac{v}{u_i},\frac{vu_i}{\eta} \right)} - \dfrac{\theta_p\left(\frac{z}{u_j},\frac{zu_j}{\eta} \right)}{\theta_p\left(\frac{v}{u_j}\frac{vu_j}{\eta} \right)} \right)
& x_jy_i \dfrac{\theta_p\left(\frac{z}{u_j},\frac{zu_j}{\eta} \right)}{\theta_p\left(\frac{v}{u_j},\frac{vu_j}{\eta} \right)}- x_iy_j\dfrac{\theta_p\left(\frac{z}{u_i},\frac{zu_i}{\eta} \right)}{\theta_p\left(\frac{v}{u_i} ,\frac{vu_i}{\eta} \right)}
\end{array} \right).\end{aligned}$$ It should be clear that $$\det R_r(z) = \dfrac{\theta_p \left(\dfrac{z}{u_i},\dfrac{z}{u_j},\dfrac{\eta}{zu_i},\dfrac{\eta}{zu_j}\right)}{\theta_p \left(\dfrac{v}{u_i},\dfrac{v}{u_j},\dfrac{\eta}{vu_i},\dfrac{\eta}{vu_j}\right)},$$ and is easy to verify that this matrix possesses properties , and by hand.
The relation between $F_{i,j} \cdot (x_k:y_k) = (\tilde{x_k}:\tilde{y}_k)$ and the $(x_k:y_k)$ for $k \neq i,j$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eijaction}
(\tilde{x}_k:\tilde{y}_k) =& \left( u_j x_i \left(y_j x_k-x_j y_k\right) \theta
_p\left(\frac{u_i}{u_k},\frac{v}{u_j},\frac{\eta }{u_i u_k},\frac{\eta }{u_j v}\right) \right.\\
&+u_i x_j
\left(x_i y_k-y_i x_k\right) \theta
_p\left(\frac{u_j}{u_k},\frac{v}{u_i},\frac{\eta }{u_j u_k},\frac{\eta }{u_i v}\right)\nonumber\\
&: u_j y_i \left(y_j x_k-x_j y_k\right) \theta
_p\left(\frac{u_i}{u_k},\frac{v}{u_j},\frac{\eta }{u_i u_k},\frac{\eta }{u_j v}\right) \nonumber\\
&\left. +u_i y_j
\left(x_i y_k-y_i x_k\right) \theta
_p\left(\frac{u_j}{u_k},\frac{v}{u_i},\frac{\eta }{u_j u_k},\frac{\eta }{u_i v}\right) \right), \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where for $k = i,j$ we have $$(\tilde{x}_i,\tilde{y}_i) = (x_j, y_j), \hspace{1cm} (\tilde{x}_j,\tilde{y}_j) = (x_i, y_i).$$
Given , the kernel of $\tilde{B}(u_k)$ may be computed by evaluating the kernel of $B(u_k)R_r(u_k)$ which is equivalent to asking what vector is in the image of the kernel of $B(z)$, i.e., we solve $$\begin{pmatrix} x_k \\ y_k \end{pmatrix} = R_{r}(u_k) \begin{pmatrix} \tilde{x}_k \\ \tilde{y}_k \end{pmatrix},$$ which provides a representative of $(\tilde{x}_k:\tilde{y}_k)$ directly. We also need to evaluate the kernel of $\tilde{B}(\eta/qu_i)$ and $\tilde{B}(\eta/qu_j)$, which is just the kernel of $R(u_i)$ and $R(u_j)$ by the symmetry, which is simply given by swapping the kernels of $B(u_i)$ and $B(u_j)$. The resulting matrix, $B(z) R_r(z)$ has entries divisible by $\lambda_l(z) = \theta_p(z/u_i)\theta_p(z/u_j)$, with properties , and , hence, defines the required transformation.
We may now specify $R_l(z)$ using conditions equivalent to , and . By evaluating at $z= u_i$ and $u_j$, we have the following conditions: $$\begin{aligned}
\tag{$L_1$} \label{L1}&\begin{array}{p{14cm}} The determinant of $R_l(z)$ vanishes at points $z=u_i$ and $z=u_j$ and is nonzero.\end{array}\\
\tag{$L_2$} \label{L2}&\begin{array}{p{14cm}} The kernels of $R_l(u_i)$ and $R_l(u_j)$ are contained in the images of $B(u_i)$ and $B(u_j)$ respectively.\end{array}\\
\tag{$L_3$} \label{L3}&\begin{array}{p{14cm}} There is a point, $w$, such that $R_l(w) = I$.\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ These conditions are sufficient to determine $R_{l}(z)$, whose entries may be written in terms of $\theta_p(z/u_i,zu_i/\eta)$ and $\theta_p(z/u_i,zu_i/\eta)$. We claim that the following matrix satisfies these conditions: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{RL}
&R_l(z) = \dfrac{1}{B_{11}(u_i)B_{21}(u_j) - B_{11}(u_j)B_{21}(u_i)} \begin{pmatrix} C_{11}(z) & C_{12}(z) \\ C_{21}(z) & C_{22}(z) \end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
C_{11}(z) &= B_{11}\left(u_i\right) B_{21}\left(u_j\right)\frac{\theta_p\left(\frac{z}{u_i},\frac{\eta }{q z u_i}\right)}{\theta_p\left(\frac{w}{u_i},\frac{\eta }{q w
u_i}\right)}-B_{21}\left(u_i\right) B_{11}\left(u_j\right)\frac{\theta_p\left(\frac{z}{u_j},\frac{\eta }{q z u_j}\right)}{\theta _p\left(\frac{w}{u_j},\frac{\eta
}{q w u_j}\right)},\\
C_{12}(z) &= B_{11}\left(u_i\right) B_{11}\left(u_j\right) \left(\frac{\theta _p\left(\frac{z}{u_j},\frac{\eta }{q z u_j}\right)}{\theta _p\left(\frac{w}{u_j},\frac{\eta }{q w
u_j}\right)}-\frac{\theta _p\left(\frac{z}{u_i},\frac{\eta }{q z u_i}\right)}{\theta _p\left(\frac{w}{u_i},\frac{\eta }{q w u_i}\right)}\right),\\
C_{21}(z)&= B_{21}\left(u_i\right) B_{21}\left(u_j\right) \left(\frac{\theta_p\left(\frac{z}{u_i},\frac{\eta }{q z u_i}\right)}{\theta _p\left(\frac{w}{u_i},\frac{\eta }{q w
u_i}\right)}-\frac{\theta _p\left(\frac{z}{u_j},\frac{\eta }{q z u_j}\right)}{\theta_p\left(\frac{w}{u_j},\frac{\eta }{q w u_j}\right)}\right), \\
C_{22}(z)&= B_{11}\left(u_i\right) B_{21}\left(u_j\right)\frac{\theta _p\left(\frac{z}{u_j},\frac{\eta }{q z u_j}\right)}{\theta _p\left(\frac{w}{u_j},\frac{\eta }{q w
u_j}\right)}-B_{21}\left(u_i\right) B_{11}\left(u_j\right)\frac{\theta _p\left(\frac{z}{u_i},\frac{\eta }{q z u_i}\right)}{\theta _p\left(\frac{w}{u_i},\frac{\eta }{q w u_i}\right)}.\end{aligned}$$ The determinant of this matrix is $$\det R_l(z) = \dfrac{\theta_p\left(\dfrac{z}{u_i},\dfrac{z}{u_j},\dfrac{\eta}{qzu_i},\dfrac{\eta}{qzu_i} \right)}{\theta_p\left(\dfrac{w}{u_i},\dfrac{w}{u_j},\dfrac{\eta}{qwu_i},\dfrac{\eta}{qwu_i} \right)},$$ where the other properties, and , follow naturally.
The action of $E_{i,j} \cdot (x_k:y_k) = (\hat{x}_k,\hat{y}_k)$, is given by $(\hat{x}_k:\hat{y}_k) = (x_k:y_k)$ for $k \neq i,j$, while for $k = i,j$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{fijaction}
(\hat{x}_i:\hat{y}_i) = \biggl(&B_{21}(u_i)B_{21}\left(\dfrac{\eta}{qu_i}\right)-B_{11}(u_i)B_{22}\left(\dfrac{\eta}{qu_i} \right): \\
&\left. B_{11}(u_i) B_{21}\left( \dfrac{\eta}{qu_i} \right)- B_{21}(u_i)B_{11}\left(\dfrac{\eta}{qu_i} \right)\right) \nonumber \\
(\hat{x}_j:\hat{y}_j) = \biggl(& B_{21}(u_j)B_{21}\left(\dfrac{\eta}{qu_j}\right)-B_{11}(u_j)B_{22}\left(\dfrac{\eta}{qu_j} \right): \\
&\left. B_{11}(u_j) B_{21}\left( \dfrac{\eta}{qu_j} \right)- B_{21}(u_j)B_{11}\left(\dfrac{\eta}{qu_j} \right)\right). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
It is trivial to see that the multiplication of a matrix on the left leaves the kernels of $B(z)$ at $z=x_k$ for $k\neq i,j$ unchanged, hence, $(\hat{x}_k:\hat{y}_k) = (x_k:y_k)$ for $k \neq i,j$. For $k =i,j$, we note that $E_{i,j}B(z)$ is singular at $z = \eta/qu_i$ and $z= \eta/qu_j$, hence, we need to evaluate the kernel of $R_l(\eta/qu_i)B(\eta/qu_i)$ and $R_l(\eta/qu_j)B(\eta/qu_j)$. Since $B(\eta/qu_i)$ and $B(\eta/qu_j)$ are not singular and the kernels of $R_l(u_i)$ and $R_l(u_j)$ are $\langle (B_{11}(u_i): B_{21}(u_i)) \rangle$ and $\langle (B_{11}(u_j): B_{21}(u_j)) \rangle$, we obtain the kernel of $F_{i,j} B(z)$ at $z= \eta/qu_i$ and $z= \eta/qu_j$ by solving $$\begin{pmatrix} B_{11}(u_i) \\ B_{21}(u_i) \end{pmatrix} = B\left(\dfrac{\eta}{qu_i}\right) \begin{pmatrix} \hat{x}_i \\ \hat{y}_i \end{pmatrix}, \hspace{1cm} \begin{pmatrix} B_{11}(u_j) \\ B_{21}(u_j) \end{pmatrix} = B\left(\dfrac{\eta}{qu_j}\right) \begin{pmatrix} \hat{x}_j \\ \hat{y}_j \end{pmatrix},$$ which is equivalent to .
It should be noted that the conditions , and , and similarly , and , are symmetric in $i$ and $j$, which means that $$\begin{aligned}
E_{i,i+1} = E_{i+1,i} = s_i \circ E_{i,i+1} = E_{i,i+1} \circ s_i,\\
F_{i,i+1} = F_{i+1,i} = s_i \circ F_{i,i+1} = F_{i,i+1} \circ s_i.\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, we may also infer that the conditions that specify matrices inducing $E_{i,i+2}$ and $F_{i,i+2}$ are the same as those for $E_{i,i+1}$ and $F_{i,i+1}$ when we swap $i+1$ with $i+2$, hence $$\begin{aligned}
E_{i,i+2} = E_{i,i+1} \circ s_i \circ E_{i,i+1},\\
E_{i,i+2} = F_{i,i+1}\circ s_i \circ F_{i,i+1}.\end{aligned}$$ We now have two canonical types of transformations, $E_{i,j}$ and $F_{i,j}$ generated by one $E_{i,j}$ and $F_{i,j}$ and the symmetric group, $S_{2m+6}$. It is a straightforward calculation to see from and that $E_{i,j}$ and $F_{i,j}$ are involutions. Furthermore, we can see that the composition $$T_{i,j} = F_{i,j} \circ E_{i,j} \cdot u_i, u_j \to q u_i, qu_j,$$ is of infinite order, hence, the transformations, $E_{i,j}$ and $F_{i,j}$, generate an infinite dihedral group.
One additional transformation we wish to consider, which we denote $\iota$, is a transformation has a nontrivial action on $\eta$, which by definition is the value such that holds. We claim that $\iota$ is induced by transformation of the form where $R(z) = B(\eta/z)$.
The transformation induced by where $R(x) = B(\eta/z)$ specified by $$\begin{aligned}
&\iota \cdot \eta \to q \eta,\\
&\iota \cdot u_i \to \dfrac{\eta}{u_i}, \\
&\iota \cdot (x_k : y_k) = (B_{11}(u_k), B_{21}(u_k)).\\
& \iota \cdot v= w, \hspace{1cm} \iota \cdot w = qv.\end{aligned}$$
If we allow $R(z) = B(\eta/z)$, then by then $$(\iota A(z)) = B(z) B\left( \dfrac{\eta}{z} \right)^{-1},$$ hence, we have $$(\iota A(z)) \left(\iota A\left( \dfrac{\eta}{qz} \right) \right) = B(z) B\left( \dfrac{\eta}{z} \right)^{-1} B\left( \dfrac{\tilde{\eta}}{qz}\right)$$ where we have denoted $\tilde{\eta} = \iota \eta = q \eta$. Up to some scalar, we have that $$\iota B(z) = N \begin{pmatrix} B_{22}\left( \dfrac{\eta}{z} \right) & -B_{12}\left( \dfrac{\eta}{z} \right)\\
-B_{21}\left( \dfrac{\eta}{z} \right) & B_{11}\left( \dfrac{\eta}{z} \right)
\end{pmatrix}$$ where $N$ is some left multiplicative factor chosen so that the images of $B(z)$ at $z = u_{2m+3}$, $u_{2m+4}$ and $u_{2m+5}$ are $\langle (1,1)\rangle$, $\langle (0,1)\rangle$ and $\langle (1,0)\rangle$ respectively. This matrix is clearly singular at $z = \eta/u_i$ for $i = 0, \ldots, 2m+5$. Furthermore, an element of the kernel at $z = \eta/u_k$ is given by annihilating either the first or second row, i.e., $$\iota (x_k:y_k) = (B_{11}(u_k): B_{21}(u_k)) = (B_{12}(u_k): B_{22}(u_k)).$$ Using the second row is equivalent because $\det B(u_k) = 0$.
We may now define the system we wish to call the ellitpic Garnier system.
The elliptic Garnier system is the system of birational transformations generated by $\iota$ and $E_{i,j}$ and $F_{i,j}$ for $(i,j) \in \mathbb{Z}_{2m+6}^2$.
The group generated by $S_8$, the $E_{i,j}$ and $F_{i,j}$ for $i,j \in \mathbb{Z}_{2m+6}$, is an affine Weyl group of type $D_{2m+6}^{(1)}$. The transformation, $\iota$, in this setting acts as a Dynkin diagram automorphism. The Dynkin diagram for $W(D_{n}^{(1)})$ is shown in Figure \[fig\]. If we include $\iota$ in the group, we obtain an extended affine Weyl group of type $D_{2m+6}$. This means that the symmetry group is $$\Lambda_{2m+7}\rtimes W(D_{2m+6}),$$ where $\Lambda_{2m+7}$ is an appropriate lattice of rank $2m+7$ having $\mathbb{Z} \times D_{2m+6}$ as an index 2 sublattice. More details on a geometric level concerning this group can be found in [@rains:noncomgeom].
(0,1) circle(2pt); (1,0) circle(2pt); (0,-1) circle(2pt); (8,-1) circle(2pt); (7,0) circle(2pt); (8,1) circle(2pt); (0,1) – (1,0); (0,-1) – (1,0); (8,1) – (7,0); (8,-1) – (7,0); (1,0) – (3,0); (2,0) circle(2pt); (3,0) circle(2pt); (5,0) – (7,0); (6,0) circle(2pt); (5,0) circle(2pt); (3,0) – (7,0);
The case $m=1$ and the elliptic Painlevé equation {#ellipticPE8}
=================================================
The elliptic Painlevé equation lies at the top of the Painlevé hierarchy [@Sakai:Rational]. It is characterized by having a surface of initial conditions obtained by blowing up $(\mathbb{P}^1)^2$ at eight points and an irreducible anticanonical divisor [@Sakai:Rational]. Furthermore, the elliptic Painlevé equation possesses an elegant geometric description in terms of moving pencils of elliptic curves [@Elliptichypergeomtric].
It is known that the elliptic Painlevé equation possesses a Lax pair [@rains:isomonodromy; @Yamada2009] whose most explicit construction was inspired by work on Padé approximations and the geometric description of the elliptic Painlevé equation [@NoumiYamada:ellE8Lax]. Our work has been guided by the recent work on generalized Hitchin systems [@Rains2013], biorthogonal polynomials [@rains:isomonodromy] and a recent geometric description for the elliptic Painlevé equations in terms of noncommutative geometry [@Okounkov2014; @rains:noncomgeom]. These works specify that the moduli space of elliptic difference equations satisfying , and for $m=1$ may be identified with the rational surface of initial conditions for the elliptic Painlevé equation. One of the novel features of this work is that we are able to be very explicit and demonstrate a range of symmetries directly from the linear problem.
We have mentioned that $B(z)$ is only defined up to constant matrix multiplication on the left, and a constant gauge transformation of $A(z)$ corresponds to multiplication on the right by some constant matrix, hence, we have that up to constant gauge transformations of $A(z)$, $B(z)$ is only defined up to multiplication on the left and right by constant matrices. This means we may additionally fix three kernel vectors, leaving two kernel vectors as parameters in the case of $m=1$; if the kernels of $B(z)$ at $z= u_i$, $u_j$ and $u_k$ are $\langle (x_i,y_i) \rangle$, $\langle (x_j,y_j) \rangle$ and $\langle (x_k,y_k) \rangle$, then so long as these are trivially intersecting subspaces, the kernels of $$\label{rigidify}
\bar{B}(z) = B(z) N_{ijk},$$ at $z=a_i$, $a_j$ and $a_k$, where $N_{ijk}$ is the matrix $$N_{ijk} = \begin{pmatrix}
x_i \left(x_j y_k-x_k y_j\right) & x_j \left(x_k y_i-x_i y_k\right) \\
y_i \left(x_j y_k-x_k y_j\right) & y_j \left(x_k y_i-x_i y_k\right),
\end{pmatrix},$$ are $\langle (1,0) \rangle$, $\langle (0,1) \rangle$ and $\langle (1,1) \rangle$ respectively. This means that without loss of generality, we may fix three kernels, $B(u_0)$, $B(u_1)$ and $B(u_2)$ so that they are $\langle (1,0)\rangle$, $\langle (0,1) \rangle$ and $\langle (1,1) \rangle$ respectively. The remaining kernels, $\langle (x_3,y_4) \rangle$ and $\langle (x_4,y_4) \rangle$ are sufficient to parameterize $B(z)$. In this specialization, the precise parameterization of $B(z)$ is given by
\[BE8\] $$\begin{aligned}
B_{11}(z) =&
\frac{x_4 y_3 \theta_p \left(\frac{u_1 u_2 u_3 u_6}{L},\frac{z}{u_0},\frac{z}{u_4},\frac{z}{u_6},\frac{u_0 u_4 u_6 z}{L}\right)}{u_1^3 u_2^3 u_3^3 u_6 \theta_p \left(\frac{u_0}{u_1},\frac{u_0}{u_2},\frac{u_0}{u_3},\frac{u_4}{u_1},\frac{u_4}{u_2},\frac{u_4}{u_3},\frac{u_5}{u_6}\right)}
+\frac{x_3 y_4 \theta_p \left(\frac{u_1 u_2 u_4 u_6}{L},\frac{z}{u_0},\frac{z}{u_3},\frac{z}{u_6},\frac{u_0 u_3 u_6 z}{L}\right)}{u_1^3 u_2^3 u_4^3 u_6 \theta_p \left(\frac{u_0}{u_1},\frac{u_0}{u_2},\frac{u_3}{u_1},\frac{u_3}{u_2},\frac{u_0}{u_4},\frac{u_3}{u_4},\frac{u_5}{u_6}\right)} \\
&+\frac{y_3 y_4 \theta_p \left(\frac{u_1 u_3 u_4 u_6}{L},\frac{z}{u_0},\frac{z}{u_2},\frac{z}{u_6},\frac{u_0 u_2 u_6 z}{L}\right)}{u_1^3 u_3^3 u_4^3 u_6 \theta_p \left(\frac{u_0}{u_1},\frac{u_2}{u_1},\frac{u_0}{u_3},\frac{u_2}{u_3},\frac{u_0}{u_4},\frac{u_2}{u_4},\frac{u_5}{u_6}\right)},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
B_{12}(z) =&
-\frac{x_3 y_4 \theta_p \left(\frac{u_0 u_2 u_3 u_6}{L},\frac{z}{u_1},\frac{z}{u_4},\frac{z}{u_6},\frac{u_1 u_4 u_6 z}{L}\right)}{u_0 u_1^3 u_2 u_3 u_4^3 u_6 \theta_p \left(\frac{u_0}{u_1},\frac{u_2}{u_1},\frac{u_3}{u_1},\frac{u_0}{u_4},\frac{u_2}{u_4},\frac{u_3}{u_4},\frac{u_5}{u_6}\right)}
-\frac{x_4 y_3 \theta_p \left(\frac{u_0 u_2 u_4 u_6}{L},\frac{z}{u_1},\frac{z}{u_3},\frac{z}{u_6},\frac{u_1 u_3 u_6 z}{L}\right)}{u_0 u_1^3 u_2 u_3^3 u_4 u_6 \theta_p \left(\frac{u_0}{u_1},\frac{u_2}{u_1},\frac{u_0}{u_3},\frac{u_2}{u_3},\frac{u_4}{u_1},\frac{u_4}{u_3},\frac{u_5}{u_6}\right)}\\
& -\frac{x_3 x_4 \theta_p \left(\frac{u_0 u_3 u_4 u_6}{L},\frac{z}{u_1},\frac{z}{u_2},\frac{z}{u_6},\frac{u_1 u_2 u_6 z}{L}\right)}{u_0 u_1^3 u_2^3 u_3 u_4 u_6 \theta_p \left(\frac{u_0}{u_1},\frac{u_0}{u_2},\frac{u_3}{u_1},\frac{u_3}{u_2},\frac{u_4}{u_1},\frac{u_4}{u_2},\frac{u_5}{u_6}\right)},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
B_{21}(z) =&
\frac{x_4 y_3 \theta_p \left(\frac{u_1 u_2 u_3 u_7}{L},\frac{z}{u_0},\frac{z}{u_4},\frac{z}{u_7},\frac{u_0 u_4 u_7 z}{L}\right)}{u_1^3 u_2^3 u_3^3 u_7 \theta_p \left(\frac{u_0}{u_1},\frac{u_0}{u_2},\frac{u_0}{u_3},\frac{u_4}{u_1},\frac{u_4}{u_2},\frac{u_4}{u_3},\frac{u_5}{u_7}\right)}
+\frac{x_3 y_4 \theta_p \left(\frac{u_1 u_2 u_4 u_7}{L},\frac{z}{u_0},\frac{z}{u_3},\frac{z}{u_7},\frac{u_0 u_3 u_7 z}{L}\right)}{u_1^3 u_2^3 u_4^3 u_7 \theta_p \left(\frac{u_0}{u_1},\frac{u_0}{u_2},\frac{u_3}{u_1},\frac{u_3}{u_2},\frac{u_0}{u_4},\frac{u_3}{u_4},\frac{u_5}{u_7}\right)}\\
&+\frac{y_3 y_4 \theta_p \left(\frac{u_1 u_3 u_4 u_7}{L},\frac{z}{u_0},\frac{z}{u_2},\frac{z}{u_7},\frac{u_0 u_2 u_7 z}{L}\right)}{u_1^3 u_3^3 u_4^3 u_7 \theta_p \left(\frac{u_0}{u_1},\frac{u_2}{u_1},\frac{u_0}{u_3},\frac{u_2}{u_3},\frac{u_0}{u_4},\frac{u_2}{u_4},\frac{u_5}{u_7}\right)},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
B_{22}(z) =&
-\frac{x_3 y_4 \theta_p \left(\frac{u_0 u_2 u_3 u_7}{L},\frac{z}{u_1},\frac{z}{u_4},\frac{z}{u_7},\frac{u_1 u_4 u_7 z}{L}\right)}{u_0 u_1^3 u_2 u_3 u_4^3 u_7 \theta_p \left(\frac{u_0}{u_1},\frac{u_2}{u_1},\frac{u_3}{u_1},\frac{u_0}{u_4},\frac{u_2}{u_4},\frac{u_3}{u_4},\frac{u_5}{u_7}\right)}
& -\frac{x_4 y_3 \theta_p \left(\frac{u_0 u_2 u_4 u_7}{L},\frac{z}{u_1},\frac{z}{u_3},\frac{z}{u_7},\frac{u_1 u_3 u_7 z}{L}\right)}{u_0 u_1^3 u_2 u_3^3 u_4 u_7 \theta_p \left(\frac{u_0}{u_1},\frac{u_2}{u_1},\frac{u_0}{u_3},\frac{u_2}{u_3},\frac{u_4}{u_1},\frac{u_4}{u_3},\frac{u_5}{u_7}\right)}\\
& -\frac{x_3 x_4 \theta_p \left(\frac{u_0 u_3 u_4 u_7}{L},\frac{z}{u_1},\frac{z}{u_2},\frac{z}{u_7},\frac{u_1 u_2 u_7 z}{L}\right)}{u_0 u_1^3 u_2^3 u_3 u_4 u_7 \theta_p \left(\frac{u_0}{u_1},\frac{u_0}{u_2},\frac{u_3}{u_1},\frac{u_3}{u_2},\frac{u_4}{u_1},\frac{u_4}{u_2},\frac{u_5}{u_7}\right)}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
This also suggests that the canonical translation should act on $u_3$ and $u_4$. One issue is that the actions specified in the previous section do not fix the kernels $\langle (1,0) \rangle$, $\langle (0,1) \rangle$ and $\langle (1,1) \rangle$. To specify a translation, we must first act by $T_{3,4}$ and then act by a further constant matrix that sends $\langle (1,0) \rangle$, $\langle (0,1)\rangle$ and $\langle (1,1)\rangle$ to the new kernel vectors at $B(u_0)$, $B(u_1)$ and $B(u_2)$ respectively. Furthermore, we may consider these as maps on $(\mathbb{P}^1)^2$, since the other kernels are fixed by this step. Let us denote the actions of $E_{3,4}$ and $F_{3,4}$ with an additional normalization step by $\bar{E}_{3,4}$ and $\bar{F}_{3,4}$ respectively. We specify $\bar{T}_{3,4}$ by specifying the actions of $\bar{E}_{3,4}$ and $\bar{F}_{3,4}$, to give $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{E}_{3,4} \cdot & (\mathbb{P}^1)^2 \to (\mathbb{P}^1)^2,\\
\bar{F}_{3,4} \cdot &(\mathbb{P}^1)^2 \to (\mathbb{P}^1)^2,\\
\bar{T}_{3,4} \cdot &(\mathbb{P}^1)^2 \to (\mathbb{P}^1)^2,\\
:& ((x_3:y_3), (x_4:y_4)) \to ((\hat{\tilde{x}}_3:\hat{\tilde{y}}_3), (\hat{\tilde{x}}_4:\hat{\tilde{y}}_4)).\end{aligned}$$ which we claim to be the elliptic Painlevé equation.
The action of $\bar{E}_{3,4}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E01E8}
&\bar{E}_{3,4} \cdot ((x_3:y_3),(x_4:y_4)) \to ((\tilde{x}_3:\tilde{y}_3),(\tilde{x}_4:\tilde{y}_4)),\end{aligned}$$ where these values are related by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E01E80}
(\tilde{x}_3:\tilde{y}_3)=
& \left( x_4 \theta_p \left(\frac{\eta }{u_1 u_3},\frac{u_3}{u_1}\right) \left(y_3 \left(x_4-y_4\right) \theta_p \left( \frac{\eta }{u_2 u_3},\frac{u_3}{u_2},\frac{\eta }{u_0 u_4},\frac{u_4}{u_0}\right)\right. \right.\\
&\left.\left.+\left(y_3-x_3\right) y_4 \theta_p \left(\frac{\eta }{u_0 u_3},\frac{u_3}{u_0},\frac{\eta }{u_2 u_4},\frac{u_4}{u_2}\right)\right) \right.\nonumber\\
&: y_4 \theta_p \left(\frac{\eta }{u_0 u_3},\frac{u_3}{u_0}\right) \left(x_3 \left(x_4-y_4\right) \theta_p \left(\frac{\eta }{u_2 u_3},\frac{u_3}{u_2},\frac{\eta }{u_1 u_4},\frac{u_4}{u_1}\right) \right.\nonumber\\
& \left.\left.+x_4 \left(y_3-x_3\right) \theta_p \left(\frac{\eta }{u_1 u_3},\frac{u_3}{u_1},\frac{\eta }{u_2 u_4},\frac{u_4}{u_2}\right)\right) \right)\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E01E81}
(\tilde{x}_4:\tilde{y}_4)=
&\left( x_3 \theta_p \left(\frac{\eta }{u_1 u_4},\frac{u_4}{u_1}\right) \left(y_3 \left(y_4-x_4\right) \theta_p \left(\frac{\eta }{u_2 u_3},\frac{u_3}{u_2},\frac{\eta }{u_0 u_4},\frac{u_4}{u_0}\right)\right.\right.\\
& \left.+\left(x_3-y_3\right) y_4 \theta_p \left(\frac{\eta }{u_0 u_3},\frac{u_3}{u_0},\frac{\eta }{u_2 u_4},\frac{u_4}{u_2}\right)\right) \nonumber\\
&\left.: y_3 \theta_p \left(\frac{\eta }{u_0 u_4},\frac{u_4}{u_0}\right) \left(x_3 \left(y_4-x_4\right) \theta_p \left(\frac{\eta }{u_2 u_3},\frac{u_3}{u_2},\frac{\eta }{u_1 u_4},\frac{u_4}{u_1}\right)\right.\right.\nonumber\\
&\left.\left.+x_4 \left(x_3-y_3,\frac{\eta }{u_1 u_3},\frac{u_3}{u_1},\frac{\eta }{u_2 u_4},\frac{u_4}{u_2}\right)\right) \right)\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
We first compute the action of $E_{3,4}$ on all the kernels, which we may write in terms of a map on $(\mathbb{P}^1)^5$, where each coordinate represents the kernels of $B(u_0)$, …, $B(u_5)$. This action of $E_{3,4}$ is as follows $$\begin{aligned}
&((1:0),(0:1),(1:1),(x_3:y_3),(x_4:y_4)) \to \\
& \left(\left(u_4 x_3 y_4 \theta_p \left(\frac{\eta }{u_0 u_3},\frac{u_3}{u_0},\frac{v}{u_4},\frac{\eta }{v u_4}\right) -u_3 x_4 y_3 \theta_p \left(\frac{v}{u_3},\frac{\eta }{v u_3},\frac{\eta }{u_0 u_4},\frac{u_4}{u_0}\right)\right. \right.\\
& \left.:y_3 y_4 \left(u_4 \theta_p \left(\frac{\eta }{u_0 u_3},\frac{u_3}{u_0},\frac{v}{u_4},\frac{\eta }{v u_4}\right)-u_3 \theta_p \left(\frac{v}{u_3},\frac{\eta }{v u_3},\frac{\eta }{u_0 u_4},\frac{u_4}{u_0}\right)\right)\right),\\
& \left( x_3 x_4 \left(u_3 \theta_p \left(\frac{v}{u_3},\frac{\eta }{v u_3},\frac{\eta }{u_1 u_4},\frac{u_4}{u_1}\right)-u_4 \theta_p \left(\frac{\eta }{u_1 u_3},\frac{u_3}{u_1},\frac{v}{u_4},\frac{\eta }{v u_4}\right)\right) \right.\\
& \left. : u_3 x_3 y_4 \theta_p \left(\frac{v}{u_3},\frac{\eta }{v u_3},\frac{\eta }{u_1 u_4},\frac{u_4}{u_1}\right)-u_4 x_4 y_3 \theta_p \left(\frac{\eta }{u_1 u_3},\frac{u_3}{u_1},\frac{v}{u_4},\frac{\eta}{v u_4}\right) \right),\\
&\left( u_4 x_3 \left(y_4-x_4\right) \theta_p \left(\frac{\eta }{u_2 u_3},\frac{u_3}{u_2},\frac{v}{u_4},\frac{\eta }{v u_4}\right)+u_3 x_4 \left(x_3-y_3\right) \theta_p \left(\frac{v}{u_3},\frac{\eta }{v u_3},\frac{\eta }{u_2 u_4},\frac{u_4}{u_2}\right) \right.\\
&\left.:u_4 y_3 \left(y_4-x_4\right)\theta_p \left(\frac{\eta }{u_2 u_3},\frac{u_3}{u_2},\frac{v}{u_4},\frac{\eta }{v u_4}\right)+u_3 \left(x_3-y_3\right) y_4 \theta_p \left(\frac{v}{u_3},\frac{\eta }{v u_3},\frac{\eta }{u_2 u_4},\frac{u_4}{u_2}\right)\right),\\
&(x_4:y_4), (x_3:y_3))\end{aligned}$$ Using these kernels new for $B(u_0)$, $B(u_1)$ and $B(u_2)$ in $N_{012}$ above is the relevent constant matrix. Since $E_{3,4}$ itself switches $(x_3:y_3)$ and $(x_4:y_4)$, we obtain an element of the new kernel of $\tilde{B}(u_3)$ by solving $$\begin{pmatrix} x_4 \\ y_4 \end{pmatrix} = N_{012} \begin{pmatrix} \tilde{x}_3 \\ \tilde{y}_3 \end{pmatrix},$$ which is equivalent to and similarly, the same step for $z = u_4$ gives .
In calculating the remaining transformation, $\bar{F}_{3,4}$, we know that $F_{3,4}$ does not change kernels of $B(u_0)$, $B(u_1)$ and $B(u_2)$, hence, we have the following result.
The action of $\bar{F}_{3,4}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{F}_{3,4} \cdot
(\hat{x}_3:\hat{y}_3) \to &\left(B_{21}(u_3)B_{21}\left(\dfrac{\eta}{qu_3}\right)-B_{11}(u_3)B_{22}\left(\dfrac{\eta}{qu_3} \right):\right. \\
&\left. B_{11}(u_3) B_{21}\left( \dfrac{\eta}{qu_3} \right)- B_{21}(u_3)B_{11}\left(\dfrac{\eta}{qu_3} \right)\right) \nonumber \\
(\hat{x}_4:\hat{y}_4) = &\left(B_{21}(u_4)B_{21}\left(\dfrac{\eta}{qu_4}\right)-B_{11}(u_4)B_{22}\left(\dfrac{\eta}{qu_4} \right):\right. \\
&\left. B_{11}(u_4) B_{21}\left( \dfrac{\eta}{qu_4} \right)- B_{21}(u_)B_{11}\left(\dfrac{\eta}{qu_j} \right)\right), \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the entries are given by .
This follows from the fact that $F_{3,4}$ itself does not change the kernels, as it is induced by multiplication on the left of $B(z)$. The only kernels changed are those of $B(u_3)$ and $B(u_4)$, and the calculation follows from the previous section.
We may now construct the explicit Lax pair for the elliptic Painlevé equation.
\[EllP\] The elliptic Painlevé equation, arises as the compatibility between where $A(z)$ is specified by , and , and , where $R(z)$ is given by $$R(z) = ((F_{3,4} R_l(z))(F_{3,4} N_{012}))^{-1},$$ where $R_l(z)$ is given by for $i= 3$ and $j = 4$.
(0,0) circle(2pt); (1,0) circle(2pt); (2,0) circle(2pt); (2,1) circle(2pt); (3,0) circle(2pt); (4,0) circle(2pt); (5,0) circle(2pt); (6,0) circle(2pt); (7,0) circle(2pt); (0,0) – (7,0); (2,0)–(2,1);
The group $W(D_8^{(1)})$ with an additional Dynkin diagram automorphism coincides with $(\mathbb{Z}\times \Lambda_{E_8})\rtimes W(D_8)$. The Dynkin diagram of type $E_8^{(1)}$ is shown in Figure \[E8fig\]. We now present the system of isomonodromic deformations in the $m=1$ case in a parameterization that will make the symmetries more apparent. First we can specialize the coordinates so that $x_3 = 1$ and $y_3 = f$ so that $f$ is treated as an affine coordinate. Secondly, the image of $B(u_3)$, which we parameterize as $\langle (1,g) \rangle$ with $g$ treated as an affine coordinate, is related to the kernel of $B(u_4)$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kerBu4}
\dfrac{y_4}{x_4} = \frac{\theta_p \left(\frac{u_1}{u_2},\frac{u_0}{u_4}\right) \left(g u_7 \theta_p \left(\frac{u_3}{u_6},\frac{u_5}{u_7},\frac{u_1 u_2 u_3 u_6}{L},\frac{u_0 u_3 u_4 u_6}{L}\right)-u_6 \theta_p \left(\frac{u_5}{u_6},\frac{u_3}{u_7},\frac{u_1 u_2 u_3 u_7}{L},\frac{u_0 u_3 u_4
u_7}{L}\right)\right)}{\theta_p \left(\frac{u_0}{u_2},\frac{u_1}{u_4}\right) \left(g u_7 \theta_p \left(\frac{u_3}{u_6},\frac{u_5}{u_7},\frac{u_0 u_2 u_3 u_6}{L},\frac{u_1 u_3 u_4 u_6}{L}\right)-u_6 \theta_p \left(\frac{u_5}{u_6},\frac{u_3}{u_7},\frac{u_0 u_2 u_3 u_7}{L},\frac{u_1 u_3 u_4
u_7}{L}\right)\right)}.\end{aligned}$$ This means that we may either parameterize $B(z)$ in terms of five kernels and three images or we can parameterize $B(z)$ using four kernels and four images. It follows that $A(z)$ is uniquely specified by the following data: $$\begin{aligned}
\tag{$P_1$} \label{P1}&\begin{array}{p{15cm}} The determinant of $B(z)$ vanishes at points $z=u_i$ for $i=0,\ldots,7$ and is nonzero.\end{array}\\
\tag{$P_2$} \label{P2}&\begin{array}{p{15cm}} The kernels of $B(z)$ at $z = u_0, u_1, u_2$ and $u_3$ are $\langle (1,0) \rangle$, $\langle (0,1) \rangle$, $\langle (1,1) \rangle$ and $\langle (1,f) \rangle$ respectively.\end{array}\\
\tag{$P_3$} \label{P3}&\begin{array}{p{15cm}} The images of $B(z)$ at $z = u_7, u_6, u_5$ and $u_3$ are $\langle (1,0) \rangle$, $\langle (0,1) \rangle$, $\langle (1,1) \rangle$ and $\langle (1,g) \rangle$ respectively.\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ The action of the symmetric group, $S_8$, on the $u_i$ variables only requires renormalization, which is induced by constant matrix multiplication either on the left or right. We use the notation $$X = \left( \begin{array}{c c c c}
u_0 & u_1 & u_2 & u_3 \\
u_4 & u_5 & u_6 & u_7 \end{array} ; \eta, f,g\right),$$ to denote the space of parameters and the affine coordinates specifying the image and the kernels of $B(u_3)$.
The first generator we specify is $s_0$ which is induced by right multiplication by a constant matrix with $\langle( 1,1)\rangle$ as an eigenspace and that permutes $\langle (1,0) \rangle$ and $\langle (0,1) \rangle$. One such matrix is the matrix with ones on the off diagonal entries, in which the preimage of $(1,f)$ is $(f,1)$, hence, this induces a transformation that sends $f$ to $1/f$. The same action is valid on the right, in which case this matrix permutes the images of $B(u_6)$ and $B(u_7)$ defining $s_6$. These symmetries are given by $$\begin{aligned}
s_0 &\cdot X = \left( \begin{array}{c c c c}
u_1 & u_0 & u_2 & u_3 \\
u_4 & u_5 & u_6 & u_7 \end{array} ; \eta, \dfrac{1}{f} ,g\right), \\
s_6 &\cdot X= \left( \begin{array}{c c c c}
u_0 & u_1 & u_2 & u_3 \\
u_4 & u_5 & u_7 & u_6 \end{array} ; \eta, f ,\dfrac{1}{g} \right). \end{aligned}$$ Similarly, the matrix with $\langle (1,0) \rangle$ as an eigenspace that permutes $\langle (1,1) \rangle$ and $\langle (0,1) \rangle$ has the effect $$\begin{aligned}
s_1 &\cdot X = \left( \begin{array}{c c c c}
u_0 & u_2 & u_1 & u_3 \\
u_4 & u_5 & u_6 & u_7 \end{array} ; \eta, \dfrac{f}{1-f} ,g\right), \\
s_5 &\cdot X= \left( \begin{array}{c c c c}
u_0 & u_1 & u_2 & u_3 \\
u_4 & u_6 & u_5 & u_7 \end{array} ; \eta, f ,\dfrac{g}{1-g} \right).\end{aligned}$$ The actions $s_2$ and $s_4$ are induced by diagonal matrices since the matrix possesses eigenspaces $\langle (1,0)\rangle$ and $\langle (0,1)\rangle$. The action of $s_2$ is induced by a matrix that sends $(1,f)$ to $\langle (1,1)\rangle$ on the right, i.e., $\mathrm{diag}(1,1/f)$, however, in swapping $u_2$ and $u_3$, we also change $g$ to correspond to the image of $B(u_2)$, hence, we have $$s_2 \cdot X = \left( \begin{array}{c c c c}
u_0 & u_1 & u_3 & u_2 \\
u_4 & u_5 & u_6 & u_7 \end{array} ; \eta, \dfrac{1}{f} , \dfrac{B_{21}(u_2)}{B_{11}(u_2)} =: \bar{g} \right).$$ where $\bar{g}$ is related to $f$ and $g$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\dfrac{\theta_p\left( \frac{u_1}{u_3},\frac{u_2}{u_4} \right)}{\theta_p\left( \frac{u_2}{u_3},\frac{u_1}{u_4} \right)} f = & \frac{\bar{g} u_7 \theta_p \left(\frac{u_2}{u_6},\frac{u_5}{u_7},\frac{u_0 u_2 u_3 u_6}{L},\frac{u_1 u_2 u_4 u_6}{L}\right)-u_6 \theta_p \left(\frac{u_5}{u_6},\frac{u_2}{u_7},\frac{u_0 u_2 u_3 u_7}{L},\frac{u_1 u_2 u_4 u_7}{L}\right)}{\bar{g} u_7 \theta_p \left(\frac{u_2}{u_6},\frac{u_5}{u_7},\frac{u_1 u_2 u_3 u_6}{L},\frac{u_0 u_2 u_4 u_6}{L}\right)-u_6 \theta_p \left(\frac{u_5}{u_6},\frac{u_2}{u_7},\frac{u_1 u_2 u_3 u_7}{L},\frac{u_0 u_2 u_4 u_7}{L}\right)}\\
&\times \frac{g u_7 \theta_p \left(\frac{u_3}{u_6},\frac{u_5}{u_7},\frac{u_1 u_2 u_3 u_6}{L},\frac{u_0 u_3 u_4 u_6}{L}\right)-u_6 \theta_p \left(\frac{u_5}{u_6},\frac{u_3}{u_7},\frac{u_1 u_2 u_3 u_7}{L},\frac{u_0 u_3 u_4 u_7}{L}\right)}{g u_7 \theta_p \left(\frac{u_3}{u_6},\frac{u_5}{u_7},\frac{u_0 u_2 u_3 u_6}{L},\frac{u_1 u_3 u_4 u_6}{L}\right)-u_6 \theta_p \left(\frac{u_5}{u_6},\frac{u_3}{u_7},\frac{u_0 u_2 u_3 u_7}{L},\frac{u_1 u_3 u_4 u_7}{L}\right)}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ To continue to specify a standard set of generators for $S_8$, the action of $s_3$ swaps $u_3$ and $u_4$ which must swap the kernels and images of $B(u_3)$ with those of $B(u_4)$, specifically $$\begin{aligned}
s_3 \cdot& X = \left( \begin{array}{c c c c}
u_0 & u_1 & u_2 & u_4 \\
u_3 & u_5 & u_6 & u_7 \end{array} ; \eta, \dfrac{y_4}{x_4}, \dfrac{B_{21}(u_4)}{B_{11}(u_4)} \right),\\
&\dfrac{B_{21}(u_4)}{B_{11}(u_4)} = \frac{u_6 \theta_p \left(\frac{u_5}{u_6},\frac{u_4}{u_7}\right) \left(\theta_p \left(\frac{u_1}{u_2},\frac{u_0}{u_3},\frac{u_1 u_2 u_4 u_7}{L},\frac{u_0 u_3 u_4 u_7}{L}\right)-f \theta_p \left(\frac{u_0}{u_2},\frac{u_1}{u_3},\frac{u_0 u_2 u_4 u_7}{L},\frac{u_1 u_3 u_4 u_7}{L}\right)\right)}
{u_7
\theta_p \left(\frac{u_4}{u_6},\frac{u_5}{u_7}\right)\left( \theta_p \left(\frac{u_1}{u_2},\frac{u_0}{u_3},\frac{u_1 u_2 u_4 u_6}{L},\frac{u_0
u_3 u_4 u_6}{L}\right)-f \theta_p \left(\frac{u_0}{u_2},\frac{u_1}{u_3},\frac{u_0 u_2 u_4 u_6}{L},\frac{u_1 u_3 u_4 u_6}{L}\right)\right)}, \label{ImBu4},\end{aligned}$$ with $y_4/x_4$ as stated by . Lastly, $s_4$ is induced by right multiplication by a diagonal matrix that sends the image of $B(u_4)$ to $\langle (1,1) \rangle$. Using the image of $(0,1)$, it is easy to see that a matrix that does this is given by $\mathrm{diag}(1,B_{21}(u_4)/B_{11}(u_4))$, giving the transformation $$s_4 \cdot X = \left( \begin{array}{c c c c}
u_0 & u_2 & u_1 & u_3 \\
u_4 & u_5 & u_6 & u_7 \end{array} ; \eta, f, g\dfrac{B_{21}(u_4)}{B_{11}(u_4)} \right).$$ This completes the birational representation of the full symmetric group, $S_8$.
It is important to know where the base points are which are required to make the action of $S_8$ an automorphism of some surface. This can be done by determining which points, if any, arise as images of lines. For example, we may consider the image of $s_4$ of points of the form $$\begin{aligned}
s_4 \cdot \left( \begin{array}{c c c c}
u_0 & u_1 & u_2 & u_3 \\
u_4 & u_5 & u_6 & u_7 \end{array} ; \eta, \frac{\theta_p \left(\frac{u_1}{u_2},\frac{u_0}{u_3},\frac{u_1 u_2 u_4 u_7}{L},\frac{u_0 u_3 u_4 u_7}{L}\right)}{\theta_p \left(\frac{u_0}{u_2},\frac{u_1}{u_3},\frac{u_0 u_2 u_4 u_7}{L},\frac{u_1 u_3 u_4 u_7}{L}\right)}, g \right) \\
= \left( \begin{array}{c c c c}
u_0 & u_1 & u_2 & u_3 \\
u_5 & u_4 & u_6 & u_7 \end{array} ; \eta, \frac{\theta_p \left(\frac{u_1}{u_2},\frac{u_0}{u_3},\frac{u_1 u_2 u_4 u_7}{L},\frac{u_0 u_3 u_4 u_7}{L}\right)}{\theta_p \left(\frac{u_0}{u_2},\frac{u_1}{u_3},\frac{u_0 u_2 u_4 u_7}{L},\frac{u_1 u_3 u_4 u_7}{L}\right)}, 0 \right),\end{aligned}$$ where $g$ is any element, hence, the inverse of this point is not defined. To make the action of $s_4$ regular, we need to blow up the point $$P_1 = \left( \frac{\theta_p \left(\frac{u_1}{u_2},\frac{u_0}{u_3},\frac{u_1 u_2 u_4 u_7}{L},\frac{u_0 u_3 u_4 u_7}{L}\right)}{\theta_p \left(\frac{u_0}{u_2},\frac{u_1}{u_3},\frac{u_0 u_2 u_4 u_7}{L},\frac{u_1 u_3 u_4 u_7}{L}\right)},0 \right),$$ which is presented by affine coordinates, $(f,g)$, representing points in $(\mathbb{P}^1)^2$. This also coincides with the point in which the images of $B(u_3)$, $B(u_4)$ and $B(u_7)$ are equal, which is a natural point to consider since if we were to swap the roles of $u_3$ and $u_4$ with $u_5$ and $u_6$, then we cannot find a matrix which sends the images of $B(u_5)$ and $B(u_6)$ to $(1,1)$ and $(0,1)$ respectively. We simiilarly find that $s_4$ is ill-defined on the point $$P_2 = \left( \frac{\theta_p \left(\frac{u_1}{u_2},\frac{u_0}{u_3},\frac{u_1 u_2 u_4 u_6}{L},\frac{u_0 u_3 u_4 u_6}{L}\right)}{\theta_p \left(\frac{u_0}{u_2},\frac{u_1}{u_3},\frac{u_0 u_2 u_4 u_6}{L},\frac{u_1 u_3 u_4 u_6}{L}\right)},\infty\right),$$ and since $s_4$ fixes $f$ and replaces $g$ by a ratio of bilinear forms, blowing up these two points suffices to make $s_4$ regular. However, on the blowup $s_5$ is no longer regular since it does not permute the two points we blew up. This forces us to blow up a third point, and similar consider considerations for $s_2$ give us an additional three points. To specify these points we utilize the fact that all the points lie in the image of an elliptic curve in $(\mathbb{P}^1)^2$, in fact, we find every point appears in the form $$\chi(z) = \left( \dfrac{\theta_p \left( \frac{z}{u_1u_2}, \frac{u_1}{u_2}, \frac{z}{u_0u_3},\frac{u_0}{u_3} \right)}{\theta_p\left( \frac{z}{u_0u_2},\frac{u_0}{u_2},\frac{z}{u_0u_3},\frac{u_0}{u_3}\right)},
\dfrac{u_6 \theta_p\left( \frac{L}{zu_5u_6}, \frac{u_5}{u_6}, \frac{zu_3u_7}{L}, \frac{u_3}{u_7}\right)}{u_7 \theta_p\left( \frac{L}{zu_5u_7}, \frac{u_5}{u_7}, \frac{zu_3u_6}{L}, \frac{u_3}{u_6}\right)}\right),$$ for certain values of $z$. In particular, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&P_1 = \chi\left( \frac{L}{u_5u_6}\right), \hspace{1cm} &&P_2 = \chi\left( \frac{L}{u_5u_7}\right) \hspace{1cm}&&P_3 =\chi\left( \frac{L}{u_6u_7}\right),\\
&P_4 = \chi\left(u_1u_2\right), \hspace{1cm}&&P_5 = \chi\left( u_0u_2\right), \hspace{1cm}&&P_6 = \chi\left(u_0u_1\right).\end{aligned}$$ In fact blowing up these six points makes the action of $S_8$ holomorphic. This configuration of points is preserved under the action of $s_0$, $s_1$, $s_3$, $s_5$ and $s_6$, so those remain holomorphic on the blow-up. Blowing up $P_1$ and $P_2$ makes $s_4$ holomorphic, and it permutes the other four points, so it remains holomorphic on the full blow-up. Similarly $s_2$ permutes the points that were not needed to make it holomorphic and hence is holomorphic.
With the action of the symmetry group defined what remains to be done is that we consider $\iota$ and any nontrivial transformation on both the left and right. The action $\iota$ is simple in this setting, as the transformation can simply identify images with kernels and kernels with images up to some permutation. This means that the discrete isomonodromic deformation induced by $R(z) = B(1/z)$ may be given by $$\iota \cdot X = \left( \begin{array}{c c c c}
\frac{\eta}{u_7} & \frac{\eta}{u_6} & \frac{\eta}{u_5} & \frac{\eta}{u_3} \\
\frac{\eta}{u_4} & \frac{\eta}{u_2} & \frac{\eta}{u_1} & \frac{\eta}{u_0} \end{array} ; q\eta, g,f\right).$$ It is also simple to describe the action of two nontrivial isomonodromic deformations, namely $\bar{E}_{0,1}$ and $\bar{F}_{6,7}$. When we specialize kernel vectors to $\langle (1,0)\rangle$ and $\langle (0,1)\rangle$, then property dictates that $R_r(z)$ is diagonal, then since diagonal matrices preserve $\langle (1,0)\rangle$ and $\langle (0,1)\rangle$ but possibly change $\langle (1,1) \rangle$, the matrix fixing $\langle (1,0)\rangle$ and $\langle (0,1)\rangle$ and that sends the preimage of $(1,1)$ under $R(u_2)$ to $\langle (1,1) \rangle$ is also diagonal. This means that if $R_r(z)$ is the matrix inducing $E_{0,1}$ and $\bar{R}_r(z)$ induces $\bar{E}_{0,1}$, then $$\bar{R}_r(z) = R_r(z)R_r(u_2)^{-1} = \begin{pmatrix} \frac{\theta_p\left(\frac{z}{u_1},\frac{\eta}{zu_1}\right)}{\theta_p\left(\frac{u_2}{u_1},\frac{\eta}{u_2u_1}\right)} & 0 \\ 0 & \frac{\theta_p\left(\frac{z}{u_0},\frac{\eta}{zu_0}\right)}{\theta_p\left(\frac{u_2}{u_0},\frac{\eta}{u_2u_0}\right)} \end{pmatrix},$$ inducing the transformation $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{E}_{0,1} \cdot X \to \left( \begin{array}{c c c c}
\frac{\eta}{u_0} & \frac{\eta}{u_1} & u_2 & u_3 \\
u_4 & u_5 & u_6 & u_7 \end{array} ; \eta, f \frac{\theta_p \left(\frac{\eta }{u_0 u_2},\frac{u_2}{u_0},\frac{\eta }{u_1 u_3},\frac{u_3}{u_1}\right)}{\theta_p \left(\frac{\eta }{u_1 u_2},\frac{u_2}{u_1},\frac{\eta }{u_0 u_3},\frac{u_3}{u_0}\right)} ,g\right),\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, on the left we have the images of $B(u_6)$ and $B(u_7)$ are $\langle (0,1)\rangle$ and $\langle (1,0)\rangle$, hence, by , we have that if $R_l(z)$ is the matrix inducing $F_{6,7}$ and $\bar{R}_l(z)$ induces $\bar{F}_{6,7}$, then $$\bar{R}_l(z) = R_l(u_5)^{-1} R_l(z) = \begin{pmatrix} \frac{\theta_p\left(\frac{z}{u_7},\frac{\eta}{zu_7}\right)}{\theta_p\left(\frac{u_5}{u_7},\frac{\eta}{u_5u_7}\right)} & 0 \\ 0 & \frac{\theta_p\left(\frac{z}{u_6},\frac{\eta}{zu_6}\right)}{\theta_p\left(\frac{u_5}{u_6},\frac{\eta}{u_5u_6}\right)} \end{pmatrix},$$ inducing the transformation $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{F}_{6,7} \cdot X \to \left( \begin{array}{c c c c}
u_0 & u_1 & u_2 & u_3 \\
u_4 & u_5 & \frac{\eta}{qu_6} & \frac{\eta}{qu_7} \end{array} ; \eta, f ,g\frac{\theta_p \left(\frac{\eta }{u_3 u_6},\frac{u_3}{u_6},\frac{\eta }{u_5 u_7},\frac{u_5}{u_7}\right)}{\theta_p \left(\frac{\eta }{u_5 u_6},\frac{u_5}{u_6},\frac{\eta }{u_3 u_7},\frac{u_3}{u_7}\right)}\right).\end{aligned}$$ This means that the nontrivial part of the isomonodromic deformations are contained within the symmetries of $A(z)$. There is just one more transformation, we obtain the same moduli space of matrices if we replace $\eta$ by $qL/\eta$. This has a trivial effect on $B(z)$, but changes the symmetry of the equation. This is no longer a gauge transformation, but rather comes from the application of a certain elliptic version of the Fourier-Laplace transform to the solutions of the equation [@rains:noncomgeom]. Including this additional symmetry extends the group to the full $\mathbb{Z} \times W(E^{(1)}_8)$ symmetry coming from the geometry (it corresponds to the node of the Dynkin diagram for $E^{(1)}_8$ which when removed gives the Dynkin diagram for $D_8$).
We now note that the configuration of six points we blew up above is not preserved by the generators not in $S_8$ and thus we must blow up two additional points $$P_7 = \chi(\eta), \hspace{2cm} P_8 = \chi\left(\frac{qL}{\eta}\right).$$ These two new points are both preserved by $S_8$, hence, the action of $S_8$ remains holomorphic, while the remaining generators were regular on $(\mathbb{P}^1)^2$ and permute the eight base points. It follows therefore that the full group acts holomorphically on the blow up of $(\mathbb{P}^1)^2$ at eight points. By comparison with [@Sakai:Rational] we find that this is indeed the elliptic Painlevé equation, completing the proof of Theorem \[EllP\].
Discussion
==========
We have presented a system that may be regarded as an elliptic analogue of the Garnier system. Since the case of $m=1$ corresponds to the elliptic Painlevé equation, this system sits above each of the Painlevé equations. The lowest member, the case in which $m=0$ is rigid, must correspond to the elliptic hypergeometric equation (cf. [@Rains2009]).
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The work of EMR was partially supported by the National Science Foundation under the grant DMS-1500806.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present the $\alpha_{s}^3$ correction to the $Z^{0}$ decay rate into hadrons in the limit $m_{top} >> m_{Z}$.'
---
0 pt 39by
-10 pt 10 pt 1 in 0 in 0 in 0.75 in 6.375 true in
NIKHEF-H/93-26
To appear in Phys. Lett. B
[**The $\alpha_{s}^3$ correction to $\Gamma (Z^{0}\rightarrow hadrons)$** ]{}\
\[8mm\] S.A. Larin[^1], T. van Ritbergen, J.A.M. Vermaseren\
\[3mm\] NIKHEF-H, P.O. Box 41882,\
1009 DB, Amsterdam\
Introduction
============
Precision measurements of the $Z^{0}$ decay rate into hadrons at LEP [@lep1] provide precise means to extract the QCD coupling constant from experiment. The $\alpha_{s}^3$ approximation to the $Z^{0}$ decay rate into hadrons is important for an accurate determination of $\alpha_{s}$. The hadronic $Z^{0}$ decay rate is a sum of vector and axial-vector contributions of which the vector contribution is known to order $\alpha_{s}^3$ from the calculation of $\sigma_{tot}(e^{+}e^{-}
\rightarrow \gamma
\rightarrow hadrons)$ [@gorishny2]. The correctness of this calculation is strongly supported by [@broadhurst2] where the non-trivial connection between the result [@gorishny2] and the $\alpha_{s}^3$ approximation [@gls] to deep inelastic sum rules was established. The axial-vector part of the hadronic $Z^{0}$ decay rate was calculated to order $\alpha_{s}^2$ in [@kniehl1] and confirmed in [@chetyrkin1] where renormalization group improvements were made. The $Z^{0}$ decay into 3 gluons in order $\alpha_{s}^3$ has been calculated in [@bij1]. In this paper we present the total $\alpha_{s}^3$ correction to the $Z^{0}$ decay rate into hadrons by calculating the axial-vector part in order $\alpha_{s}^3$ in the leading order of a large top mass expansion.
Preliminaries
=============
For the $Z^{0}$ decay rate into hadrons, the quantity to be determined is the squared matrix element summed over all final hadronic states. One can express this quantity as the imaginary part of a current correlator in the standard way $$\sum_{h} <0| J^{\mu} |h> <h| J^{\nu}|0> \hspace{.15cm} =
\hspace{.05cm} 2 Im \Pi^{\mu \nu} ,$$ $$\label{correlator}
\Pi^{\mu \nu} = i \int d^{4}z \mbox{\bf e}^{i q\cdot z}
<0| T( J^{\nu}(z) J^{\mu}(0) ) |0> \hspace{.15cm}= -g^{\mu \nu} \Pi_{1}(q^{2})
-q^{\mu}q^{\nu}\Pi_{2}(q^{2}).$$ Here $ J^{\mu}=\frac{g}{4 c_{W}}\sum_{q=1}^{6} \left[
(2I^{(3)}_{q}-4Q_{q}s_{W}^{2}
) \overline{q} \gamma^{\mu} q+2I^{(3)}_{q} \overline{q} \gamma^{\mu}\gamma_{5}
q
\right] $ is the neutral weak quark current coupled to the $Z^{0}$ bozon in the Lagrangian of the Standard Model. The hadronic $Z^{0}$ decay width is expressed as $$\Gamma_{had} \equiv \Gamma_{had}^{V} + \Gamma_{had}^{A}
= \frac{1}{m_{Z}}Im\Pi_{1}(m^{2}_{Z}+ i\hspace{.03cm} 0^{+})$$ with the indicated decomposition into vector and axial-vector parts imposed by the structure of the neutral current.
Throughout this paper we use dimensional regularization [@dimreg] and the standard modification of the minimal subtraction scheme [@ms], the $\overline{MS}$ scheme [@msbar]. For the treatment of the $\gamma_{5}$ matrix in dimensional regularization we use the technique described in [@larin2] which is based on the original definition of $\gamma_{5}$ in [@dimreg]. We work in the approximation of 5 massless flavors and the top quark mass large compared to the $Z^{0}$ mass. We should stress that the top quark does not decouple [@nodecouple] from the axial-vector part due to diagrams of the axial anomaly type.
The $\alpha_{s}^3$ approximation [@gorishny2] for the vector part in effective QCD with 5 active massless quark flavors in the $\overline{MS}$ scheme reads $$\Gamma_{had}^{V} = \frac{G_{F}m_{Z}^{3}}{8\sqrt{2} \pi} \sum_{q=1}^{5}
(2I^{(3)}_{q}-4Q_{q}s_{W}^{2})^{2} \left[ 1+\frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi}
+1.40923 \left( \frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi} \right)^{2}
-12.76706 \left( \frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi} \right)^{3} \right] +$$ $$\label{gammavec}
+ \frac{G_{F}m_{Z}^{3}}{8\sqrt{2} \pi}
\left( \sum_{q=1}^{5}(2I^{(3)}_{q}-4Q_{q}s_{W}^{2}) \right)^{2}
\left[ -.41318 \left( \frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi} \right)^{3} \right]$$ with the Fermi constant $G_{F} = \frac{g^{2}\sqrt{2}}{8 c_{W}^{2} m_{Z}^{2} }$. Here $\alpha_{s}=\alpha_{s}^{(5)}(m_{Z})$ is the coupling constant in effective QCD with 5 active flavors (the expression for $\alpha_{s}^{(5)}$ in NNL approximation can be found e.g. in [@gorishny2]).
It is convenient to split the axial-vector contribution in a non-singlet and a singlet part $$\Gamma_{had}^{A} = \Gamma_{had}^{A,NS} + \Gamma_{had}^{A,S}.$$ The non-singlet part comes from Feynman diagrams where both axial vertices are located in one fermion loop. The non-singlet part can be reduced to the vector case by using the effective anticommutation property of the $\gamma_{5}$ matrix in the prescription that we use. The result in the effective theory with 5 active massless quark flavors is $$\label{gammaaxialns}
\Gamma_{had}^{A,NS} = \frac{G_{F}m_{Z}^{3}}{8\sqrt{2} \pi} \sum_{q=1}^{5}
(2I^{(3)}_{q})^{2} \left[ 1+\frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi}
+1.40923 \left( \frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi} \right)^{2}
-12.76706 \left( \frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi} \right)^{3} \right] .$$
The calculation
===============
The singlet contribution $\Gamma_{had}^{A,S}$ comes from diagrams where each axial vertex is located in a separate fermion loop. The 3-loop and 4-loop singlet diagrams that we need to calculate are drawn in figure 1. $$\parbox{11.5cm}{Figure 1. The symbol $\otimes$ is used to indicate an axial
vertex.
}$$\
In the Standard Model quarks in a weak doublet couple with opposite sign to the $Z^0$ bozon in the axial part of the neutral current. That is why the contributions from light doublets add up to zero in the massless limit for singlet diagrams. The only non-zero contribution comes from the top-bottom doublet due to the large mass difference between top and bottom quarks. The massless diagrams (i.e. without top quark loops) were calculated with techniques similar to the ones that were used for the calculation of $\sigma_{tot}(e^{+}e^{-} \rightarrow \gamma \rightarrow hadrons)$ [@gorishny2]. The $R^*$-operation [@rstar] which subtracts both ultraviolet and infrared divergences was a necessary part of these techniques. For the calculation of massive diagrams (i.e. with one or more top quark loops) we applied an asymptotic expansion in a large top mass $m_{t}$. The theory of Euclidean asymptotic expansions was developed in [@tkachov1; @chetyrkin2]. For the large mass expansion of the diagrams we use the techniques developed in [@gorishny1; @gorishny3]. For the actual calculation we relied heavily on the symbolic manipulation program FORM [@form]. Massless diagrams were calculated with the help of the package MINCER [@mincer1]. Massive diagrams were calculated with a specially designed package for massive vacuum 3-loop diagrams which uses algorithms from ref. [@broadhurst1]. Both packages are based on the ‘integration by parts’ method [@ibp]. Details of the calculation will be given in a longer paper where we will also present the higher order terms in the large mass expansion. The computations were done in an arbitrary covariant gauge. The cancellation of the gauge dependence in physical quantities gives a good check of the results. The result of our calculation in the leading approximation of the large $m_{t}$ expansion for 6 flavors is $$\label{main6fl}
\Gamma_{had}^{A,S} = \frac{G_{F}m_{Z}^{3}}{8\sqrt{2} \pi}
\left[ d_{2} \left( \frac{\alpha_{s}^{(6)}}{\pi} \right)^{2}
+ d_{3} \left( \frac{\alpha_{s}^{(6)}}{\pi} \right)^{3} \right] ,$$
$ d_{2} = T_{F}^2 D \left( - \frac{37}{24} +
\frac{1}{2}ln(\frac{m_{Z}^2}{m_{t}^2}) \right)$,
$ d_{3} = N_{f} T_{F}^3 D \left( \frac{25}{36} - \frac{1}{18}\pi^2 +
\frac{1}{9} ln(\frac{\mu^2}{m_{t}^2})
- \frac{1}{6} ln^{2}(\frac{\mu^2}{m_{t}^2}) - \frac{11}{12}
ln(\frac{m_{Z}^2}{\mu^2}) + \frac{1}{6} ln^{2}(\frac{m_{Z}^2}{\mu^2})
\right) $
$+ C_{A}T_{F}^2 D \left( - \frac{215}{48} - \frac{1}{2}\zeta_{3}
+ \frac{11}{72} \pi^2
+ \frac{19}{36} ln(\frac{\mu^2}{m_{t}^2})
+ \frac{11}{24} ln^2 (\frac{\mu^2}{m_{t}^2})
+ \frac{161}{48} ln(\frac{m_{Z}^2}{\mu^2})
- \frac{11}{24} ln^2(\frac{m_{Z}^2}{\mu^2}) \right)$
$ + C_{F}T_{F}^2 D \left( - \frac{3}{4} + \frac{3}{2} \zeta_3
- \frac{3}{4} ln(\frac{\mu^2}{m_{t}^2}) \right) +
T_{F}^3 D \left( - \frac{157}{108} +\frac{1}{18}\pi^{2}
+ \frac{11}{12} ln(\frac{m_{Z}^2}{m_{t}^2})
- \frac{1}{6} ln^{2} (\frac{m_{Z}^2}{m_{t}^2}) \right). $\
\
Here $m_t\equiv m_t(\mu)$ is the running top mass in the $\overline{MS}$ scheme. $\alpha_{s}^{(6)}(\mu) = \frac{g^2}{4\pi}$ is the coupling constant in QCD with 6 flavors, $C_{F} = \frac{4}{3}$ and $C_{A}= 3$ are the Casimir operators of the fundamental and adjoint representation of the color group $SU(3)$, $D = 8$ is the dimension of the Lie algebra, $T_{F} = \frac{1}{2}$ is the trace normalization of the fundamental representation, $N_{f} = 6$ is the number of quark flavors, $\zeta$ is the Riemann zeta-function. Contributions with $\pi^2$ originate from terms containing $ln^3 (-m_{Z}^2-i 0^{+}) = (ln(m_{Z}^2) - i \pi )^3$ when one takes the imaginary part of the correlator. Results for individual diagrams contain $\zeta_{2}$, $\zeta_{4}$ and $\zeta_{5}$ but these contributions add up to zero in the total result. Note that the $\alpha_{s}^2$ order agrees with the known calculation [@kniehl1].
The coefficients of the logarithms are in agreement with the required renormalization group invariance of the physical quantity $$\mu^{2} \frac{d}{d \mu^{2}} \Gamma_{had}^{A,S}
(\mu^{2},\alpha_{s}(\mu),m_{t} (\mu) ) = 0.$$ Of course the true physical quantity is $\Gamma_{had}$. But from a theoretical point of view the singlet part $\Gamma_{had}^{A,S}$ is renormalized independently of the non-singlet part and is therefore renormalization group invariant by itself.
The $\alpha_{s}^{3}$ approximation for the vector part and the axial non-singlet part are calculated in effective QCD with 5 active massless flavors where the top quark decouples. Although the top quark does not decouple from the singlet axial part we should convert it to an expression in the effective theory to give a consistent total $\Gamma_{had}$. The QCD decoupling relations in two loop approximation in the $\overline{MS}$ scheme were calculated in [@decouple1; @decouple2]. The connection between the full coupling constant $\alpha_{s}^{(6)}$ and the coupling constant of effective QCD with 5 active flavors reads $$\label{alphaeff}
\frac{\alpha_{s}^{(6)}(\mu)}{\pi} = \frac{\alpha_{s}^{(5)}(\mu)}{\pi}
+\left( \frac{\alpha_{s}^{(5)}(\mu)}{\pi} \right)^{2} \frac{T_{F}}{3}
ln(\frac{\mu^2}{m_{t}^2}) + O(\alpha_{s}^{3}) .$$ Substitution of this expression in (\[main6fl\]) gives the expression for effective QCD $$\Gamma_{had}^{A,S} = \frac{G_{F}m_{Z}^{3}}{8\sqrt{2} \pi}
\left[ \left( \frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi} \right)^{2} \left(
- \frac{37}{12} + ln (\frac{m_{Z}^2}{m_{t}^{2}})
\right) \right. +$$ $$\label{main5fl} +
\left.
\left( \frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi} \right)^{3} \left(
- \frac{5651}{216} + \zeta_{3} + \frac{23}{36}\pi^2
+ \frac{31}{18} ln(\frac{\mu^2}{m_{t}^2})
+ \frac{373}{24} ln(\frac{m_{Z}^{2}}{\mu^2})
+ \frac{23}{12} ln^2 (\frac{\mu^2}{m_{t}^2})
- \frac{23}{12} ln^2 (\frac{m_{Z}^2}{\mu^2})
\right) \right]$$ where $\alpha_{s} = \alpha_{s}^{(5)}(\mu)$ is the coupling constant in effective QCD with 5 flavors. The $\alpha_{s}^3$ term drastically diminishes the $\mu$-dependence of eq.(\[main5fl\]) and makes it stable in a wide interval around $\mu\approx m_Z$.
Summing equations (\[gammavec\]), (\[gammaaxialns\]) and (\[main5fl\]) and putting the renormalization scale $\mu$ in the standard way equal to $m_{Z}$ we get the hadronic $Z^{0}$ decay width (in the approximation of 5 massless quarks and a heavy top quark, in the leading order of the large $m_{t}$ expansion) $$\Gamma_{had} = \frac{G_{F}m_{Z}^{3}}{8\sqrt{2} \pi} \sum_{q=1}^{5}
(2I^{(3)}_{q}-4Q_{q}s_{W}^{2})^{2} \left[ 1+\frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi}
+1.40923 \left( \frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi} \right)^{2}
-12.76706 \left( \frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi} \right)^{3} \right] +$$ $$+ \frac{G_{F}m_{Z}^{3}}{8\sqrt{2} \pi}
\left( \sum_{q=1}^{5}(2I^{(3)}_{q}-4Q_{q}s_{W}^{2}) \right)^{2}
\left[ -.41318 \left( \frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi} \right)^{3} \right] +$$ $$+ \frac{G_{F}m_{Z}^{3}}{8\sqrt{2} \pi} \sum_{q=1}^{5}
(2I^{(3)}_{q})^{2} \left[ 1+\frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi}
+1.40923 \left( \frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi} \right)^{2}
-12.76706 \left( \frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi} \right)^{3} \right] +$$ $$\label{eq11}
+ \frac{G_{F}m_{Z}^{3}}{8\sqrt{2} \pi}
\left[ \left( \frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi} \right)^{2} \left(
- \frac{37}{12} + ln (\frac{m_{Z}^2}{m_{t}^{2}})
\right) +
\left( \frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi} \right)^{3} \left( -18.65440
+ \frac{31}{18} ln(\frac{m_{Z}^2}{m_{t}^2})
+ \frac{23}{12} ln^2 (\frac{m_{Z}^2}{m_{t}^2})
\right) \right] .$$ Here and below $m_t\equiv m_t(m_Z)$ is the $\overline{MS}$ top mass at the scale $m_Z$. One may relate it to the pole mass through the expression $m_{t}(m_Z)=m_{pole}\left[1-\frac{\alpha_s(m_Z)}{\pi} \left(
ln(\frac{m_Z^2}{m_{pole}^2})+\frac{4}{3}\right)+O(\alpha_s^2)\right]$ which is known in the NNL approximation [@polemass] or relate it to $m_t(m_t)$ through the expression $m_{t}(m_Z)=m_t(m_t)\left[ 1-\frac{\alpha_s(m_Z)}{\pi}
ln(\frac{m_Z^2}{m_t^2(m_t)})+O(\alpha_s^2)\right]$. This would correspondingly modify the coefficients of the $\alpha_{s}^{3}$ term.
Substitution of the values of the physical parameters into eq.(\[eq11\]) from [@properties] gives (in the $\overline{MS}$ scheme) $$\Gamma_{had}(GeV) = 1.671 \left[ 1+\left( \frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi} \right)
+ \left( \frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi} \right)^2 \left( .9502
+.1489 \hspace{.1cm} ln (\frac{m_{Z}^2}{m_{t}^{2}}) \right) \right. +
\hspace{2cm}$$ $$\hspace{3cm} +
\left. \left( \frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi} \right)^3 \left( - 15.650
+ .2564 \hspace{.1cm} ln (\frac{m_{Z}^2}{m_{t}^{2}})
+ .2853 \hspace{.1cm} ln^2 (\frac{m_{Z}^2}{m_{t}^{2}}) \right) \right] .$$ Note that the logarithms in the $\alpha_{s}^3$ term tend to cancel each other for $m_{t}(m_Z) \approx 140 GeV$. For this value of $m_{t}$ the calculated order $\alpha_{s}^3$ singlet contribution to $\Gamma_{had} $ adds about $20\%$ to the previously known sum of vector and axial non-singlet contributions of order $\alpha_{s}^3$.
From eq.(\[eq11\]) one can also obtain the $\alpha_{s}^{3}$ approximation to $\sigma_{tot}(e^{+}e^{-}\rightarrow \gamma,Z^{0} \rightarrow hadrons)$ in the energy range below the top quark threshold.
Acknowledgements
================
We are grateful to M. Veltman for helpful discussions. We gratefully acknowledge the remarks of D.J. Broadhurst, K.G. Chetyrkin, A.I. Davydychev and A.L. Kataev on an early version of our paper. We want to thank the CAN foundation for the use of their computers.\
\
[ **Note added.**]{} We are grateful to K.G. Chetyrkin for informing us about a discrepancy in the coefficient of $\zeta_{3}$ between our early result and a result by K.G. Chetyrkin, J.H. Kühn and O.V. Tarasov before their publication. This information helped us to correct this coefficient.\
[9]{} The LEP Collaborations: ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL, Phys. Lett. B276 (1992) 247; The LEP Collaborations ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL and The LEP Electroweak Working Group, preprint CERN/PPE/93-157 (1993). S.G. Gorishny, A.L. Kataev, S.A Larin, Phys. Lett. B212 (1988) 238; ibid. B259 (1991) 144; L.R. Surguladze, M.A. Samuel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66 (1991) 560, erratum ibid, 2416. D.J. Broadhurst, A.L. Kataev, Phys. Lett. B315 (1993) 179. S.A. Larin, J.A.M. Vermaseren, Phys. Lett. B259 (1991) 345. B.A. Kniehl, J.H. Kühn, Nucl. Phys. B329 (1990) 547. K.G. Chetyrkin, J.H. Kühn, Phys. Lett. B 308 (1993) 127. J.J. van der Bij, E.W.N. Glover, Nucl. Phys. B313 (1989) 237; R. Hopker, J.J. van der Bij, preprint THEP 93/3 (Freiburg, 1993). G.’t Hooft, M.Veltman, Nucl.Phys. B44 (1972) 189. G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B61 (1973) 455. W.A. Bardeen, A.J. Buras, D.W. Duke, T. Muta, Phys. Rev. D18 (1978) 3998. S.A. Larin, Phys. Lett. B303 (1993) 113. J.C. Collins, F. Wilczek, A. Zee, Phys. Rev. D18 (1978) 242. K.G. Chetyrkin, F.V. Tkachov, Phys. Lett. B 114 (1982) 340; K.G. Chetyrkin, V.A. Smirnov, Phys. Lett. B 144 (1984) 419. F.V. Tkachov, preprint INR P-358 (Moscow, 1984); Int. Journ. Mod. Phys. A8 (1993) 2047; G.B. Pivovarov, F.V. Tkachov, ibid. A8 (1993) 2241. K.G. Chetyrkin, V.A. Smirnov, preprint INR P-0518 (Moscow, 1987); K.G. Chetyrkin, Teor.Mat.Fiz. 76 (1988) 207; V.A. Smirnov, Commun. Math. Phys. 134 (1990) 109. S.G. Gorishny, Nucl. Phys. B319 (1989) 633. S.G. Gorishny, S.A. Larin, Nucl. Phys. B283 (1987) 452. J.A.M. Vermaseren, Symbolic Manipulation with Form, published by CAN (Computer Algebra Nederland), Kruislaan 419, 1098 VA Amsterdam, 1991, ISBN 90-74116-01-9. S.A. Larin, F.V. Tkachov, J.A.M. Vermaseren, preprint NIKHEF-H/91-18 (Amsterdam, 1991). D.J. Broadhurst, Z. Phys. C54 (1992) 599. F.V. Tkachov, Phys. Lett. 100B (1981) 65; K.G. Chetyrkin, F.V. Tkachov, Nucl. Phys. B192 (1981) 159. B. Ovrut, H. Schnitzer, Nucl. Phys. B189 (1981) 509. W. Bernreuther, W. Wetzel, Nucl. Phys. B197 (1982) 228. N. Gray, D.J. Broadhurst, W. Grafe, K. Schilcher, Z. Phys. C 48 (1990) 673. Review of particle properties, Particle Data Group, Phys. Rev. D45 (1992) nr. 11.
[^1]: On leave from the Institute for Nuclear Research (INR) of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow 117312.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
[**Joseph I. Kapusta**]{} and [**Axel P. Vischer$^{\dagger}$**]{}\
[*School of Physics and Astronomy*]{}\
[*University of Minnesota*]{}\
[*Minneapolis, MN 55455*]{}
title: |
[NUC-MINN-95/19-T\
July 1995\
]{}
[**INHOMOGENEOUS NUCLEATION OF QUARK–GLUON PLASMA IN HIGH ENERGY NUCLEAR COLLISIONS**]{}
---
Abstract
We estimate the probability that a hard nucleon-nucleon collision is able to nucleate a seed of quark–gluon plasma in the surrounding hot and dense hadronic matter formed during a central collision of two large nuclei at AGS energies. The probability of producing at least one such seed is on the order of 1-100%. We investigate the influence of quark–gluon plasma formation on the observed multiplicity distribution and find that it may lead to noticeable structure in the form of a bump or shoulder.
PACS: 12.38.Mh, 25.75.+r, 24.60.-k
———————————————————————–\
$\dagger$ Address after 1st of October: Niels Bohr Institute, DK-2100, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark.
Introduction
============
One of the mysteries of heavy ion physics at Brookhaven National Laboratory’s AGS is: [*If hadronic cascade event simulators like RQMD [@rqmd] and ARC [@arc] produce energy densities approaching 2 GeV/fm$^3$, yet agree with experiment, where is the quark–gluon plasma?*]{} After all, numerous estimates of the onset of quark–gluon plasma agree that it should occur at about that energy density, and if there is a first order phase transition, then the onset of the mixed phase would occur at an even lower density. One possibility is that no phase transition occurs even at these high densities, but it is difficult to understand how composite objects like hadrons can overlap so strongly in position space without the matter undergoing some qualitative change in character. A second possibility is that the distribution of observed hadrons in the final state is insensitive to the dynamics of the matter when it is most hot and dense. (Unfortunately there are no measurements of direct photons or dileptons at the AGS which might probe this stage of the collision.) There is some evidence for this which comes from artificially modifying hadronic cross sections at high density [@pang]. It may be understood by recognizing that once a system reaches local thermal equilibrium it is basically irrelevant how it got there.
Recently we proposed a third possibility [@us]: [*Most collisions at AGS energies produce superheated hadronic matter and are describable with hadronic cascade simulators, but in rare events a droplet of quark–gluon plasma is nucleated which converts most of the matter to plasma.*]{} We estimated the probability of this to occur, using homogeneous nucleation theory, to be on the order of once every 100 to 1000 central collisions of large nuclei. Our estimate was based on the probability that thermal fluctuations in a homogeneous superheated hadronic gas would produce a plasma droplet, and that this droplet was large enough to overcome its surface free energy to grow. In this paper we consider another source of plasma droplet production which is essentially one of nonthermal origin. Specifically, we estimate the probability that a collision occurs between two highly energetic incoming nucleons, one from the projectile and one from the target, that this collision would have produced many pions if it had occurred in vacuum, but because it occurs in the hot and dense medium its collision products are quark and gluon fields which make a small droplet of plasma. Although there is a large uncertainty in our estimates, we find that this inhomogeneous nucleation of plasma may be more probable than homogeneous nucleation by one to two orders of magnitude.
In this paper we also consider the problem of observation of the effects of nucleation of plasma in rare events. We are guided by observations of multiplicity distributions in $p\bar{p}$ collisions at the CERN and Fermilab colliders. In those distribution, one sees a shoulder developing at high multiplicity at an energy of 540 GeV, which turns into a noticeable bump at higher energies. The real cause of this structure is not known, but may be due to minijet production. If plasma is nucleated in some fraction of central nucleus–nucleus collisions at the AGS, a similar structure may develop.
Kinetic Model of Hard Nucleon-Nucleon Collisions
================================================
In this section we develop a simple kinetic model which allows us to estimate the number of high energy nucleon-nucleon scatterings occurring in the high density medium formed during a collision between heavy nuclei. These scatterings occur when a projectile nucleon penetrates the hot and dense matter to collide with a target nucleon which has also penetrated the hot and dense matter. The energy loss of the colliding nucleons must be taken into account to obtain a reasonable estimate of the energy available for meson production in the nucleon-nucleon collision.
To first approximation we can visualize the initial stage of a heavy ion collision at the AGS in the nucleus-nucleus center-of- momentum frame as two colliding Lorentz contracted disks. See Figure 1. At time $t = 0$ they touch; subsequently they interpenetrate, forming hot and dense matter in the region of overlap. During this stage, additional matter streams into the hot zone even as this zone is expanding along the beam axis. The nucleons streaming in undergo scatterings with the hot matter already present, degrading their longitudinal momentum and producing baryonic isobars and/or mesons. Finally, at time $t_0 = L/2v\gamma$, all the cold nuclear matter has streamed into the region of overlap, and expansion and cooling begins. Here, $L$ is the nuclear thickness, $v$ is the velocity in the center-of-momentum frame, and $\gamma$ is the associated Lorentz contraction factor. This is a very simplified picture of the early stage of the collision, but it seems to semi-quantitatively represent the outcome of both the ARC and RQMD simulations [@rqmd; @arc; @us].
We are interested in the possibility that an incoming projectile nucleon suffers little or no energy loss during its passage to the longitudinal point $z$ inside the hot and dense zone where it encounters a target nucleon which also has suffered little or no energy loss. The energy available in the ensuing nucleon-nucleon collision, $\sqrt{s}$, can go into meson production. Suppose that a large number of pions would be produced if the collision had happened in free space. Clearly, the outgoing quark and gluon fields cannot be represented as asymptotic pion and nucleon states immediately. The fields must expand and become dilute enough to be called real hadrons. If this collision occurs in a high energy density medium, the outgoing quark-gluon fields will encounter other hadrons before they can hadronize. It is reasonable to suppose that this “star burst" will actually be a seed for quark-gluon plasma formation if the surrounding matter is superheated hadronic matter. We need a semi-quantitative model of this physics.
A fundamental result from kinetic theory is that the number of scattering processes of the type 1 + 2 $\rightarrow X$ is given by $$N_{1+2 \rightarrow X}
= \int dt \int d^3 x \int \frac{d^3 p_1}{(2 \pi )^3} \, f_1 ({\bf x},
{\bf p}_1,t) \int \frac{d^3 p_2}{(2 \pi )^3} \, f_2 ({\bf x},{\bf p}_2,t)
\, v_{12} \, \sigma_{1+2 \rightarrow X}(s_{12}) \, .$$ Here $v_{12}$ is a relative velocity, $$v_{12} = \frac{\sqrt{(p_1 \cdot p_2)^2 -m_N^4}}{E_1 \, E_2} \, ,$$ where $p_i$ denotes the four-momentum of nucleon $i$ and $E_i =\sqrt{
{\bf p}_i^2 + m_N^2}$ its energy. The $f_i$ are phase space densities normalized such that the total number of nucleons of type $i$ is $$N_i^{\rm tot} = \int \frac{d^3x d^3p}{(2\pi)^3} f_i({\bf x,p},t) \, .$$ A differential distribution in the variable $Y$ is obtained by replacing $\sigma$ with $d\sigma/dY$.
For our purpose it is reasonable to represent the colliding nuclei as cylinders with radius $R$ and thickness $L$. All the action is along the beam axis. We assume that the phase space distributions are independent of transverse coordinates $x$ and $y$ and of transverse momentum. Integrating over the cross sectional area of the nuclei, and counting only those collisions that occur within the hot zone, yields $$N_{1+2 \rightarrow X} = \pi R^2 \int_0^{t_0} dt \int_{-vt}^{vt} dz
\int \frac{dp_{1z} \, dp_{2z}}{(2 \pi)^2}
f_1 (z,p_{1z},t) \, f_2 (z,p_{2z},t) \, v_{12}
\, \sigma_{1+2 \rightarrow X}(s_{12}) \, .$$ Here there is a change in notation: $f_i(z,p_{iz},t)/2\pi$ is the probability per unit volume to find a nucleon $i$ with longitudinal momentum $p_{iz}$ at longitudinal position $z$ at time $t$. The integration limits on $z$ ensure that the collisions under consideration really occur in the hot zone; see Figure 1. The integration limits on $t$ mean that we only count those collisions which occur before the system begins its cooling stage. The depth in the hot zone to which nucleon 1 has penetrated is $d_1 = (vt+z)/2$, and the depth to which nucleon 2 has penetrated is $d_2 = (vt-z)/2$. We neglect the decrease in velocity of the nucleons as they travel through the hot zone. This is an acceptable approximation because in the end we are interested only in those nucleons which suffer a small energy loss in traversing the hot matter.
We construct the phase space distribution as follows:
> $H(x,N)$ = probability that the nucleon has momentum fraction $x$ after making N collisions;\
> $S(N,d)$ = probability that the nucleon has made $N$ collisions after penetrating to a depth $d$;\
> $\sum_{N=0}^{\infty} H(x,N) S(N,d)$ = probability that the nucleon has momentum fraction $x$ after penetrating to a depth $d$.
The distribution functions are normalized to unity. $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{0}^{1} \frac{dx}{x} \, H(x,N) &=& 1 \\
\sum_{N = 0}^{\infty} \, S(N,d) &=& 1\end{aligned}$$ The phase space density of nucleon $i$ is then taken to be $$\frac{dp_{zi}}{2\,\pi} \, f_i (z,p_{iz},t) =
\gamma \, n_0 \, \frac{dx_i}{x_i} \sum_{N_i = 0}^{\infty}
\, H(x_i,N_i) \, S(N_i,d_i) \, ,$$ where $n_0$ is the average baryon density in a nucleus, about 0.145 nucleons/fm$^3$. As a check, we can compute the number of nucleons which have entered the hot zone as a function of time. $$N_i^{\rm part}(t) = \int \frac{d^3x dp_{iz}}{2\pi} f(z,p_{1z},t) \, \Theta
(d_i)
= 2\pi R^2 \gamma n_0 v t$$ The step function fixes the limits on the $z$ integration. The number of participating nucleons grows linearly with time, and at time $t_0$ we get $N_i^{\rm part}(t_0) = \pi R^2 L n_0$, which is the total number of nucleons in the nucleus.
The number of elementary nucleon-nucleon collisions can now be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
N_{1+2 \rightarrow X} &=& \pi R^2 \gamma^2 n_0^2 \int_0^{t_0} dt
\int_{-vt}^{vt} dz \int_0^1 \frac{dx_1}{x_1} \int_0^1 \frac{dx_2}{x_2}
\, v_{12} \, \sigma_{1+2 \rightarrow X}(s_{12}) \nonumber \\
&\,& \sum_{N_1 = 0}^{\infty} \sum_{N_2 = 0}^{\infty} H(x_1,N_1)\,S(N_1,d_1)\,
H(x_2,N_2)\,S(N_2,d_2) \, .\end{aligned}$$ Since the nucleons’ velocities are antiparallel the velocity factor is $$v_{12} = \frac{x_1 p_0}{\sqrt{x_1^2 p_0^2 + m_N^2}}
+ \frac{x_2 p_0}{\sqrt{x_2^2 p_0^2 + m_N^2}} \, ,$$ where $p_0$ is the beam momentum in the center-of-momentum frame.
The survival function $S(N,d)$ is characterized by the mean free path $\lambda$ of nucleons in the hot and dense hadronic matter. For a dilute gas the inverse of the mean free path is the sum of products of the cross section of the nucleon with the density of objects it can collide with. $$\lambda^{-1} = \sum_i \, n_i \sigma_i$$ Average particle densities, including baryons and mesons, were computed in ref. [@us] for the hot and dense matter under consideration. A plot of the density as a function of beam energy is shown in Figure 2. Assuming an average hadron-nucleon cross section of 25 mb, we find $\lambda$ = 0.4 fm at a laboratory beam energy of 11.6 GeV/nucleon. This is very short, and just emphasizes the physics we discussed in the introduction concerning hadronic matter versus quark-gluon plasma.
We assume that the collisions suffered by the nucleons are independent and can be characterized by a Poisson distribution. $$S(N,d) = \frac{1}{N!} \left( \frac{d}{\lambda}\right)^N
\exp{\left(-\frac{d}{\lambda}\right)}$$ Here $d/\lambda$ is the average number of scatterings in a distance $d$.
The invariant distribution function $H(x,N)$ describes the momentum degradation of a nucleon propagating through the hot zone. This distribution function was introduced in the evolution model of Hwa [@hwa]. In this model the nucleon propagates on a straight line trajectory and interacts with target particles contained within a tube with area given by the elementary nucleon–nucleon cross section $\sigma_{NN}$. Csernai and Kapusta [@evol] solved the resulting evolution equations and found that the invariant distribution function in this model is given by $$\begin{aligned}
H(x,N) = x \sum_{n=1}^N \left( \begin{array}{c} N\\n \end{array} \right)
w^n (1-w)^{N-n}\,\, \frac{(-\ln{x})^{n-1}}{(n-1)!} +(1-w)^N \, \delta (x-1)
\, .\end{aligned}$$ The $\delta$-function represents elastic and soft inelastic contributions to the evolution of the nucleon through the matter. The probability $w$ is the ratio of inelastic to total nucleon– nucleon cross section. It corresponds to the probability that the nucleon scatters inelastically and therefore drops out of the evolution described by $H$; it is approximately 0.8 in free space. Csernai and Kapusta found that it reduces to about 0.5 for nucleons propagating through a nucleus. This value allowed them to obtain a good representation of data with beam energies in the range of 6-405 GeV. In our case the nucleon is propagating through hot and dense hadronic matter. We keep $w$ as a free parameter since we don’t know how the value of $w$ changes due to the thermal excitations and the increased density.
We are interested in the number of pion-producing nucleon-nucleon collisions with a relatively high center-of-momentum energy squared $s$. Our basic result from this section is $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dN^{\rm hard}_{\rm in}}{ds} &=& \pi R^2 \gamma^2 n_0^2 \,
\sigma_{\rm in}(s)
\int_0^{t_0} dt \int_{-vt}^{vt} dz
\int_0^1 \frac{dx_1}{x_1} \int_0^1 \frac{dx_2}{x_2} \,
v_{12} \, \delta(s-s_{12}) \nonumber \\
&\,& \sum_{N_1 = 0}^{\infty} \sum_{N_2 = 0}^{\infty} H(x_1,N_1)\,
S(N_1,d_1(z,t))\,H(x_2,N_2)\,S(N_2,d_2(z,t)) \, .
\label{dncoll}\end{aligned}$$ Here $\sigma_{\rm in}$ is the inelastic nucleon-nucleon cross section, and $\sqrt{s_{12}}$ is the total energy in the nucleon-nucleon collision where the nucleons have momentum fractions $x_1$ and $x_2$.
Meson Production Cross Sections
===============================
A phase transition to quark–gluon plasma will become thermodynamically favorable if the energy density is large enough. The corresponding phase boundary in the temperature/chemical potential plane was explored in [@us]. Until now we have only selected nucleon-nucleon scatterings in which the total available energy $\sqrt{s}$ is large. In addition, we need to specify what fraction of this energy goes into meson production. In this section we estimate the pion number distribution function $P_n (s)$, which is the probability of producing $n$ pions in a nucleon–nucleon collision in free space. The pion number distribution function is linked to the cross section $\sigma_n$ for producing $n$ pions by $$P_n (s) = \sigma_n (s)/ \sigma_{\rm in}(s) \,.
\label{topo}$$ Given $P_n (s)$ we can estimate the number of nucleon-nucleon collisions that would lead to the production of $n$ pions as $$N_n = \int_{s_{\rm min}}^{4E_0^2} ds\,P_n (s) \,
\frac{dN_{\rm in}^{\rm hard}}{ds}\,.
\label{number}$$ The lower limit of integration is fixed by kinematics and the upper limit is determined by the beam energy.
We shall approximate the pion number distribution function $P_n(s)$ with a binomial [@comment] and choose the parameters of this binomial such that we have some rough agreement with experiment [@topo]. $$P_n (s) = \left( \begin{array}{c} n_{\rm max}\\n \end{array} \right)
\xi^n
(1-\xi)^{n_{\rm max}-n}
\label{bino}$$ The maximum number of pions produced in a nucleon-nucleon collision is determined by kinematics. $$n_{\rm max} (s)= {\rm Integer} \left(\frac{\sqrt{s}-2m_N)}{m_{\pi}}\right)
\label{nc}$$ The parameter $\xi$ is related to the mean multiplicity by $$\xi(s) = \frac{\langle n \rangle}{n_{\rm max}}
= \frac{3}{n_{\rm max}}\,\left(\frac{1}{4} \langle n_{pp}^- \rangle
+\frac{1}{2} \langle n_{pn}^- \rangle
+\frac{1}{4} \langle n_{nn}^- \rangle\right)\, .
\label{q}$$ Here $\langle n \rangle$ is the average pion multiplicity averaged over $pp$, $pn$ and $nn$ collisions while $\langle n_{pp}^- \rangle$, $\langle n_{pn}^- \rangle$ and $\langle n_{nn}^- \rangle$ represent the average negative pion multiplicity in those collisions. All average multiplicities are functions of $s$, of course. The factor of 3 is due to isospin averaging.
Experimental data were compiled and parametrized in [@multi] as $$\begin{aligned}
\langle n_{pp}^- \rangle &=& -0.41 + 0.79 F(s) \nonumber \\
\langle n_{pn}^- \rangle &=& -0.14 + 0.81 F(s) \nonumber \\
\langle n_{nn}^- \rangle &=& +0.35 + 0.77 F(s) \, .
\label{paras}\end{aligned}$$ The function $F$ was introduced by Fermi [@fermi], $$F(s) = \frac{(\sqrt{s}-2m_N)^{3/4}}{s^{1/8}}\, ,
\label{ferf}$$ with $s$ measured in GeV$^2$. The parametrizations in (\[paras\]) describe the data rather well except in the threshold region. We approximate the inelastic nucleon–nucleon cross section $\sigma_{\rm in}$ by the inelastic proton–proton cross section. A convenient parametrization is given in [@topo], $$\sigma_{\rm in} = 30.9 - 28.9\,p_L^{-2.46} - 0.835\,\ln{p_L}
+0.192\,\ln^2{p_L}\, ,
\label{sin}$$ where $p_L$ is the laboratory momentum in GeV/c and the cross section is in mb. This parametrization is good for $p_L > 0.968$ GeV/c.
The pion production cross sections, as described above, are displayed in Figure 3. They have the right shapes and the right orders of magnitude compared to data [@topo]. However, direct comparison is not possible. First of all, data generally does not exist for final states with $\pi^+$, $\pi^-$, and $\pi^0$. Usually, exclusive experiments can only measure charged mesons or neutral mesons, not both. Secondly, we have not been so sophisticated as to include vector mesons, the $\eta$ meson, and kaons. For our purpose such sophistication is probably not necessary. We care only about the probability that a nucleon-nucleon collision leads to a significant amount of energy release in the sense of conversion of initial kinetic energy to meson mass. We are essentially basing our results on the total inelastic cross section, the average meson multiplicity, kinematics, and entropy. Our analysis would be better if we had a handle on the width of the multiplicity distribution, averaged over the initial state isospin and summed over the final state isospin.
Star Burst Probabilities
========================
In this section we put together the ingredients developed in the last two and compute the number of star bursts which may become nucleation sites or seeds for plasma formation and growth.
The nucleon-nucleon collisions may be referred to as primary-primary, primary-secondary, and secondary-secondary, depending on whether the nucleons have scattered from thermalized particles in the hot zone (secondary) or not (primary). The easiest contribution to obtain is the primary-primary. All integrations and summations can be done analytically with the result $$\frac{dN^{\rm prim-prim}_{\rm in}}{ds} =
4\pi R^2 \sigma_{\rm in}(s) \left(\frac{\lambda \gamma n_0}
{w}\right)^2 \, \left[1-\left(1+w\,\frac{vt_0}{\lambda}\right)\,
\exp{\left(-\frac{vt_0}{\lambda}\right)}\right] \,
\delta (s-4E_0^2) \, .$$ The formulas for the primary-secondary and secondary-secondary contributions can be simplified to some extent but in the end some summations remain which must be done numerically.
The number of nucleon-nucleon collisions as a function of $s$ are plotted in Figure 4. Both $w$ = 0.5 and 0.8 are shown; there is little difference. The laboratory beam energy is 11.6 GeV per nucleon and the nuclei are gold. The spike represents the delta function from primary-primary collisions. The contribution from primary-secondary collisions falls from about 11 to 7 GeV$^{-2}$ as $s$ goes from 9 to 25 GeV. The contribution from secondary-secondary collisions is almost negligible.
The pion multiplicity distribution arising from these hard collisions is shown in Figure 5. It drops by more than nine orders of magnitude in going from 6 pion production to 18 pion production. Typically there is only one hard nucleon-nucleon collision leading to the production of seven pions in a central gold-gold collision at this energy.
We are interested in the possibility that one of these star bursts nucleates quark-gluon plasma. The precise criterion for this to happen is not known. However, we can make some reasonable estimates. In [@us] we estimated that a critical size plasma droplet at these temperatures and baryon densities would have a mass of about 4 GeV. Any local fluctuation more massive than this would grow rapidly, converting the surrounding superheated hadronic matter to quark-gluon plasma. A similar estimate, based on the MIT bag model, a simpler hadronic equation of state (free pion gas), and with zero baryon density, was obtained much earlier [@old]. Another estimate is obtained by the argument that at these relatively modest beam energies most meson production occurs through the formation and decay of baryon resonances: $\Delta$, $N^*$, etc. The most massive observed resonances are in the range of 2 to 2.5 GeV. Putting two of these in close physical proximity leads to a mass of 4 to 5 GeV. We now need an estimate of the number of pions this critical mass corresponds to. Let us assume that each particle, nucleon and meson, carries away a kinetic energy equal to one half its rest mass. If a particle would have too great a kinetic energy then it might escape from the nucleon-nucleon collision volume long before its neighbors and so would not be counted in the rest mass of the local fluctuation. Taking 4 GeV, dividing by 1.5, and subtracting twice the nucleon mass leaves about 6 pion rest masses. So our most optimistic estimate is that one needs a nucleon-nucleon collision which would have led to 6 pions if it had occurred in free space. One might be less optimistic and require the production of 8 or 10 pions instead.
In Figure 6 we show the total number $N_>$ of nucleon-nucleon collisions which would lead to the production of at least $n_{\rm crit}$ pions. We may view $n_{\rm crit}$ as the minimum number necessary to form a nucleation site or plasma seed. If $n_{\rm crit}$ = 6 is the relevant number then there are on average 7 such nucleon-nucleon collisions per central gold-gold collision. If 8 or 10 are the relevant multiplicities then there is only one such critical star burst every 1 or every 25 central gold-gold collisions, respectively. These numbers vary somewhat with $w$; the numbers quoted are averages. Conservatively, we may conclude that the probability of at least one plasma seed appearing via this mechanism is in the range of 1 to 100% per central gold-gold collision at the highest energy attainable at the AGS. These probabilities are about one to two orders of magnitude greater than those estimated in [@us] on the basis of thermal homogeneous nucleation theory.
Consequences for the Multiplicity Distribution
==============================================
The results of the last section confirm the possibility of producing quark–gluon plasma droplets in rare events at AGS. Once formed the droplets grow rapidly due to the significant superheating of the hadronic matter. This process was explored in [@us] where it was found that the radii of such droplets can reach $3-5$ fm. Since the phase transition is occurring so far out of equilibrium we would expect a significant increase in the entropy of the final state. This could be seen in the ratio of pions to baryons, for example, or in the ratio of deuterons to protons [@me]. Along with the increased entropy should come a slowing down of the radial expansion due to a softening in the matter, that is, a reduction in pressure for the same energy density. Together, these would imply a larger source size and a longer lifetime as seen by hadron interferometry [@scott].
In this section we study one of the experimental ramifications in detail. Specifically, we look at the charged particle multiplicity distributions and investigate under what conditions one might be able to detect the rare events from the structure of this distribution.
In Figure 7 we plot the ratio of entropy to total baryon number $S/B$ for the hadronic and quark–gluon plasma phase for fixed beam energies. Fixed beam energy means that initially both the energy density and the baryon number density of the system is given which then determine the corresponding entropies via the equation of state. We use the equation of state discussed in [@us] for all further calculations. It is helpful to consider two extreme and opposite scenarios. Either the matter stays all the time in the hadronic phase, or the matter has been completely converted to quark–gluon plasma by the time $t_0$ and only hadronizes later. The difference of the entropies produced in these two scenarios is given by the difference of the two curves in Figure 7. It represents an upper limit on the additional number of pions produced. Since the temperature is comparable to or larger than the pion mass the excess entropy is proportional to the maximum number of excess pions $$\begin{aligned}
3 \frac{\Delta N_{\rm -}}{B} = \frac{1}{3.6} \frac{\Delta S}{B}\, .
\label{npi}\end{aligned}$$ The number of additional negatively charged pions per baryon $\Delta N_{\rm -}/B$ is linearly related to the entropy difference $\Delta S$ determined from Figure 7. The result is shown in Figure 8 for central Au + Au collisions. At beam energies of $11.6$ GeV/A we produce $0.33$ additional negatively charged pions per participating baryon. This is an upper limit, and in reality we would expect less.
These additional mesons might be visible in the charged particle multiplicity distribution which would have the form $$\begin{aligned}
P_n = (1-q) \, P_{\; n}^{\rm had} (N_{\rm had})
+ q \, P^{\rm qg}_{\; n} (N_{\rm qg})\, .
\label{double}\end{aligned}$$ Here $q$ is the probability of finding a central event in which plasma is formed, $P_{\; n}^{\rm had}$ is the multiplicity distribution for purely hadronic events with mean $N_{\rm had}$, and $P^{\rm qg}_{\; n}$ is the multiplicity distribution for events in which a plasma was formed with mean $N_{\rm qg}$.
Experimentally one would expect to see a bump in $P_n$ at larger values of $n$. A structure like that was found in charged particle multiplicity distributions in $p\bar{p}$ collisions at the CERN [@ua5; @fuglesang] and Fermilab [@cdf; @e735] colliders. For energies larger then 540 GeV a shoulder develops in the multiplicity distribution, becoming more pronounced as the beam energy increases. It is assumed that this structure is due to the onset of minijets. It is definitely an indication of new physics.
In Figure 9 we plot the charged particle multiplicity distribution for $p\bar{p}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 900$ GeV from the UA5 collaboration [@ua5]. For energies less then 500 GeV it was found that the distribution could be well described by a negative binomial distribution of the form $$\begin{aligned}
P_n (\bar{n}, k) =
\left( \begin{array}{c} n+k-1\\ k-1 \end{array} \right)
\left[ \frac{ \bar{n} / k }{ 1+(\bar{n} / k)} \right]^n
\frac{1}{[1+(\bar{n} / k)]^k} \, .
\label{nbd}\end{aligned}$$ The parameter $k$ characterizes the width of the distribution. For $k
\rightarrow \infty$ we recover a Poisson distribution, the distribution with the smallest width. One can see from the figure that at 900 GeV a single negative binomial (NBD) cannot describe the data anymore. A double negative binomial (DNBD) of the form discussed in eq. (\[double\]) on the other hand describes it very well. The question remains to what extent a similar analysis might be able to reveal rare events of quark–gluon plasma production at AGS.
A rough criteria for the observability of such structure in distributions of the form (\[double\]) is $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{2}{\sqrt{N_{\rm bin}}} P_{N_{\rm qg}}^{\rm had} =
q P_{N_{\rm qg}}^{\rm qg} \, .
\label{criteria}\end{aligned}$$ Here $N_{\rm bin}$ is the number of observed central Au + Au collisions for which the central multiplicity of the bin is $N_{\rm qg}$. The right–hand side of eq. (\[criteria\]) is the magnitude of the rare events to the overall multiplicity, while the left hand side gives the statistical resolution. The assumption here is that $q$ is small, so that at $N_{\rm qg}$ we can use $P_n \sim P_n^{\rm had}$ for the left–hand side.
To obtain a feeling for the shape and applicability of eqs. (\[nbd\]) and (\[criteria\]) we plot in Figures 10 and 11 different negatively charged particle multiplicity distributions as might be expected for central Au + Au collisions at AGS with $E_{\rm beam} = 11.6$ GeV/A. From [@multi] we obtained the mean for purely hadronic events to be $N_{\rm had} = 145$. This is slightly larger than the value $N_{\rm had} = 131 \pm 21$ cited in [@multi] for $355 \pm 7$ participating nucleons since we are assuming that all $2 A$ nucleons are participating in the collision. The result depicted in Figure 8 for the upper limit on the additional number of negatively charged pions produced per participating baryon allows us to deduce an upper limit of $N_{\rm qg} = 193$ on the mean for the events with quark–gluon plasma production. In Figure 10 we plot the negatively charged particle multiplicity distribution defined in eq. (\[double\]) for different values of the probability $q$. We use Poisson distributions for $P^{\rm had}$ and $P^{\rm qg}$ and take the upper limit for rare events $N_{\rm qg} = 193$ as the mean for $P^{\rm qg}$. A shoulder develops for small $q$ and becomes more pronounced the larger $q$ is. In Figure 11 we fix $q=0.1$ and investigate the effect of different values of the mean $N_{\rm qg}$ of the distribution for events with some quark–gluon plasma production. If this mean is close to the mean of purely hadronic events we will only find some broadening of the overall distribution. This would be the case if the phase transition is weakly first order or second order. For larger $N_{\rm qg}$ we begin to see a well established shoulder develop. For large $N_{\rm qg}$ a second maximum appears.
It is clear that the exact values of the probability $q$ and of the mean $N_{\rm qg}$ of rare events will be crucial for the experimental observation of a phase transition. We have provided a first glimpse into this problem, but in the end it is up to experiment to discover new physics in multiplicity distributions at the AGS.
Summary and Conclusion
======================
We have estimated the probability that hard nucleon-nucleon collisions initiate the formation of seeds of quark-gluon plasma at AGS energies. Based on our previous studies we know that these will grow rapidly to convert most of the superheated hadronic matter to quark-gluon plasma. Our estimates are based on reasonable assumptions and approximations to the kinetic theory of hadronic physics. Better estimates could be made using event simulators like RQMD and ARC together with more detailed knowledge of multi-particle production in nucleon-nucleon collisions. We find that anywhere from 1% to 100% of central Au + Au collisions should lead to significant quark-gluon plasma formation. A major assumption is that there is a phase transition and that it is first order.
We have already proposed that the formation of plasma in rare events should have an observable consequence for hadron interferometry, deuteron production, and the meson multiplicity distribution. In this paper we have studied the effect on the multiplicity distribution. It would be observable as a shoulder or second maximum at some multiplicity higher than the most probable one. If there is a phase transition but it is second order or weakly first order then the effect will be much more difficult to see. We eagerly await the results of experiments.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank R. Venugopalan and C. J. Waddington for stimulating discussions and L. Csernai and P. Lichard for comments on the manuscript. This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under grant number DE-FG02-87ER40328.
[99]{}
H. Sorge, H. Stöcker and W. Greiner, Annals Phys. (NY) [**192**]{}, 266 (1989); R. Mattiello, H. Sorge, H. Stöcker and W. Greiner, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**63**]{}, 1459 (1989); H. Sorge, A. V. Keitz, R. Mattiello, H. Stöcker and W. Greiner, Phys. Lett. [**243B**]{}, 7 (1990); A. V. Kreitz, L. Winckelmann, A. Jahns, H. Sorge, H. Stöcker and W. Greiner, Phys. Lett. [**263B**]{}, 353 (1991).
Y. Pang, T. J. Schlagel and S. H. Kahana, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}, 2743 (1992); T. J. Schlagel, Y. Pang and S. H. Kahana, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{}, 3290 (1992); S. H. Kahana, Y. Pang, T. J. Schlagel and C. Dover, Phys. Rev. C [**47**]{}, R1356 (1993).
Y. Pang, proceedings of [*Quark Matter ’95*]{} (Monterey, CA, Jan. 1995) to appear.
J. I. Kapusta, A. P. Vischer and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. C [**51**]{}, 901 (1995).
R. C. Hwa, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**52**]{}, 492 (1984).
L. P. Csernai and J. I. Kapusta Phys. Rev. D [**29**]{}, 2664 (1984); ibid. [**31**]{}, 2795 (1985).
There is always some uncertainty in how much of the $n$ = 0 term in the binomial is to be associated with diffractive and elastic events; this affects the exact measure of $\sigma_{\rm in}$ as used in eq. (15). These uncertainties are relatively minor for us.
A. Baldini, V. Flaminio, W. G. Moorhead and D. R. O. Morrison, in [*Landolt–Börnstein*]{}, New Series I/12b, Springer, 1988, pp. 149–180.
M. Gaździcki and D. Röhrich, Z. Phys. C [**65**]{}, 215 (1995).
E. Fermi, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**5**]{}, 570 (1950).
J. I. Kapusta, Phys. Lett. [**143B**]{}, 233 (1984).
P. J. Siemens and J. I. Kapusta, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**43**]{}, 1486 (1979).
S. Pratt, Phys. Rev. D [**33**]{}, 1314 (1986).
UA5 Collaboration, Z. Phys. C [**43**]{}, 357 (1989).
C. Fuglesang, for the UA5 Collaboration: “UA5 Multiplicity Distributions and Fits of Various Functions", proceedings of [*Multiparticle Dynamics: Festschrift for Leon van Hove*]{} (La Thuile, Valle d’Aosta, Italy, March 1989) eds. A Giovannini and W. Kittel, World Scientific, 1990.
F. Rimondi, for the CDF Collaboration: “Multiplicity Distributions in pp Interactions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 1800 GeV", proceedings of the [*XXIII International Symposium on Multiparticle Dynamics*]{} (Aspen, CO, Sept. 1993) eds. M. M. Block and A. R. White, World Scientific, 1994.
C. S. Lindsey, for the E735 Collaboration, Nuc. Phys. [**A544**]{}, 343c (1992).
Figure Captions {#figure-captions .unnumbered}
===============
Figure 1: Schematic of a central collision between two nuclei. Nucleus 1 is incident from the left and nucleus 2 is incident from the right. The shaded area is the hot and dense overlap zone which is expanding along the beam axis with the original beam velocity $v$. A hard nucleon-nucleon collision leading to a large energy release, or star burst, is indicated at the longitudinal position $z$.\
Figure 2: The density of hadrons $n_{\rm tot}$ in the hot and dense overlap zone as a function of laboratory beam energy $E_{\rm beam}$.\
Figure 3: The pion production cross sections $\sigma_{\rm n}$ versus energy $s$ as computed according to the text. Note that they are averaged over initial state isospin.\
Figure 4: Distribution $dN/ds$ in $s$ of hard nucleon-nucleon collisions taking place in the hot zone. The value of $w$ is 0.5 (4a) and 0.8 (4b).\
Figure 5: Number of hard nucleon-nucleon collisions $N_n$ leading to a particular final state pion multiplicity $n$.\
Figure 6: Number of hard nucleon-nucleon collisions $N_{\rm >}$ with at least $n_{\rm crit}$ pions produced.\
Figure 7: Ratio of entropy to baryon number $S/B$ for fixed beam energy.\
Figure 8: Upper limit on the additional number of negative pions produced per participating baryon $\Delta N_{\rm -}/B$ in central Au + Au collisions as a function of beam energy.\
Figure 9: Charged particle multiplicity distribution for $\bar{p} p$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 900 GeV. The parameters for the fits are taken from [@fuglesang] with a probability of the second, high multiplicity, component being 0.35.\
Figure 10: Negatively charged particle multiplicity distribution for central Au+ Au collisions at $E_{\rm beam} = 11.6$ GeV/A for different values of the probability q. The mean for purely hadronic events is taken to be $N_{\rm had} = 145$ while the mean for events with quark–gluon plasma production is taken to be $N_{\rm qg} = 193$.\
Figure 11: Negatively charged particle multiplicity distribution for central Au + Au collisions at $E_{\rm beam} = 11.6$ GeV/A for different values of the mean $N_{\rm qg}$ for rare events. The probability is fixed at $q=0.1$ and the hadronic mean multiplicity is fixed at $N_{\rm had} = 145$.\
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We discuss an experimental approach allowing to prepare antihydrogen atoms for the GBAR experiment. We study the feasibility of all necessary experimental steps: The capture of incoming $\bar{\rm H}^+$ ions at keV energies in a deep linear RF trap, sympathetic cooling by laser cooled Be$^+$ ions, transfer to a miniaturized trap and Raman sideband cooling of an ion pair to the motional ground state, and further reducing the momentum of the wavepacket by adiabatic opening of the trap. For each step, we point out the experimental challenges and discuss the efficiency and characteristic times, showing that capture and cooling are possible within a few seconds.'
address:
- |
Département de Physique, Université d’Evry Val d’Essonne\
Rue du père André Jarlan\
Evry 91025, France\
Laboratoire Kastler Brossel UMR 8552, UPMC, CNRS, ENS, C 74, Université Pierre et Marie Curie\
4 place Jussieu, Paris, 75252, France\
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
- |
Laboratoire Kastler Brossel UMR 8552, UPMC, CNRS, ENS, C 74, Université Pierre et Marie Curie\
4 place Jussieu, Paris, 75252, France\
[email protected]
- |
QUANTUM, Institut für Physik, Universität Mainz, D-55128 Mainz, Germany\
[email protected], [email protected]
author:
- 'LAURENT HILICO, JEAN-PHILIPPE KARR, ALBANE DOUILLET'
- PAUL INDELICATO
- SEBASTIAN WOLF and FERDINAND SCHMIDT KALER
title: 'Preparing single ultra-cold antihydrogen atoms for the free-fall in GBAR'
---
Introduction
============
The GBAR project aims at measuring the earth gravity acceleration hereafter denoted $\bar{g}$ felt by an antihydrogen atom $\bar{\rm H}$, using a free-fall technique at first[@Walz2004; @Perez; @SPSC342] and possibly spectroscopy of $\bar{\rm H}$ gravitational states in the future[@Voronin2012; @Dufour2013]. Other collaborations AEGIS[@Aegis], ATHENA-ALPHA[@Alpha], ATRAP[@Atrap] pursue the same goal using different methods. The specificity of the GBAR project is to prepare a single antihydrogen atom at a temperature of the order of 10 $\mu$K, to obtain a sub-percent accuracy[@Dufour2014] on $\bar{g}$. After a brief explanation of the scheme proposed for the GBAR experiment, we discuss in detail the trapping and sympathetic cooling of antihydrogen ions.
In the GBAR experimental scheme[@Walz2004; @SPSC342], neutral antihydrogen is prepared by photodetachment of the excess positron of a sympathetically cooled $\bar{\rm H}^+$ trapped ion. The photodetachment is performed using a pulsed laser. The start time of the free-fall is the photodetachment pulse time. The stop time corresponds to the annihilation of the $\bar{\rm H}$ on the detection plate. Obviously, reducing the velocity spread of $\bar{\rm H}^+$ atoms is indispensable for determining $\bar{g}$ with high precision.
The $\bar{\rm H}^+$ ions are produced in two steps in a collision cell by sending keV antiprotons from the ELENA ring on a room temperature positronium cloud. The first step produces antihydrogen atoms and the second one the $\bar{\rm H}^+$ ions following the reactions: $$\bar{p}+Ps \rightarrow \bar{\rm H}+e^-\hspace{0.5cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.5cm}\bar{\rm H}+Ps \rightarrow \bar{\rm H}^+ + e^-.$$ The reaction cross sections have been evaluated by P. Comini et al.[@Comini2013], predicting that bunches of a few $\bar{\rm H}^+$ can be produced using state-of-the-art Ps sources. Since positronium is much lighter than $\bar{\rm p}$, the $\bar{\rm H}^+$ energy distribution is linked to that of the $\bar{\rm p}$ bunch produced by the ELENA ring[@Elena] (whose expected characteristics are 100 keV mean energy and a 4$\pi$ mm mrad emittance). The $\bar{\rm p}$ bunch is decelerated to an energy of a few keV using a drift tube. The kinetic energy spread of the $\bar{\rm p}$ bunch and hence of the $\bar{\rm H}^+$ ion bunch is about 300 eV corresponding to a temperature of 2.3$\times 10^{+6}$ K.
The relative resolution on $\bar{g}$ that can be obtained measuring the free-fall time of a single particle is given by[@Dufour2014] $$\frac{\Delta\bar{g}}{\bar{g}}=2\sqrt{\left(\frac{\Delta\zeta}{2H}\right)^2+\left(\frac{\Delta v}{\sqrt{2\bar{g}H}}\right)^2}\label{eq_deltagsurg}$$ where $\Delta\zeta$ and $\Delta v$ are the position and velocity dispersions in the vertical direction. In the case of a quantum particle at the Heisenberg limit, $\Delta\zeta$ and $\Delta v$ are linked by the uncertainty relation $m\Delta v\Delta\zeta=\hbar/2$ where $m$ is the $\bar{\rm H}$ inertial mass. An optimum resolution $(\Delta\bar{g}/\bar{g})_{opt}=2^{1/4}\hbar^{1/2}m^{-1/2}\bar{g}^{-1/4}H^{-3/4}$ is obtained for $\Delta v_{opt}=2^{-3/4}\hbar^{1/2}m^{-1/2}\bar{g}^{1/4}H^{-1/4}$ leading to $\Delta v_{opt}=$ 2.6 mm/s and $(\Delta\bar{g}/\bar{g})_{opt}=1.7\times10^{-4}$ assuming $\bar{g}=g$ and $H=1$ m.
The recoil due to the absorption of the 1.64 $\mu$m detachment photon is $h/(m\lambda)=23$ cm/s and may be set in the horizontal plane so that its influence on the free-fall vanishes. The recoil due to the excess energy can be made small using threshold detachment. The associated energy is 0.3 m/s under the realistic assumption that the photon energy is 1 $\mu$eV above detachment threshold. Thus photodetachment prevents reaching the optimal free-fall conditions even if the initial ion were perfectly motionless. Our goal vertical velocity dispersion is $\Delta v\approx1$ m/s, Eq. \[eq\_deltagsurg\] is then dominated by the second term leading to $\Delta\bar{g}/\bar{g}=\sqrt{2}\Delta v/\sqrt{\bar{g}H}$ = 0.4 per detected atom. A 1% resolution can be obtained by averaging on 1600 events.
A transverse initial velocity of the order of 1 m/s is also required to avoid a too large detection area for the $\bar{\rm H}^+$ annihilation plates. Those velocities correspond to energies of the order of 5.2 neV or 120 $\mu$K per degree of freedom. The $\bar{\rm H}^+$ cooling challenge is to bridge a 10 to 11 orders of magnitude gap on the ion temperature, going from the classical world of particle beam physics to the ultimate frontiers of quantum world. Indeed, if one considers the ground state of a quantum harmonic oscillator of mass $m$ = 1 a.u. and angular frequency $\omega$, the velocity spread is given by $\Delta v=\sqrt{\hbar\omega/2m}$. $\Delta v=1$ m/s leads to $\omega=2\pi\times
5$ MHz. This is the typical secular motion frequencies that are achieved in ion traps, showing that the GBAR requirements can only be satisfied using ground state cooling techniques[@Leibfried2003].
$\bar{\rm H}^+$, antimatter equivalent of H$^-$, is extremely fragile against collisions with regular matter such that buffer gas cooling is not possible. Moreover, $\bar{\rm H}^+$ is a single electronic level atom that cannot be directly laser cooled. Hence, we propose to use sympathetic cooling by the lighest laser cooled ion: $^9$Be$^+$.
Antihydrogen positive ion capture and Doppler cooling {#sec_capt_and_cooling}
=====================================================
Since only a few $\bar{\rm H}^+$ ions are expected in each bunch, a nearly 100% capture efficiency is required. To that end, the GBAR project will first use capture and Doppler laser cooling step in a mm scale RF linear trap before transferring a single $\bar{\rm H}^+$ ion into a miniaturized trap (called precision trap in the following) to perform ground state cooling of a Be$^+$/$\bar{\rm H}^+$ ion pair. In Sect. \[sec\_capt\_and\_cooling\], we discuss the capture and sympathetic cooling of a $\bar{H}^+$ ion in a big Be$^+$ crystal. In Sect. \[sec\_precision\_trap\], we discuss the separation of the cold $\bar{\rm H}^+$ ion and injection in the precision trap for ground state sideband sympathetic cooling before neutralization and $\bar{\rm H}$ release.
$\bar{\rm H}^+$ ion capture
---------------------------
The capture apparatus is depicted in Fig. \[fig\_capt\_trap\]. It is made of a RF quadrupole guide and a biased segmented linear trap described below.
![Quadrupole guide and biased linear RF Paul trap used to decelerate and trap the $\bar{\rm H}^+$ ion bunch. $L$= 30 mm.[]{data-label="fig_capt_trap"}](fig_1_capt_trap){width="7cm"}
If the $\bar{p}$ are not precooled below 300 eV, the kinetic energy spread of the $\bar{\rm H}^+$ ion bunch is large, and requires a deep trap. The trapping depth of a linear trap is given by $U_{max}=qV_{RF}/8$ where q is the stability parameter and $V_{RF}$ the applied voltage. The $q$ parameter is inversely proportional to the ion mass and is typically chosen between 0.05 and 0.6 (larger values lead to important RF heating of the ions). In order to safely trap both Be$^+$ and $\bar{\rm H}^+$, $q$ must be chosen close to 0.45 for $\bar{\rm H}^+$ and 0.05 for Be$^+$. We assume a trapping depth of 20 eV for $\bar{\rm H}^+$ that is obtained using $V_{RF}=$ 356 V (712 V peak to peak). The stability parameter of a linear trap is given by $q=2QV_{RF}/m\Omega^2r_0^2$ where $m$ and $Q$ are the ion mass and charge, $r_0$ is the inner trap radius, and $\Omega$ the RF frequency. With $r_0=3.5$ mm, we get $\Omega=2\pi\times17.7$ MHz, i.e., standard trap parameters. Efficient capture of $\bar{\rm H}^+$ ions with a 300 eV kinetic energy spread is much more involved, requiring 10 800 V peak to peak at 68.5 MHz. The use of RF traps with 2 drive frequencies[@Trypogeorgos2013] was envisaged but it requires 2-3 order of magnitude different mass-to-charge ratios.
The incoming $\bar{\rm H}^+$ ion bunch has 1 to 6 keV kinetic energy. The ion bunch is decelerated by biasing the linear trap by $U_b=$ 980 to 5980 V. The trap input endcap voltage is lowered to $U_b$ for a short time $\tau$ for the $\bar{\rm H}^+$ ion bunch intake. Since the Be$^+$ ion motion is strongly damped by the cooling laser, and $\tau$ is much shorter than the axial trap secular period, the Be$^+$ ions don’t have time to escape the trap. Figure \[fig\_capt\_eff\_tau\_ener\]-a shows a simulation of the capture efficiency (without Be$^+$) versus the time delay $\tau$. 100% capture efficiency is predicted for a large range of $\tau$ for a small kinetic energy spread $\Delta E=1$ eV. Figure \[fig\_capt\_eff\_tau\_ener\]-b shows the capture efficiency for optimal intake time $\tau$ versus the $\bar{\rm H}^+$ bunch kinetic energy spread $\Delta E$. The efficiency decreases with $\Delta E$, but remains larger than 50% for $\Delta E <$ 25 eV. This analysis shows that the initial kinetic energy spread of antiprotons from the ELENA source has to be reduced by at least one order of magnitude to allow for their efficient capture with reasonable trap parameters.
![(a): $\bar{\rm H}^+$ capture efficiency versus trap opening time $\tau$ for different ion bunch durations, for $\Delta E=1$ V. (b): $\bar{\rm H}^+$ capture efficiency versus kinetic energy spread for $\tau=0.9\ \mu$s. Each point corresponds to a different simulation with 100 ions.[]{data-label="fig_capt_eff_tau_ener"}](fig_2i_accept_t_close "fig:"){width="4.7cm"} ![(a): $\bar{\rm H}^+$ capture efficiency versus trap opening time $\tau$ for different ion bunch durations, for $\Delta E=1$ V. (b): $\bar{\rm H}^+$ capture efficiency versus kinetic energy spread for $\tau=0.9\ \mu$s. Each point corresponds to a different simulation with 100 ions.[]{data-label="fig_capt_eff_tau_ener"}](fig_2ii_accept_ener_spread "fig:"){width="4.7cm"}
Sympathetic Doppler cooling time
--------------------------------
Once captured, $\bar{\rm H}^+$ ions have a very high temperature, limited by the trap depth. Next, they are sympathetically cooled by Coulomb interaction with a large laser cooled Be$^+$ ion cloud.
Because of possible photodetachment by the cooling laser light (see Sect. \[sec\_photodetach\]), it is very important to evaluate the cooling time. Sympathetic cooling dynamics results from the competition between the Coulomb repulsion and the trapping forces that take the ions together, and between laser cooling and RF heating. For this reason, it can only be evaluated using ion dynamics numerical simulation taking into account the exact time-dependent trapping forces responsible for micromotion and RF heating, and the exact Coulomb repulsion[@Lammerzahl2003]. Short time steps (sub-ns range) must be used to well represent the fast dynamics due to the RF field and secure calculation convergence, since long simulation times are required to get sympathetic cooling evidence. The main numerical complication comes from the evaluation of the full Coulomb interaction for a large number of ions.
The numerical simulations are done using a home built FORTRAN code to solve the Newton’s equation of motion for $N_{lc}$ laser cooled Be$^+$ ions and $N_{sc}$ sympathetically cooled ions, whose masses were taken equal to 1 ($\bar{\rm H}^+$), 2 (H$_2^+$) and 3 (HD$^+$) in order to study the mass dependence of the cooling process. The equations are integrated using either a fixed-step fourth-order Runge-Kutta method or the leap-frog (Verlet-velocity)[@Verlet1967] algorithm. The code takes into account the time-dependent RF trapping field and the axial harmonic trapping field of an ideal linear trap model given by the gradient of the potential $$V(x,y,z,t)=(U_0+V_{\rm RF}cos(\Omega t))\frac{x^2-y^2}{2r_0^2}+m_i\omega_{i,z}^2 (z^2-(x^2+y^2)/2),\label{eq_RF_potential}$$ where $V_{\rm RF}$ is the RF voltage, $\Omega$ the RF angular frequency, $r_0$ is the effective inner radius of the ion trap, $m_{(i)}$ is the mass of the considered ion and $\omega_{i,z}$ its axial oscillation frequency. For two different ionic species labeled $i$ and $j$, we have $m_i\omega_{i,z}^2=m_j\omega_{j,z}^2$. The Coulomb force undergone by ion $i$ is given by $${\bf F}_{\rightarrow i}=\sum_{j\neq i}\frac{q_iq_j}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{{\bf r}_i-{\bf r}_j}{r_{ij}^3}.$$ The laser action is taken into account in terms of absorption, spontaneous and stimulated emission processes for a two-level atom in a Gaussian laser beam of waist $w_0$ and wave vector ${\bf k}$. At each time step and for each laser-cooled ion, depending on its internal state and position in the laser beam, the absorption and emission probabilities are evaluated in a quantum jump approach. In case of absorption, stimulated or spontaneous emission, the ion velocity is changed by $\pm\hbar{\bf k}/m$ or by $\hbar k\boldsymbol{\kappa}/m$ where $\boldsymbol{\kappa}$ is a random direction. At each time step, the ion positions are checked to be within a cylinder of radius $r_0$ and length $L$ or are withdrawn from the simulation. The performance of the code is limited by the Coulomb interaction evaluation, so the computation time scales as the square of the ion number. The double precision Coulomb force subroutine evaluates $5\times 10^7$ Coulomb terms per second on a 3 GHz CPU. Using multi-core CPU’s, we observe a proportional speed-up.
A $N_{lc}$ laser cooled Be$^+$ ion cloud is numerically prepared and relaxed to equilibrium, and $N_{sc}$ $\bar{\rm H}^+$ or H$_2^+$ ions are introduced along the trap axis, next to the Be$^+$ ion cloud (see Fig. \[fig\_ion\_cloud\]) corresponding to a potential energy of a few meV. One can distinguish two cooling phases. At the beginning of the cooling process, the sympathetically cooled ion goes in and out the Be$^+$ ion cloud, and only periodically interacts with the coolant ions, progressively losing secular kinetic energy. During this first phase, the Be$^+$ ion cloud is not crystallized.
Once the sympathetically cooled ion gets embedded in the Be$^+$ cloud, a more efficient cooling phase then starts finally leading to a mixed species Coulomb crystal as shown in the left part of Fig. \[fig\_ion\_cloud\], which illustrates the second phase of the sympathetic cooling dynamics for a single H$_2^+$ or $\bar{\rm H}^+$ ion by 2000 Be$^+$ laser-cooled ions.
![[**Left**]{}: Snapshot of a 2000 Be$^+$ and 1 H$_2^+$ ion cloud. The sympathetically cooled H$_2^+$ ion is the red circle. The purple arrow shows the cooling laser direction. The cooling laser is aligned on the trap axis $z$ with a waist $w_0=100\ \mu$m located at the trap center. The laser detuning is $-\Gamma/2$ and the laser intensity on the axis is $I_{\rm sat}$. [**Graphs**]{}: Macromotion kinetic energy for each degree of freedom, averaged over 170 RF periods for 2000 laser cooled Be$^+$ ions (a,c) and for one H$_2^+$ (b) or $\bar{\rm H}^+$ (d) sympathetically cooled ion. Black circles: $x$, red squares: $y$, green diamonds: $z$. The horizontal dashed line corresponds to the Doppler cooling limit temperature $k_BT_D=\hbar\Gamma/2$ leading to $k_BT_D/2=3.2\times10^{-27}$ J. The dash-dotted line in (b) corresponds to a 1 ms exponential decay behavior. For all the graphs, the trap parameters appearing in Eq. (3) are: $r_0 = 3.5$ mm, $U_0 = 1$ V, and $\Omega = 2\pi \times 17$ MHz. The integration time step is $2 \times 10^{-10}$ s. (a) and (b): $V_{\rm RF}=356$ V, $\omega_{z}=500$ kHz for $m=1$. (c) and (d): $V_{\rm RF}=200$ V, $\omega_{z}=300$ kHz for $m=1$.[]{data-label="fig_ion_cloud"}](fig_3i_ion_cloud "fig:"){width="3.6cm"} ![[**Left**]{}: Snapshot of a 2000 Be$^+$ and 1 H$_2^+$ ion cloud. The sympathetically cooled H$_2^+$ ion is the red circle. The purple arrow shows the cooling laser direction. The cooling laser is aligned on the trap axis $z$ with a waist $w_0=100\ \mu$m located at the trap center. The laser detuning is $-\Gamma/2$ and the laser intensity on the axis is $I_{\rm sat}$. [**Graphs**]{}: Macromotion kinetic energy for each degree of freedom, averaged over 170 RF periods for 2000 laser cooled Be$^+$ ions (a,c) and for one H$_2^+$ (b) or $\bar{\rm H}^+$ (d) sympathetically cooled ion. Black circles: $x$, red squares: $y$, green diamonds: $z$. The horizontal dashed line corresponds to the Doppler cooling limit temperature $k_BT_D=\hbar\Gamma/2$ leading to $k_BT_D/2=3.2\times10^{-27}$ J. The dash-dotted line in (b) corresponds to a 1 ms exponential decay behavior. For all the graphs, the trap parameters appearing in Eq. (3) are: $r_0 = 3.5$ mm, $U_0 = 1$ V, and $\Omega = 2\pi \times 17$ MHz. The integration time step is $2 \times 10^{-10}$ s. (a) and (b): $V_{\rm RF}=356$ V, $\omega_{z}=500$ kHz for $m=1$. (c) and (d): $V_{\rm RF}=200$ V, $\omega_{z}=300$ kHz for $m=1$.[]{data-label="fig_ion_cloud"}](fig_3ii_cloud-doppler_cooling_BeH2_BeH_K "fig:"){width="9cm"}
We plot the averaged macromotion kinetic energy in the $x$, $y$ and $z$ directions (see figure \[fig\_ion\_cloud\] caption). In the case of H$_2^+$, we observe an exponential decay of the transverse kinetic energies down to the Doppler limit with a time constant of 1 ms, and a much faster decay of the axial kinetic energy, indicating the feasibility of fast sympathetic cooling for a 9/2 ion mass ratio. For $\bar{\rm H}^+$, the situation is quite different. Whereas the axial motion is quickly damped to the Doppler limit, the competition between RF heating and sympathetic cooling in the transverse direction leads to a high transverse $\bar{\rm H}^+$ kinetic energy corresponding to temperatures in the K range. Indeed, the motional coupling between two particles of different masses rapidly decreases with the mass ratio. It is thus important to work out more efficient sympathetic cooling schemes. One solution is to use an intermediate mass ion[@Zhang2007] such as HD$^+$ with a mass of 3. The left part of Fig. \[fig\_cooling\_Be\_HD\_H\] shows that starting with a Coulomb crystal made of 1800 Be$^+$ and 200 HD$^+$ ions, ms $\bar{\rm H}^+$ cooling times are achievable.
![[**Left**]{}: Sympathetic cooling dynamics of a 1800 Be$^+$/ 200 HD$^+$/ 1 $\bar{\rm H}^+$ mixed ion cloud. Numerical parameters as in Fig. \[fig\_ion\_cloud\](d). The $\bar{\rm H}^+$ initial position is on the trap axis, 0.5 mm from the center, corresponding to a 4.6 meV potential energy. [**Right**]{}: Doppler cooling dynamics of a Be$^+$/X$^+$ ion pair in the precision trap. The mass of the sympathetically cooled ion corresponds either to real (black $m=1$, green $m=2$) or fictitious ion masses ( blue $m=2.5$, red $m=1.5$). (d) 3D kinetic energy, (e) kinetic energy of the $z$ motion.[]{data-label="fig_cooling_Be_HD_H"}](fig_4i_Be_HD_H_1800_200_1_300kHz_K "fig:"){width="6.5cm"} ![[**Left**]{}: Sympathetic cooling dynamics of a 1800 Be$^+$/ 200 HD$^+$/ 1 $\bar{\rm H}^+$ mixed ion cloud. Numerical parameters as in Fig. \[fig\_ion\_cloud\](d). The $\bar{\rm H}^+$ initial position is on the trap axis, 0.5 mm from the center, corresponding to a 4.6 meV potential energy. [**Right**]{}: Doppler cooling dynamics of a Be$^+$/X$^+$ ion pair in the precision trap. The mass of the sympathetically cooled ion corresponds either to real (black $m=1$, green $m=2$) or fictitious ion masses ( blue $m=2.5$, red $m=1.5$). (d) 3D kinetic energy, (e) kinetic energy of the $z$ motion.[]{data-label="fig_cooling_Be_HD_H"}](fig_4ii_two_ions_doppler_cooling_K "fig:"){width="6.5cm"}
Photodetachment constraints {#sec_photodetach}
---------------------------
The photodetachment threshold of $\bar{\rm H}^+$ (1.64 $\mu$m) is well below the 313 nm Be$^+$ cooling photon energy, so the cooling laser beam may photodetach the excess positron. For a Be$^+$ cooling beam at saturation intensity ($I_{sat}=2\pi^2\hbar c\Gamma/3\lambda^3$=0.82 mW/mm$^2$ with $\Gamma=2\pi\times 19.4$ MHz), the photon flux is $\Phi=7.9\times 10^{16}$ photon/s/cm$^2$. The photodetachment cross section of H$^-$ at 313 nm[@Chandrasekhar1958; @Smith1959] is $\sigma=2\times10^{-17}$ cm$^2$, leading to $\sigma \Phi=1.6$ s$^{-1}$. Under those conditions, the $\bar{\rm H}^+$ lifetime is less than 1s. It can be made longer using a lower cooling intensity or by using a quasi continuous cooling beam with a reduced duty cycle. In a RF trap, the trapping effective potential is tighter for light ions than for heavy ones. Taking advantage of this fact, one might use a hollow laser beam in a Gauss-Laguerre mode[@Schmiegelow2012] L$_0^1$ to cool the Be$^+$ while the $\bar{\rm H}^+$ ions which are strongly confined very close to the trap axis are exposed to a negligible amount of laser radiation at 313nm.
Ground state sympathetic cooling of a Be$^+$/$\bar{\rm H}^+$ ion pair in the precision trap {#sec_precision_trap}
===========================================================================================
As mentioned in the Introduction, the Doppler limit temperature is not low enough for the GBAR project, so the $\bar{\rm H}^+$ ion will be injected in a precision trap to form a Be$^+$/$\bar{\rm H}^+$ ion pair on which ground state Raman side band cooling can be performed [@Leibfried2003].
The precision trap (see Fig \[fig\_raman\_transition\_precision\_trap\])[@Schnitzler2009] consists of four gold coated, micro-fabricated alumina chips which are arranged in an x-shaped configuration and two endcaps made from titanium. The endcaps are pierced with a hole with a diameter of 600 $\mu$m to enable ion injection into the trap. Two of the chips provide the RF-field and two the DC trapping potential respectively. The chips have 11 electrodes each to shape the axial potential what for the voltages can be controlled with a custom built digital-to-analog converter with a voltage resolution of 300 $\mu$V and a time resolution of 400 ns. The distance between the chips is 960 $\mu$m. The trap is driven by an RF-voltage with a frequency $\Omega= 2\pi\times 56 \text{ MHz}$ and a peak-to-peak amplitude $V_{RF}= 176\text{ V}$. This leads to a q parameter for $Be^+$ of 0.05 and for $\bar{H}^+$ of 0.45. The center DC-electrode is held at -1.5 V to provide axial confinement. This voltage configuration leads to a axial and radial secular frequencies $\omega_z=2\pi\times 1.9 \text{ MHz}$ and $\omega_{x,y}=2\pi\times 8.7 \text{ MHz}$ for $\bar{\rm H}^+$. The corresponding ground state kinetic energies are 0.09 and 0.41 mK.
After extraction from the capture trap, a cold $\bar{\rm H}^+$ ion is injected into the precision trap through the end cap. The right part of Fig. \[fig\_cooling\_Be\_HD\_H\] shows sympathetic Doppler cooling of a Be$^+$/X$^+$ ion pair where the precision trap is modeled as an ideal linear Paul trap. The cooling time strongly depends on the X$^+$ mass and can be larger than seconds in the case of $\bar{\rm H}^+$. Again, the z-motion cooling is much faster due to the absence of RF heating.
In the precision trap, the cold Be$^+$ and $\bar{\rm H}^+$ ions are coupled harmonic oscillators. The Doppler limit temperature (0.47 mK) corresponds to excitations of a few quanta that can be further laser cooled. The motional couplings of an ion pair confined in a RF Paul trap have been evaluated by Wübbena et al.[@Wubbena2012]. In the $x$, $y$ or $z$ directions, the individual ion trajectories can be expanded on [*in-phase*]{} and [*out-of-phase*]{} eigenmodes as $$\begin{aligned}
u_{1}(t)&=&b_1 z_{in}\sin(\omega_{in}t+\phi_{in})+b_2 z_{out}\sin(\omega_{out}t+\phi_{out})\\
u_{2}(t)&=&\sqrt{\frac{m_1}{m_2}}b_2 z_{in}\sin(\omega_{in}t+\phi_{in})-\sqrt{\frac{m_1}{m_2}}b_1 z_{out}\sin(\omega_{out}t+\phi_{out}),\end{aligned}$$ where the amplitudes $z_{in}$ and $z_{out}$ and phases $\phi_{in}$ and $\phi_{out}$ depend on the initial conditions. The motional coupling coefficients $b_1$ and $b_2$ depend on the particle masses and trapping conditions and verify $b_1^2+b_2^2=1$ (see Eq. (14) and (17) in[@Wubbena2012]). For the axial motion, we get $b_{1,z}=0.982$ and $b_{2,z}=0.187$. For the transverse motion, assuming $\omega_{x,y}=1.1\ \omega_z$, we get $b_{1,x,y}=0.99971$ and $b_{2,x,y}=0.017$, which can be compared to $1/\sqrt{2}\approx0.707$ in the case of an ion pair with equal masses, or 1 for a single ion. Figure \[fig\_raman\_transition\_precision\_trap\] shows the Be$^+$ electronic energy levels with the confined ion vibrational structure. Raman side band cooling consists in using an off-resonance stimulated Raman transition and a resonant spontaneous Raman transition to decrease the vibration number down to 0. A stimulated Raman transition is a coherent process. The time required to drive a $\pi$-pulse is inversely proportional to the dipole matrix element, i.e. to the coupling coefficient $b_2$. For a Be$^+$/$\bar{\rm H}^+$ ion pair, it is at most 60 times longer than for a single ion. In the latter case, Raman sideband cooling to the ground state for the three degree of freedom can be performed within a few tens of ms[@Rosenband2007; @Chou2010]. For a Be$^+$/$\bar{\rm H}^+$ ion pair, it may thus be achieved for the 6 degrees of freedom within 1 s.
Eigenmodes with frequencies in the 2-8 MHz range make it possible to efficiently laser cool the ion pair to its vibrational ground state. The corresponding velocity dispersion is still slightly too large for the GBAR experiment. We thus propose to adiabatically ramp down the trapping stiffness down to $\approx$ 30 kHz radial and longitudinal oscillation frequencies by slowly lowering the trapping voltage within about 500 ms. 30 kHz oscillation frequencies correspond to $\Delta v\approx$ 8 cm/s velocity dispersions which amply satisfies the GBAR requirements.
Conclusion and perspectives
===========================
We have discussed the challenges and feasibility of antihydrogen positive ion $\bar{\rm H}^+$ sympathetic cooling down to $\mu$K temperatures for the GBAR project. We here summarize the results.
- Capture efficiency of a 1 keV $\bar{\rm H}^+$ ion bunch in a biased linear trap can be larger than 50% with a 25 eV kinetic energy dispersion and a trap depth of 20 eV. The efficient capture of an ion bunch with 300 eV dispersion requires out-of-reach trapping conditions, indicating that the antiprotons delivered by the ELENA ring have to be cooled beforehand to decrease the energy dispersion by at least a factor of 10.
- Sympathetic Doppler cooling by laser cooled Be$^+$ ions is shown to be efficient if the ions remain embedded in the Be$^+$ ion cloud. This means that one has to use large Be$^+$ ion clouds filling the capture trap. The numerical simulations show that the cooling efficiency is much better with a 9/2 rather than with a 9/1 mass ratio. In the latter case, the efficiency is dramatically improved using a third species of mass 3, i.e. HD$^+$ ions. A possible experimental scheme is then to prepare a laser cooled Be$^+$ ion cloud and to inject HD$^+$ ions from an external ion source (in order not to increase the pressure in the vacuum chamber) before the $\bar{\rm H}^+$ bunch intake. Sympathetic Doppler cooling of energetic $\bar{\rm H}^+$ is the most challenging step and is still an open problem, which has to be tackled both experimentally and using numerical simulation. To that end and in order to perform numerical simulations of the cooling dynamics with large number of ions ($>$ 10000), the code will be implemented on massively parallel Graphic Processing Units (GPU). From the experimental point of view, this step will be first tested using matter ions H$_2^+$ and H$^+$ (protons).
- The transfer of a single $\bar{\rm H}^+$ ion from the capture trap to the precision trap, which was not discussed here, will be done using standard ion beam optics for injection through the drilled end cap. The experimental protocol will be worked out first with matter ions with Ca$^+$/Be$^+$ and then Be$^+$/H$_2^+$ and Be$^+$/protons before being implemented on GBAR. Here, the main issue is to avoid heating the ion during the transfer to secure a fast re-capture and sympathetic Doppler cooling of the ion pair.
- We have shown that once a Be$^+$/$\bar{\rm H}^+$ ion pair is prepared at the Doppler limit temperature, Raman sideband sympathetic cooling down to the vibrational ground state of the trap is feasible with less than one second, preparing a $\bar{\rm H}^+$ ion with a velocity dispersion of about 1 m/s.
- The velocity dispersion can be decreased to about 10 cm/s by adiabatically ramping down the trapping stiffness by a factor of 100, within less than 0.5 s. At that point, the velocity dispersion of the antihydrogen produced by threshold photodetachment of the excess positron is dominated by the recoil due to the e$^+$ ejection.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank Jofre Pedregosa for helpul discussions and Dominique Delande for introducing us to OPEN MP parallelization. We also thank the COST action MP1001-IOTA, NanoK-Ifraf Resima grant and ANR/DFG ANR-13-IS04-0002-01 BESCOOL grant.
References
==========
[00]{} J. Walz and T. Hänsch, [*General Relativity and Gravitation*]{} [**36**]{}, 561 (2004). P. Perez and Y. Sacquin. [*Classical and Quantum Gravity*]{} [**29**]{}, 18 (2012). SPSC-P-342, Proposal to measure the Gravitational Behaviour of Antihydrogen at Rest, GBAR. CERN (2011). A. Yu. Voronin, V. V. Nesvizhevsky, and S. Reynaud, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**85**]{}, 014902 (2012). G. Dufour, A. Gérardin, R. Guérout, A. Lambrecht, V. V. Nesvizhevsky, S. Reynaud, and A. Yu. Voronin, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**87**]{}, 012901 (2013). A. Kellerbauer et al., [*Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B*]{} [**266**]{}, 351 (2008). The ALPHA Collaboration and A. E. Charman. [*Nature Communications*]{} [**4**]{}, 1785 (2013). G Gabrielse. [*Technical Report*]{} CERN-SPSC-2010-006.SPSC-SR-057, CERN, Geneva, Jan 2010. Gabriel Dufour, Pascal Debu, Astrid Lambrecht, Valery Nesvizhevsky, Serge Reynaud and Alexei Voronin, to be published in the European Physical Journal C (2014). doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-2731-8 P. Comini and P.-A. Hervieux, [*New Journal of Physics*]{} [**15**]{}, 095022 (2013). SPSC-P-338, ELENA: An Upgrade to the Antiproton Decelerator. CERN. D. Leibfried, R. Blatt, C. Monroe, D. Wineland, [*Reviews of Modern Physics*]{} [**75**]{}, 281 (2003). D. Trypogeorgos, C. Foot, http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.6294. K. Lämmerzahl, S. Schiller, [*Physical Review A*]{} [**68**]{}, 053406 (2003). L. Verlet, [*Physical Review*]{} [**159**]{}, 98 (1957). C. B. Zhang, D. Offenberg, B. Roth, M. A. Wilson, and S. Schiller, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**76**]{}, 012719 (2007). S. Chandrasekhar, D. D. Elbert, [*Astrophysical Journal*]{} [**128**]{}, 633 (1958). S. J. Smith, D. S. Burch, [*Physical Review Letters*]{} [**2**]{}, 165 (1959). C. T. Schmiegelow, F. Schmidt-Kaler, European Journal of Physics D 66, 157 (2012). J. B. Wübbena, S. Amairi, O. Mandel, P. O. Schmidt, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**85**]{}, 043412 (2012). T. Rosenband, P. O. Schmidt, D. B. Hume, W. M. Itano, T. M. Fortier, J. E. Stalnaker, K. Kim, S. A. Diddams, J. C. J. Koelemeij, J. C. Bergquist, and D. J. Wineland [*Physical Review Letters*]{} [**98**]{}, 220801 (2007). C. W. Chou, D. B. Hume, J. C. J. Koelemeij, D. J. Wineland, and T. Rosenband [*Physical Review Letters*]{} [**104**]{}, 070802 (2010). W. Schnitzler, N. M. Linke, R. Fickler, J. Meijer, F. Schmidt-Kaler and K. Singer, [*Physical Review Letters*]{} [**102**]{}, 070501 (2009).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Nancy X. R. Wang'
- 'Jared D. Olson'
- 'Jeffrey G. Ojemann'
- 'Rajesh P. N. Rao'
- 'Bingni W. Brunton'
title: 'Unsupervised decoding of long-term, naturalistic human neural recordings with automated video and audio annotations'
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
Much of our knowledge about neural computation in humans has been informed by data collected through carefully controlled experiments in laboratory conditions. Likewise, the success of Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs [@Wolpaw2012; @Rao2013])—controlling robotic prostheses and computer software via brain signals—has hinged on the availability of labeled data collected in controlled conditions. Sources of behavioral and recording variations are actively avoided or minimized. However, it remains unclear to what extent these results generalize to naturalistic behavior. It is known that neuronal responses may differ between experimental and freely behaving natural conditions [@Vinje2000; @Felsen2005; @Jackson2007]. Therefore, developing robust decoding algorithms that can cope with the challenges of naturalistic behavior is critical to deploying BCIs in real-life applications.
One strategy for decoding naturalistic brain data is to leverage external monitoring of behavior and the environment for interpreting neural activity. Previous research that studied naturalistic human brain recordings, including brain surface electrocorticography (ECoG), have required ground truth labels [@Derix2012; @Pistohl2012; @Ruescher2013]. These labels were acquired by tedious and time-consuming manual labeling of video and audio. In addition to being laborious, manual labeling is prone to human errors from factors such as loss of attention and fatigue [@Hill2012]. This problem is exacerbated by very long recordings, when patients are monitored continuously for several days or long. Obtaining labeled data and training algorithms extensively are difficult or even intractable in rapidly changing, naturalistic environments.
![An excerpt from the data set, which includes video, audio, and intracranial brain activity (ECoG) continuously recorded for at least one week for six subjects. ECoG recordings from a small subset of the electrodes are shown, along with the simultaneously recorded audio signals in blue. A typical patient has around 100 electrodes. Overlaid are screen shots of the video, which is centered on the patient; on the left is a daytime video of the patient eating, and on right is a nighttime infrared video of the patient sleeping. For patient privacy, faces have been blurred.[]{data-label="fig:sample_frames"}](sample_frames)
In this article, we describe our use of video and audio recordings in conjunction with ECoG data to decode human behaviour in a completely unsupervised manner. Fig. \[fig:sample\_frames\] illustrates components of the data used in our approach. The data consists of six subjects monitored continuously over at least one week after electrode array implantation; each subject had approximately 100 intracranial ECoG electrodes with wide coverage of cortical areas. Importantly, subjects being monitored had no instructions to perform specific tasks; they were undergoing presurgical epilepsy monitoring and behaved as they wished inside their hospital room. Instead of relying on manual labels, we used computer vision, speech processing, and machine learning techniques to automatically determine the ground truth labels for the subjects’ activities. These labels were used to annotate patterns of neural activity discovered using unsupervised clustering on power spectral features of the ECoG data. We demonstrate that this approach can identify salient behavioral categories in the ECoG data, such as movement, speech and rest. Decoding accuracy was verified by comparing the automatically discovered labels against manual labels of behavior in a small subset of the data. Further, projecting the annotated ECoG clusters to electrodes on the brain revealed spatial and power spectral patterns of cortical activation consistent with those characterized during controlled experiments. These results suggest that our unsupervised approach may offer a reliable and scalable way to map functional brain areas in natural settings and enable the deployment of BCI in real-life applications.
Background and Related Work {#background-and-related-work .unnumbered}
---------------------------
Intracranial electrocorticography (ECoG) as a technique for observing human neural activity is particularly attractive. Its spatial and temporal resolution offers measurements of temporal dynamics inaccessible by functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and spatial resolution unavailable to extracranial electroencephalography (EEG). Cortical surface ECoG is accomplished less invasively than with penetrating electrodes [@Moran2010; @Williams2007] and has much greater signal-to-noise ratio than entirely non-invasive techniques such as EEG [@Lal; @Ball2009].
Efforts to decode neural activity are typically accomplished by training algorithms on tightly controlled experimental data with repeated trials. Much progress has been made to decode arm trajectories [@Nakanishi2013; @Wang2012; @Wang2013] and finger movements [@Miller2009; @Wang2010], to control robotic arms [@McMullen2014; @Yanagisawa2011; @Fifer2014], and to construct ECoG BCIs [@Wang2013a; @Leuthardt2011; @Leuthardt2006; @Miller2010; @Schalk2008; @Vansteensel2010]. Speech detection and decoding from ECoG has been studied at the level of voice activity [@Kanas2014b], phoneme [@Blakely2008; @Leuthardt2011; @Kanas2014a; @Mugler2014], vowels and consonants [@Pei2011], whole words [@Kellis2010], and sentences [@Zhang2012]. Accurate speech reconstruction has also been shown to be possible [@Herff2015].
The concept of decoding naturalistic brain recordings is related to passive BCIs, a term used to describe BCI systems that decode arbitrary brain activity that are not necessarily under volitional control [@Zander2011]. Our system, which falls within the class of passive BCIs, may also be considered a type of hybrid BCI combining electrophysiological recordings with other signals [@Muller2015]. However, past approaches in this domain have not focused on combining alternative monitoring modalities such as video and audio in order to decode natural ECoG signals.
The lack of ground-truth data makes decoding naturalistic neural recordings difficult. Supplementing neural recordings with additional modes of observation, such as video and audio, can make the decoding more feasible. Previous studies exploring this idea have decoded natural speech [@Derix2012; @Derix2014; @Dastjerdi2013] and natural motions of grasping [@Pistohl2012; @Ruescher2013]; however, these studies relied on laborious manual annotations. Entirely unsupervised approaches to decoding have previously targeted sleep stages [@Langkvist2012] and seizures [@Pluta2014] rather than long-term natural ECoG recordings.
Our approach to circumvent the need for manually annotated behavioral labels exploits automated techniques developed in computer vision and speech processing. Both of these fields have seen tremendous growth in recent years with increasing processor power and advances in methodology [@Jordan2015; @Huang2014]. Computer vision techniques have been developed for a variety of tasks including automated movement estimation [@Wang2015; @Poppe2007], pose recognition [@Toshev2014], object recognition [@Girshick2014; @Erhan2014], and activity classification [@Karpathy2014; @Ryoo2013]. In some cases, computer vision techniques have matched or surpassed single-human performance in recognizing arbitrary objects [@He2015]. Voice activity detection has been well studied in speech processing [@Ramrez2004]. In this work, we leverage and combine techniques from these rapidly advancing fields to automate and enhance the decoding of naturalistic human neural recordings.
Results {#results .unnumbered}
=======
Our general approach to unsupervised decoding of large, long-term human neural recordings is to combine hierarchical clustering of high-dimensional ECoG data with annotations informed by automated video and audio analysis, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:pipeline\] (further details in the Methods section). Briefly, hierarchical k-means clustering was performed on power spectral features of the ECoG recordings. These clusters are coherent patterns discovered in the neural recordings; video and audio monitoring data was used to interpret these patterns and match them to behaviorally salient categories such as movement, speech and rest. Here we describe results of our analysis on six subjects where we used automated audio and video analysis to annotate clusters of neural activity. The accuracy of the unsupervised decoding method was quantified by comparison to manual labels, and the annotated clusters were mapped back to the brain to enable neurologically relevant interpretations.
![An overview of our methods to discover neural decoders by automated clustering and cluster annotations. Briefly, the ECoG recordings was broken into short, non-overlapping windows of 2-seconds. Power spectral features were extracted for each electrode, all electrodes’ features were stacked, and the feature space was reduced to the first 50 principal component dimensions. Hierarchical k-means clustering was performed on these 50-dimensional data, and annotation was done by correlations in timing with automated detection of motion and speech levels (see Fig. \[fig:hierarchy\]). The resultant annotated clusters were validated against manual annotations; cluster centroids mapped to the brain visualize the automatically detected neural patterns. []{data-label="fig:pipeline"}](Pipeline.eps){width="0.9\linewidth"}
Actograms: automated motion and speech detection {#actograms-automated-motion-and-speech-detection .unnumbered}
------------------------------------------------
The automated motion and speech detection methods quantified movement and speech levels from the video and audio recordings, respectively. Fig. \[fig:actogram\] shows daily “actograms” for all six subjects. Movement levels were quantified by analyzing magnitude of changes at feature points in successive frames of the video. Speech levels were quantified by computing the power in the audio signal in the human speech range.
As expected, Fig. \[fig:actogram\] shows that subjects were most active during waking hours, generally between 8:00AM and 11:00PM. Also, movement and speech levels are often highly correlated, as the subjects were often moving and speaking at the same time during waking hours. During night time hours, although subjects were generally less active, many instances of movement and speech can still be seen in Fig. \[fig:actogram\] as the subjects either shifted in their sleep or were visited by hospital staff during the night.
Our automated motion and speech detection algorithms were able to perform with reasonable accuracy when compared to manual annotation of movement and speech. Over all subject days, movement detection was 74% accurate (range of 68% to 90%), while speech detection was 75% accurate (range of 67% to 83%).
![Daily actograms for all subjects. Each row shows one day of activity profiles summarized by automated speech and motion recognition algorithms. Days 3–6 post surgical implantation were analyzed. For purposes of this visualization, the activity levels were binned to one-minute resolution. Movement and speech levels were highly correlated on most days, and these were concentrated to the active hours between 8:00 AM and 11:00PM. []{data-label="fig:actogram"}](actograph)
Unsupervised decoding of ECoG activity {#unsupervised-decoding-of-ecog-activity .unnumbered}
--------------------------------------
Unsupervised decoding of neural recordings was performed by hierarchical clustering of power spectral features of the multi-electrode ECoG recordings. Because the subjects’ behavior on each day varied widely, both across days for the same subject and across subjects (see actograms in Fig. \[fig:actogram\]), we were agnostic to which specific frequency ranges contained meaningful information and considered all power in frequency bins between 1 and 53 Hz (see Supplemental Information for results considering higher frequency bands). Further, data from each subject day was analyzed separately. Clusters identified by hierarchical k-means clustering were annotated using information from the external monitoring by video and audio. The hierarchical k-means clustering implementation is detailed in the Methods section. Following a tree structure, successive levels of clustering contained larger numbers of clusters (Fig. \[fig:hierarchy\]). Fig. \[fig:clusters\_annotated\] shows results of the annotated clusters for one subject day (Subject 6 on day 6 post implantation) at clustering levels 1–4 as a function of time of day. At level 1, it is clear that rest is separable from non-rest, and the switch in the dominant cluster occurred around 10:00PM. We presume the timing of the switch to correspond to when the subject falls asleep, as is corroborated by the video monitoring. when the subject is presumed to have fallen asleep as evident in the video monitoring. Video S1 shows an example of the infrared video acquired during night time. The subject is in a consolidated period of rest between 10:00PM and 9:00AM the following day. Interestingly, for a duration of approximately one hour starting at around 11:00AM, the rest cluster dominated the labels (see also red triangle at level 3). This period corresponds to the subject taking a nap (Video S2).
Starting at level 2, the non-rest behavior separates into movement and speech clusters. These two clusters are generally highly correlated, as moving and talking often co-occur, especially as the movement quantification can detect mouth or face movement. We point out several interesting instances labeled at level 3. First, the inverted triangle points to a period around 11:00AM annotated as rest, when the subject rested during a nap (Video S2). Second, the rectangle marks a period around 1:00PM, annotated as predominantly movement but not speech, when the subject shifted around in their bed but did not engage in conversation (Video S3). Third, the circle marks a period around 5:00PM when the subject engaged in conversation (Video S4); this period was labeled as both movement and speech. As described in the validation analysis in the following section, the accuracy of the automated annotations does not change substantially between levels 3–4 across all subject days (Fig. \[fig:percentile\_scattergories\] and Fig. S3).
![Annotated clustering results of one subject day (Subject 6 on day 6 post implant) from hierarchical level 1 to level 4. The vertical axis represents the fraction of time the neural recording is categorized to each annotated cluster. The triangle marks when the subject takes a nap (Video S2), the square marks when the subject is seen to move without speech (Video S3), and the circle marks when the subject spoke more than moved (Video S4). For visualization, the 24-hour day was binned to every 160 seconds.[]{data-label="fig:clusters_annotated"}](level_1_clustering "fig:") ![Annotated clustering results of one subject day (Subject 6 on day 6 post implant) from hierarchical level 1 to level 4. The vertical axis represents the fraction of time the neural recording is categorized to each annotated cluster. The triangle marks when the subject takes a nap (Video S2), the square marks when the subject is seen to move without speech (Video S3), and the circle marks when the subject spoke more than moved (Video S4). For visualization, the 24-hour day was binned to every 160 seconds.[]{data-label="fig:clusters_annotated"}](level_2_clustering "fig:") ![Annotated clustering results of one subject day (Subject 6 on day 6 post implant) from hierarchical level 1 to level 4. The vertical axis represents the fraction of time the neural recording is categorized to each annotated cluster. The triangle marks when the subject takes a nap (Video S2), the square marks when the subject is seen to move without speech (Video S3), and the circle marks when the subject spoke more than moved (Video S4). For visualization, the 24-hour day was binned to every 160 seconds.[]{data-label="fig:clusters_annotated"}](level_3_clustering "fig:") ![Annotated clustering results of one subject day (Subject 6 on day 6 post implant) from hierarchical level 1 to level 4. The vertical axis represents the fraction of time the neural recording is categorized to each annotated cluster. The triangle marks when the subject takes a nap (Video S2), the square marks when the subject is seen to move without speech (Video S3), and the circle marks when the subject spoke more than moved (Video S4). For visualization, the 24-hour day was binned to every 160 seconds.[]{data-label="fig:clusters_annotated"}](level_4_clustering "fig:")
Validation of automated neural decoding by comparison with manual annotations {#validation-of-automated-neural-decoding-by-comparison-with-manual-annotations .unnumbered}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Percentile of the F1 score of our algorithm at level 3 compared to F1 scores from randomly shuffled manual labels. Each colored dot corresponds to one day for a subject in each behavioral category.[]{data-label="fig:percentile_scattergories"}](percentile_scattergories_f1_2)
The automated neural decoding was assessed by comparison with behaviors labeled manually. Manual labels of the video and audio were supplied by two human annotators, who labeled a variety of salient behaviors for at least 40 total minutes (or approximately 3%) of video and audio recordings for each subject day. The labels were acquired for 2-minute segments of data distributed randomly throughout the 24-hour day.
The entirely automated neural decoding performed very well in the validation for all subjects on the categories of movement, speech and rest. Table \[table:accuracy\] summarizes the accuracy of the annotated clusters averaged over the 4 days analyzed for each subject, comparing the automated labels to manual labels during the labeled portions of each day. In addition to computing the accuracy, we also computed the F1 scores of the automated decoding using manual labels as ground truth for each day; the F1 score is a weighted average of precision and recall (Table S1).
To assess the significance of the automated labels’ accuracy, we compared the F1 scores on each day to F1 scores of randomly shuffled labels. The shuffled labels preserved the relative occurrence of labels and gave an unbiased estimate of chance performance. Fig. \[fig:percentile\_scattergories\] shows the percentile of the true F1 scores within the randomly shuffled F1 scores at hierarchical clustering level 3. For each category of movement, speech and rest, the median percentile of the true F1 scores are at or near the 99th percentile; our automatically labeled clusters performed significantly better than chance on most subject days. F1 score percentiles for clustering levels 2 and 4 are shown in Figs S2 and S3. We also repeated the analysis considering spectral frequencies up to 105 Hz, which does not substantially change the performance of the automated decoder (Table S2 and Fig. S4)
[lrrr]{}
Movement Speech Rest
----------- ---------- -------- -------
Subject 1 59.06 54.24 64.98
Subject 2 62.88 62.20 64.47
Subject 3 61.22 62.94 64.75
Subject 4 58.57 60.43 65.88
Subject 5 55.61 60.01 58.09
Subject 6 70.08 69.43 57.60
: Percent accuracy as assessed by comparison of level 3 automated cluster annotation to manual annotations averaged over all 4 days for each subject.[]{data-label="table:accuracy"}
Neural correlates of behavior as discovered by unsupervised clustering {#neural-correlates-of-behavior-as-discovered-by-unsupervised-clustering .unnumbered}
----------------------------------------------------------------------
![Features discovered by automated brain decoding at two different frequency bands are consistent with known functions of cortical areas. Shown for one subject day (Subject 1 on day 6 post implant), the centroids of the movement, speech and rest clusters were back projected to brain-electrode space, and then separately averaged over a low frequency band (LFB, 1–8Hz) and a high frequency band (HFB, 12–45Hz). The orange and green circles mark the approximate extent of locations typically considered to be sensorimotor and auditory regions, respectively. The colormap indicates the Z-Score of the power levels as compared to the daily average.[]{data-label="fig:backprojection"}](sample_brain)
Another way to assess the neural decoder discovered through clustering and automated annotation is to examine the neural patterns identified in this unsupervised approach. We mapped these patterns by projecting the centroids of annotated clusters back to feature space. Next, the feature space in electrode coordinates on the brain were averaged within frequency bands, including those typically of interest to studies of human ECoG.
Fig. \[fig:backprojection\] shows an example of one subject day’s annotated cluster centroids shown as deviations from the daily average in a low frequency band (LFB, 1–8Hz) and a high frequency band (HFB, 12–45Hz). The LFB was chosen to include activity in the delta and theta range, while the HFB includes beta and low gamma activity. The accuracy of automated decoding on this subject day (Subject 1, day 6 post implant) was 0.56, 0.69 and 0.63 for movement, speech and rest, respectively. In the LFB, there was generalized decrease in power across all recording electrodes during movement and speech, accompanied by a corresponding relative increase in power during rest. In contrast, in the HFB during movement and speech, we observe more spatially specific increase in power that is localized to motor areas (orange circle in Fig. \[fig:backprojection\]). There is some overlap in electrodes showing increased HFB power during movement and speech, which may be due to activation of motor areas to produce speech. In addition, during speech but not during movement, there is a localized increase in HFB power at associated auditory region (green circle in Fig. \[fig:backprojection\]).
These features are largely consistent with known functions of human cortical areas and ECoG phenomena, as well as the existing ECoG literature on motor activation [@Miller2007; @Miller2009] and speech mapping [@Potes2014; @Chang2010]. We must note that these patterns of frequency band-specific changes in power for different behavioral categories were discovered in an entirely unsupervised approach, using continuously acquired naturalistic data, and without the luxury of subtraction of baseline activation immediately before or after movement. It is important to keep in mind that previous studies typically define rest as the time just before an action, whereas we compare to daily averages as well as to sleep. During non rapid eye movement sleep, the theta and delta bands tend to have high power [@Cajochen1999], a factor that distinguishes our results from those obtained from more controlled experiments. We observed qualitatively similar patterns across the four (4) subjects where anatomic reconstruction of the electrode arrays were available (Figs. S6–S8).
Discussion {#discussion .unnumbered}
==========
Our results represent, to our knowledge, the first demonstration of automated clustering and labeling of human behavior from brain recordings in a naturalistic setting; we achieved annotation without manual labels by leveraging techniques from computer vision and speech processing. Our unsupervised approach discovers clusters for behaviors such as moving, speaking and resting from ECoG data. The discovered cluster labels were verified by comparison to manual labels for a subset of the data. We also demonstrate that projecting the cluster centers back onto the brain provides an avenue for automated functional brain mapping in natural settings.
Our goal was to develop an approach to decode human brain recordings by embracing the richness and variability of complex naturalistic behavior, while avoiding tedious manual annotation of data and fine tuning of parameters. Our current approach has a number of limitations which can be addressed by improving both the available information streams and the algorithmic processing. One limitation of our movement detection algorithm is lack of specificity to the subject when other people enter the frame of the camera. This is particularly challenging when another person overlaps with the subject, for example, when a nurse examines the patient. We are exploring the potential of better subject segmentation using a depth camera. The depth stream information will also allow us to perform much more detailed pose recognition, including obtaining specific movement information from isolated body parts.
A second limitation is our inability to identify the speaker in speech detection. Speech levels include the subject speaking, the subject listening to another person speaking in the room, and the subject listening to the TV or another electronic audio source. We expect that by placing an additional microphone in the room and using algorithms to distinguish speaker voices, it may be possible to more accurately localize the speaker and speech sources.
The temporal aspect of high-dimensional, long-term ECoG data may be better exploited to improve the clusters discovered by unsupervised pattern recognition techniques. For instance, dimensionality reduction by dynamic mode decomposition (DMD [@Brunton2015]) may be able to identify spatio-temporal patterns when repeated trials are not available. Phase synchrony and phase coupling may also serve as important neural correlates of behavior [@Mercier2015].
Overall, these results demonstrate that our method has the practicality and accuracy to passively monitor the brain and decode its state during a variety of activities. In our results, we see some variation in performance and cluster maps across days for the same subject. This variance may be due to changes in brain activity as the patient recovers from surgery, or it may represent natural variation from day to day.
Functional brain mapping acquired by analyzing neural recordings outside instructed tasks has direct relevance to how an individual brain functions in natural conditions. For instance, neural correlates of a subject repeating a series of specific actions may differ from the full range of neural signatures associated with movements in general. Previous attempts to do more “ethological” mapping based on non-cued activities have identified motor [@Vansteensel2013; @Breshears2012] and speech [@Derix2012; @Derix2014] related areas. Our approach to ethological functional brain mapping explores the analysis of task-free, naturalistic neural data augmented by information from external monitoring, which enables us to perform the automated analysis at a much larger scale with long-term data.
We envision our automated passive monitoring and decoding approach with video and audio as a possible strategy to adjust for natural variation and drift in brain activity without the necessity to retrain decoders explicitly. Such an approach may enable deployment of long-term BCI systems, including clinical and consumer applications. More generally, we believe the exploration of large, unstructured, naturalistic neural recordings will improve our understanding of the human brain in action.
Methods {#methods .unnumbered}
=======
Subjects and recording {#subjects-and-recording .unnumbered}
----------------------
All six subjects had a macro-grid and one or more strips of electrocorticography (ECoG) electrodes implanted subdurally for presurgical clinical epilepsy monitoring at Harborview Medical Center. The study was approved by University of Washington’s Institutional Review Board’s human subject division; all subjects gave their informed consent.
Electrode grids were constructed of 3-mm-diameter platinum pads spaced at 1 cm center-to-center and embedded in silastic (AdTech). Electrode placement and duration of each patient’s recording were determined solely based on clinical needs. The number of electrodes ranged from 82 to 106, arranged as grids of 8$\times$8, 8$\times$4, 8$\times$2 or strips of 1$\times$4, 1$\times$6, 1$\times$8. Figs. S5–S9 show the electrode placements of each subject. ECoG was acquired at a sampling rate of 999Hz. All patients had between six and fourteen days of continuous monitoring with video, audio, and ECoG recordings. During days 1 and 2, patients were generally recovering from surgery and spent most of their time sleeping; in this study, days 3 to 6 post implant were analyzed from each subject.
Video and audio recordings {#video-and-audio-recordings .unnumbered}
--------------------------
Video and audio were recorded simultaneously with the ECoG signals and continuously throughout the subjects’ clinical monitoring. The video was recorded at 30 frames per second at a resolution of 640$\times$480 pixels. Generally, video was centered on the subject with family members or staff occasionally entering the scene. The camera was also sometimes adjusted throughout the day by hospital staff; for instance, the camera may be centered away during bed pan changes and returned to the patient afterwards. Videos S1–S4 show examples of the video at a few different times of one day. The audio signal was recorded at 48 KHz in stereo. The subject’s conversations with people in the hospital room, including people not visible by video monitoring, can be clearly heard, as well as sound from the television or a music player. Some subjects listened to audio using headphones, which were not available to our audio monitoring system. For patient privacy, because voices can be identifiable, we do not make examples of the audio data available in the supplemental materials.
Manual annotation of video and audio {#manual-annotation-of-video-and-audio .unnumbered}
------------------------------------
To generate a set of ground-truth labels so that we may assess the performance of our automated algorithms, we performed manual annotation of behavior aided by ANVIL [@kipp2012] on a small subset of the external monitoring data. Two students were responsible for the annotations, and at least 40 minutes (or 2.78%) of each subject day’s recording was manually labeled for a variety of salient behaviors, including the broad categories of movement, speech and rest. Manual labeling was done for 2-minute segments of video and audio, distributed randomly throughout each 24-hour day. For patient privacy, some small parts of the video (e.g., during bed pan changes) were excluded from manual labeling. These periods were very brief and should not introduce a generalized bias in manual labels. On average, manual labeling of 1 min of monitoring data was accomplished in approximately 5 minutes. At least 10 minutes of each subject day were labeled by both students; agreement between the two labelers was 92.0%, and Cohen’s Kappa value for inter-rater agreement is 0.82.
Automated movement and speech detection {#automated-movement-and-speech-detection .unnumbered}
---------------------------------------
For automated video analysis, we first detected salient features for each frame using Speeded Up Robust Features (SURF), which detects and encodes interesting feature points throughout the frame. The amount of motion in each frame was determined by matching the magnitude of change in these feature points across successive frames. Since the subject was the only person in the frame a majority of the time, we are able to determine the subject’s approximate movement levels. This approach detected gross motor movements of the arms, torso and head, as well as some finer movements of the face and mouth during speaking. To detect speech, we measured the power of human speech frequency levels (100–3500Hz) from audio data.
We assessed the performance of the automated algorithms by comparison to manual annotations. The manual annotations for each behavior were binary (i.e., either the behavior was present or not in a time window) whereas the automated speech and movement levels were analog values. Therefore, the agreement was computed after applying a threshold to the automated movement and speech levels.
ECoG preprocessing and feature extraction {#ecog-preprocessing-and-feature-extraction .unnumbered}
-----------------------------------------
All ECoG recording was bandpassed filtered between 0.1 and 160Hz to reduced noise. The filtered signal was then converted into a set of power spectral features using short-time Fourier transform using non-overlapping two-second windows. Each 24-hour recording was thus separated into 43200 samples in time.
Because subjects engaged in a variety of activities throughout the day, there is no particular frequency band that would be solely useful for clustering. We considered power at a range of frequencies between 1–52 Hz for each electrode, binning every 1.5 Hz of power for a total of 35 features per electrode per two-second window. At 82 to 106 electrodes per subject, this process resulted in 2870 to 3710 features for each two-second window of recording. To normalize the data, we transformed the binned powers levels at each frequency bin for each channel by computing the Z-Score. The dimensionality of the feature space was then reduced with principal component analysis (PCA), and the cumulative fraction of variance explained as a function of the number of PCA modes for each subject day is shown in Fig. S1. These spectra were highly variable, both within and between subjects. For purposes of unsupervised clustering, we truncated all feature space to the first 50 PC’s. The first 50 PC’s generally accounted for at least 40% of the variance in daily power spectral features space.
Hierarchical clustering of ECoG features {#hierarchical-clustering-of-ecog-features .unnumbered}
----------------------------------------
We used the 50-dimensional principal component power spectral features of the ECoG data as features for our hierarchical k-means clustering. The hierarchical k-means procedure and the annotation of clusters by correlation with movement and speech levels is shown schematically in Fig. \[fig:hierarchy\]. For each subject on each day, we first perform k-means with $k=20$ clusters. Next, we segregate the data points into the single cluster with the most number of data points and all the rest of the clusters. This procedure produces the first level of the hierarchical clustering, which now has two clusters. Next, for level $L$ of the clustering, this procedure is repeated for each cluster from level $L-1$ using $k = 20/L$ ($k$ floored to the largest previous integer). Again, the single cluster with the most number of data points is separated from the rest of the clusters, so that at level $L$, we end up with $2^L$ clusters. This process of recursive k-means clustering and aggregation is stopped when there are fewer than 100 data points in each cluster, or when $L=10$. In this manuscript, we focused on analyzing annotated clusters in levels 1–4.
![A schematic of the hierarchical clustering and annotation method. Features extracted from ECoG recordings of each subject day were recursively clustered and agglomerated at increasing levels. Annotation consisted of finding the cluster within each level whose time course had the highest correlation with automatically extracted movement and speech levels. For illustration purposes, here we show the annotation of clusters at Level 2, which has 4 total clusters.[]{data-label="fig:hierarchy"}](hierarchical_clustering.eps){width="0.8\linewidth"}
Automated annotation of clusters using video and audio recordings {#automated-annotation-of-clusters-using-video-and-audio-recordings .unnumbered}
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Results from the clustering analysis were automatically annotated using movement and speech levels. Each type of unsupervised analysis produced time series at different temporal resolutions, so they were all first consolidated into a mean analog value for non-overlapping 16-second windows. For ECoG, we counted how many 2-second windows within each 16-seconds were assigned to a particular cluster at the target hierarchy level. For movement and speech detection, we considered what fraction of the 16-second window exceeded a threshold value. These thresholds were determined empirically.
After consolidation into windows of 16 seconds, we computed the Pearson r correlation between each of the ECoG clusters with the movement and speech levels. The “movement” and “speech” labels were assigned to clusters for which the correlation was the highest for each behavior. If movement and speech both correlated best with the same cluster, the label was assigned to the second best cluster for the activity type that had a lower correlation. The “rest” label was assigned to the cluster with the largest negative correlation with both movement and speech.
We performed this annotation assignment for clustering levels 1–4 (see Fig. \[fig:hierarchy\]). At level 1, for which there were only 2 total clusters, labels were simplified to be “rest” and “non-rest” (for movement and speech combined). Level 3, where there are 8 total clusters, appeared to be the most parsimonious level of granularity for the number of categories available automatically.
Validation with ground truth labels {#validation-with-ground-truth-labels .unnumbered}
-----------------------------------
Ground truth labels for random portions of each day were obtained from two students who hand annotated a small random fraction of each subject day (about 40 minutes, or 3% of each day) for visible and audible behaviors. The hand annotations were distributed randomly throughout each day of each patient. The automated results were compared to manual labels using 16 second windows within the manually annotated times. Each 16 second window is determined to contain an activity if the activity is annotated within any point in the window. Since different clusters have different baseline levels, we determined that the cluster detects the activity if its level is at or above the 25th percentile over the day. Using the manual labels as ground truth, accuracy and F1 scores were computed. The F1 score is the harmonic mean of precision and recall.
To determine the statistical significance of the F1 scores compared to chance, we generated shuffled labels by changing the timing of the ground truth labels of each activity, without changing their overall relative frequency. This shuffling was repeated over 1000 random iterations to determine the distribution of F1 scores assuming chance, and the true F1 score was compared against these shuffled F1 scores. We report the percentile of the true F1 scores for all subject days.
Mapping annotated clusters back to the brain {#mapping-annotated-clusters-back-to-the-brain .unnumbered}
--------------------------------------------
For each annotated cluster, we projected the centroid values of the cluster back to brain coordinates. The centroids values are 50-dimensional vectors in PCA space, reduced from power spectral features of all recording electrodes. The inverse PCA transform using the original PCA basis projects the centroid back to brain coordinates, where the relative power in each frequency bin is available at each electrode. Note that because of the Z-Score normalization step before computing the original PCA basis, this back-projection reproduces Z-Score values, not voltages. These Z-Scores can be separately averaged according to frequency bins of interesting bands, including a low frequency band (LFB, 1–8 Hz) and a high-frequency band (HBG, 12–45 Hz) as show in Fig. \[fig:backprojection\]. Fig. S5–S8 also show results of brain maps at 72–100Hz. Anatomic reconstruction of electrode coordinates on structural imaging of subjects’ brains was available for only four of the six subjects, so we were unable to perform this mapping for Subject 2 and Subject 6.
[10]{} url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
& ** (, ).
** (, ).
& . ** (). <http://www.sciencemag.org/content/287/5456/1273.short>.
& ** ****, (). <http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nn1608>.
, & . ** (). <http://jn.physiology.org/content/97/1/360.short>.
, , , & ** .
, & . ** (). <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105381191100749X>.
*et al.* ** ****, (). <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811913004618>.
, & . ** (). <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3471287/>.
** ****, (). <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959438810001789>.
& . ** (). <http://iopscience.iop.org/1741-2552/4/4/007>.
*et al.* . In **, (). <http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/faces/viewItemOverviewPage.jsp?itemId=escidoc:1791436:1>.
, , , & ** ****, (). <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811909001827>.
*et al.* ** ****, (). <http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0072085>.
*et al.* ** ****, (). <http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3413946&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract>.
*et al.* . In **, (, ). <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=6696097>.
, , , & ** ****, (). <http://www.jneurosci.org/content/29/10/3132.abstract>.
, , & . In **, (, ). <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=5597572>.
*et al.* ** ****, (). <http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=4057363&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract>.
*et al.* ** ****, (). <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21314273>.
*et al.* ** ****, (). <http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=4030429&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract>.
*et al.* ** ****, (). <http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0055344>.
*et al.* ** ****, (). <http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3701859&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract>.
, , , & . ** ****, (). <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=1642767>.
*et al.* ** ****, (). <http://www.pnas.org/content/107/9/4430.short>.
*et al.* ** ****, (). <http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2744037&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract>.
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . In **, (, ). <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=6900790>.
, , , & . ** (). <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19163831>.
*et al.* ** ****, (). <http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=4005607&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract>.
*et al.* ** ****, (). <http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1741-2560/11/3/035015>.
, , & ** ****, (). <http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3772685&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract>.
*et al.* ** ****, (). <http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2970568&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract>.
*et al.* ** ****, (). <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23366629>.
*et al.* . ** **** (). <http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnins.2015.00217/abstract>.
& ** ****, (). <http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1741-2560/8/2/025005>.
*et al.* ().
*et al.* ** ****, (). <http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=4056309&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract>.
, , , & ** ****, (). <http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131015/ncomms3528/full/ncomms3528.html?utm_content=buffer4b47c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer>.
, & . ** (). <http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2387786>.
, , & ** ****, (). <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25570537>.
& . ** ****, (). <http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6245/255.full>.
, & . ** ****, (). <http://dl.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=2500887&type=html>.
, & . ** (). <http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2764875>.
. ** ****, (). <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1077314206002293>.
& . In **, (, ). <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=6909610>.
, , & . In **, (, ). <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=6909475>.
, , & . In **, (, ). <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=6909673>.
*et al.* . In **, (, ). <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=6909619>.
& In **, (, ). <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=6619196>.
, , & (). <http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.01852>. .
, , , & . ** ****, (). <http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0167639303001201>.
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
, , , & . ** ****, (). <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811914003140>.
*et al.* . ** ****, (). <http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v13/n11/full/nn.2641.html>.
, & . ** ****, (). <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11382884>.
, , & . ** (). <http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.5496>.
*et al.* . ** ****, (). <http://www.jneurosci.org/content/35/22/8546.abstract>.
*et al.* . ** ****, (). <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1388245712008115>.
*et al.* . ** ****, (). <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4362698/>.
().
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank Ryan Shean and Sharon Ke for annotating the videos and audio recordings for ground truth labels. We also thank the staff and doctors at Harborview Medical Center, in particular Julie Rae, Shahin Hakimian and Jeffery Tsai for aiding in data collection as well as research discussions. James Wu contributed to brain reconstructions. We thank Ali Farhadi for giving advice on the computer vision based video processing and Lise Johnson for discussions about unsupervised clustering.
**Funding.** This research was support by the Washington Research Foundation (WRF), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants NS065186, 2K12HD001097-16 and 5U10NS086525-03, and award EEC-1028725 from the National Science Foundation (NSF).
Author contributions statement {#author-contributions-statement .unnumbered}
==============================
N.W. conceived the experiments with the help of J.D.O., J.G.O.; N.W. and R.R. conducted the experiment; N.W., R.R., and B.B. performed the analysis and wrote the manuscript, with input from all authors.
Additional information {#additional-information .unnumbered}
======================
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We calculate the production of the gravitational waves from a double inflation model with lattice simulations. Between the two inflationary stages, gravitational waves with a characteristic frequency are produced by fluctuations of the scalar fields enhanced through parametric resonance. The wavelength of the produced gravitational waves gets extra redshift during the second inflationary stage and it can be in the observable range for the direct gravitational wave detectors. It is found that there is a possibility for the produced gravitational waves to be detected in the planned experiments.\
---
ICRR-Report-602-2011-19\
IPMU 11-0213
1.35cm
[ ]{}
1.2cm
Masahiro Kawasaki$^{a,b}$, Ken’ichi Saikawa$^c$ and Naoyuki Takeda$^a$\
0.4cm
[ *$^a$Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, University of Tokyo, 5-1-5 Kashiwa-no-ha, Kashiwa City, Chiba, 277-8582, Japan*]{}\
[*$^b$Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe, Todai Institutes for Advanced Study, The University of Tokyo, 5-1-5 Kashiwa-no-ha, Kashiwa City, Chiba 277-8568, Japan*]{}\
[*$^c$Department of Physics, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1 Ookayama, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 152-8511, Japan*]{}\
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The general relativity proposed by Einstein predicts the existence of the gravitational waves, which are the distortions of space-time geometry propagating through space as waves. Though it is indirect, there is strong evidence for the existence of the gravitational waves which is provided by the observation of the binary pulsar $1913+16$ [@Hulse:1974eb]. Yet up to date no direct detection has been made. In the world, there are lots of ongoing and planned experiments to detect the gravitational waves directly. Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observer (LIGO) [@LIGO] is working on the ground in USA. In Europe, Virgo [@Virgo] commenced operations in 2007 and Einstein Telescope (ET) [@ET] is planned. In Japan, KAGRA [@KAGRA] is now under construction. It is also planned to construct the space-borne interferometers such as Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) [@LISA], Deci-hertz Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (DECIGO) [@DECIGO1; @Seto:2001qf; @Kawamura:2011zz], and Big Bang Observer (BBO) [@Crowder:2005nr].
The direct detection experiments of the gravitational waves are expected to provide rich information about various astrophysical phenomena, but one of the ultimate goals of the experiments is to probe the early history of the universe. It is presumed that in the very early universe the vacuum energy dominates the universe and causes quasi-exponential expansion of the universe called inflation. Inflation explains the homogeneity and flatness of the universe. Planck satellite [@Ade:2013zuv] has measured anisotropies of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and successfully determined the cosmological parameters with high precision, which supports the prediction of the inflationary theories. However, it is impossible to prove directly the era before photons decouple from electrons, if we use the result of the observation of cosmic microwave background only. In order to study the early universe before photon decoupling, we use the gravitational wave since the gravitational wave interacts with other particles very weakly and preserves the information about the early universe.
In this paper, we discuss the gravitational wave production from inflation. There are several primordial origins of the gravitational waves: quantum fluctuations of the metric [@Lyth:2009zz], preheating [@Khlebnikov:1997di; @Easther:2006gt; @GarciaBellido:2007af; @Dufaux:2008dn], domain walls [@Hiramatsu:2010yz; @Kawasaki:2011vv], cosmic strings [@Berezinsky:2000vn; @Kawasaki:2010yi; @Damour:2000wa; @Damour:2004kw], and so on. In this paper, we focus on the preheating as the origin of gravitational waves. After the end of the inflation, the inflaton rapidly oscillates around the true vacuum, interacting with other scalar fields. At this epoch, fluctuations of the scalar fields enhanced vastly [@GarciaBellido:1997wm; @Felder:2000hj], which produce abundant amount of gravitational waves. However, in general, the wavelength of the gravitational waves produced from reheating is so short [@Dufaux:2008dn] that we cannot detect the gravitational waves even in the future gravitational wave experiments with high sensitivity. In this work, we show that the double inflation model, which was originally proposed in [@Randall:1995dj; @GarciaBellido:1996qt; @Izawa:1997df] to solve the initial value problem for the new inflation, produces gravitational waves with the wavelength long enough to be proved with the planned detectors.
In the double inflation, there are two inflationary stages. In this paper, we consider the smooth hybrid new inflation model [@Yamaguchi:2004tn]. At the first stage, smooth hybrid inflation [@Lazarides:1995vr; @Jeannerot:2000sv] occurs, followed by the second stage at which new inflation occurs. In the intermediate stage, the inflaton and waterfall fields oscillate around the minimum of the potential in the same way as the reheating. Since in the smooth hybrid inflation, the gauge symmetry of the waterfall fields is broken even during the inflation, no harmful topological defects are produced. In the previous study [@Kawasaki:2006zv], it was found that in this model fluctuations of the scalar fields are enhanced by the parametric resonance and then primordial black holes are formed at a characteristic scale. In this paper, we pay attention to the production of the gravitational waves from these fluctuations. Since the parametric resonance is a nonlinear phenomenon, we calculate the production of the gravitational waves with lattice simulations.
The organization of this paper is as follows. We review the double inflation model in Sec. \[sec:Smooth hybrid inflation\]. In Sec. \[sec:gw\_production\], we calculate the amount of the produced gravitational waves by using analytical consideration and lattice simulations. We estimate the present density of the gravitational waves and the peak frequency in Sec. \[sec:present\_density\]. Finally, Sec. \[sec:conclusion\] is devoted to the conclusion.
Smooth hybrid new inflation {#sec:Smooth hybrid inflation}
===========================
In this section, we review the smooth hybrid new inflation model in supergravity proposed in [@Yamaguchi:2004tn]. This model has two inflationary stages. At first, the smooth hybrid inflation [@Lazarides:1995vr], whose gauge symmetry is already broken at the beginning of the inflation differently from the hybrid inflation model based on supergravity [@Linde:1997sj], takes place. After the first inflationary stage, the new inflation [@Izawa:1996dv] follows. We assume that the $e$-fold number of the new inflation is smaller than $~60$. Thus, the density fluctuations on large scales are produced during the smooth hybrid inflation. In this section, we set the reduced planck mass $ M_{\mathrm{pl}} \simeq 2.4\times10^{18}{\mathrm{GeV}}$ equal to unity unless otherwise stated.
Smooth hybrid inflation
-----------------------
First, we discuss the smooth hybrid inflation model. This model has three superfields. One is the inflaton field $ S$ and the others are waterfall fields ${\Psi}$ and $\bar{\Psi}$. This model is based on $ U(1)_R$ symmetry. The superpotential is given by $$W_H = S\left(-{\mu}^2+\frac{(\bar{\Psi}\Psi)^2}{M^2}\right),$$ where $ S$ has $R$ charge $ 2$ and $(\bar{\Psi}\Psi)$ has $R$ charge $0$ and $M$ is a cut-off scale. The $R$-invariant Kähler potential is given by $$K_H = |S|^2 + |\Psi|^2 + |\bar{\Psi}|^2.$$ We also introduce the $U(1)$ gauge symmetry under which the waterfall fields are transformed as $ \Psi\rightarrow e^{i\delta}\Psi$ and $\bar{\Psi}\rightarrow e^{-i\delta}\bar{\Psi}$, and $Z_2$ symmetry under which $\left(\Psi\bar{\Psi}\right)$ has a unit charge. Using the phase rotation and D-term flat condition, we can bring the complex scalar fields $\Psi$ and $\bar{\Psi}$ on the real axis as $\psi\equiv2{\rm Re}\Psi=2{\rm Re}\bar{\Psi}$.
From the superpotential and the Kähler potential, we can write down the scalar potential. Using the $R$ symmetry, we can bring the complex scalar field $ S$ on the real axis, $ {\sigma} \equiv \sqrt{2}ReS$. Neglecting higher-order terms, we can write down the scalar potential for $\sigma<1$ $$V_H \simeq
\left(-{ \mu}^2+\frac{{\psi}^4}{16M^2}\right)^2\left(1+\frac{{\psi}^2}{2}
+\frac{{\sigma}^4}{8}\right)+
\frac{{\sigma}^2{\psi}^6}{16M^4}-
{\mu}^2\frac{{\sigma}^2{\psi}^4}{4M^2},$$ where $ \sigma$ is the inflaton and $ \psi$ is the waterfall field. During inflation, $ \psi$ is located at the local minimum of the potential, $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
{\psi}_{\mathrm {min}} \simeq \sqrt{\frac{4}{3}}\frac{{\mu}M}{{\sigma}}
\hspace{5ex}{\mathrm {for}} \hspace{1ex}{\sigma}\gg \sqrt{{\mu}M},\\
{\psi}_{\mathrm {min}} \simeq 2\sqrt{{ \mu}M}
\hspace{5ex}{\mathrm {for}} \hspace{1ex}{\sigma}\ll \sqrt{{\mu}M}.
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ Since the gauge symmetry of the waterfall fields $\Psi$ and $\bar{\Psi}$ is already broken during inflation, no topological defects are formed in this model. When $\sigma$ is larger than $\sqrt{\mu M}$, the effective potential is given by $$V_H({ \sigma}) \simeq
{\mu}^4\left[1-\frac{2}{27}\frac{{\mu}^2M^2}{{\sigma}^4}+\frac{{\sigma}^4}{8}\right].$$ The third term reflects the effect of the supergravity. Since the effective potential is dominated by the false vacuum energy ${ \mu}^4$, the Hubble parameter is given by $$H \simeq \frac{{ \mu}^2}{\sqrt{3}}.$$ To consider the dynamics of the inflation, we differentiate the effective potential as $$\frac{{\partial} V_H}{{\partial}{ \sigma}} =
{ \mu}^4\left[\frac{8}{27}\frac{({\mu}M)^2}{{ \sigma}^5}
+ \frac{1}{2}{ \sigma}^3\right].$$ The second term, which reflects the effect of the supergravity, dominates the inflation dynamics when inflaton $ \sigma$ is larger than $ {\sigma}_d$ given by $${ \sigma}_d = \left(\frac{16}{27}\right)^{1/8}\left({\mu}M\right)^{1/4}.$$ Let us define $\sigma_{i}$ as the value of the inflaton field when the pivot scale $k_0=0.002[{\mathrm {Mpc}}^{-1}]$ leaves the horizon. The slow-roll condition is broken when $|{ \eta}| = |\frac{1}{2}\frac{V''}{V}|\sim1$ and inflation ends at $ { \sigma} \simeq { \sigma}_c$ where $${ \sigma}_c = \left(\frac{40}{27}\right)^{1/6}\left({ \mu}M\right)^{1/3}.$$ Then, the number of $e$-folds $N_H$ from $\sigma_{i}$ to $\sigma_c$ is written as $$N_{\mathrm{H}}
=
\int^{\sigma_{i}}_{\sigma_{c}}d\sigma
\frac{V}{V'}
=
\int^{\sigma_{i}}_{\sigma_{c}}d\sigma
\frac{1}{\frac{8}{27}\frac{\left(\mu M\right)^2}{\sigma^5}+\frac{1}{2}\sigma^3}.$$ The amplitude of the curvature perturbation in comoving gauge $\cal R$ and the spectral index $n_s$ at the pivot scale are written as $${\cal R}
\simeq
\frac{1}{2\pi\sqrt{3}}\frac{V^{3/2}(\sigma_{i})}{|V'(\sigma_{i})|}
=
\frac{\mu^2}{
2\pi\sqrt{3}\left[
\frac{8}{27}\frac{\left(\mu M\right)^2}{\sigma_i^5}
+\frac{1}{2}\sigma_i^3
\right]
}
=
\frac{\mu^2}{
\pi\sqrt{3}\left[
\frac{\sigma_d^8}{\sigma_i^5} +\sigma_i^3
\right]
}
,$$ and $$n_s-1
=
-\frac{80}{27}\frac{\left(\mu M\right)^2}{\sigma_{i}^6}
+
3\sigma_{i}^2
=
-\frac{1}{5}\frac{\sigma_d^8}{\sigma_i^6}
+3\sigma_i^2
.$$ In this model, when the value of the inflaton at the pivot scale $\sigma_{i}$ is larger than $\sigma_{d}$, the spectral index becomes blue.
New inflation
-------------
Second, we describe the new inflation model [@Izawa:1996dv]. This model has one superfield ${ \Phi}$. ${ \Phi}$ has $R$ charge $\frac{2}{5}$, and it is assumed that $ U(1)_{R}$ symmetry is dynamically broken down to a discrete $ Z_{8R}$ at a scale $ v$. The superpotential is given by $${ W_{N} }= { v}^{{}2}{ \Phi} - \frac{ g}{5}{\Phi}^{5},$$ where $g$ is a coupling constant. The $R$-invariant Kähler potential is given by $$K_{N} = |{ \Phi}|^{2} + \frac{C_{N}}{4}|{ \Phi}|^{4}.$$ Here, $ C_{N}$ is a constant of order 1.
The scalar potential yields a vacuum, $$\braket{\Phi} \simeq \left(\frac{ v^{2}}{ g}\right)^{{1/4}}.$$ At this vacuum, the potential has the negative vacuum energy as $${ V(\braket{ \Phi}) \simeq}
{ -3 e^{K_{N}}|W_{N}\left[\braket{ \Phi}\right]|^{2} \simeq}
{ -3\left(\frac{4}{5}\right)^{2}}{ v}^{ 4}\left(\frac{{ v}^{2}}{{ g}}\right)^{1/2}.$$ We assume that the negative vacuum energy is cancelled out by a supersymmetry-breaking effect which gives a positive contribution ${ \Lambda}_{\mathrm{SUSY}}^{4}$ to the vacuum energy. Thus, we have a relation between $ v$ and the gravitino mass $ m_{3/2}$ as $${ m_{3/2} \simeq}
{ \frac{{ \Lambda}_{\mathrm{SUSY}}^{2}}{\sqrt{3}}=}
{\frac{4}{5}}{ v}^{ 2}\left(\frac{{ v}^{ 2}}{ g}\right)^{ 1/4}.$$ To discuss the dynamics of the new inflation, we identify the inflaton field $\phi$ with the real part of the field $\Phi$ as $\phi \equiv \sqrt{2}Re{ \Phi}$. Neglecting the higher-order terms, we obtain the scalar potential of the new inflation as $${ V_{H}\left[ \phi\right] \simeq}
{ v}^{4} -{ \frac{C_{N}}{2}}{ v}^{ 4}{ \phi}^{ 2}
-\frac{ g}{ 2}{ v}^{ 2}{ \phi}^{ 4}
+\frac{{ g}^{ 2}}{ 16}{ \phi}^{ 8}.$$ We differentiate the scalar potential as $${\frac{dV_{N}}{d{\phi}} = }
{ -C_{N}}{ v}^{ 2}{ \phi}
{ -2}{ g}{ v}^{ 2}{ \phi}^{ 3}
+\frac{{ g}^{2}}{ 2}{ \phi}^{ 7}.$$ When ${\phi}$ is smaller than ${\phi}_{d}\equiv\sqrt{C_Nv^2/(2g)}$, the first term dominantly controls the inflation dynamics. On the other hand, when $ \phi$ is larger than ${ \phi}_{d}$, the second term dominantly controls the inflation dynamics. New inflation occurs when the inflaton $ \phi$ is smaller than $ { \phi}_{c}$ at which slow-roll condition is broken, $|{ \eta}|=\frac{1}{2}|\frac{V_{N}''}{V_{N}}|\sim1$, and $\phi_c$ is given by $${ {\phi}_{c} =}
\sqrt{\frac{{ v}^{ 2}}{{ 6}{ g}} {\left(1-C_{N}\right)}}.$$ Then, the number of e-folds $ N_{\mathrm{new}}$ is written as $$N_{\mathrm{new}} \simeq
\frac{1}{C_{N}}\ln\frac{{\phi}_{d}}{{ \phi}_{i}}
+ \frac{1-4C_{N}}{2C_{N}\left(1-C_{N}\right)}.$$ Here we have assumed that $ C_{N}\leq \frac{1}{4}$.
Oscillatory phase
-----------------
Here, let us consider the oscillatory phase from the end of the smooth hybrid inflation to the start of the new inflation.
After the end of the smooth hybrid inflation, $ \sigma$ and $ \psi$ roll down toward ${ \sigma}_{\mathrm{min}} = 0$ and $ { \psi}_{\mathrm{min}} = 2\sqrt{{ \mu}M}$ where the potential has the minimum. Around the potential minimum, their effective masses $ m_{ \sigma}$ and $ m_{ \psi}$ are given by $$\begin{array}{l}
m_{ \sigma} = \sqrt{\frac{8{\mu}^{3}}{M}}\gg H,\\[0.5\intextsep]
m _{ \psi} = \sqrt{\frac{8{\mu}^{3}}{M} + 16{ \mu}^{4}}\gg H.
\end{array}$$ Thus, $ \sigma$ and $ \psi$ oscillate around their respective minima and the total energy density decreases as $ a^{-3}$, where $a$ is the scale factor. Eventually, the false vacuum energy of the new inflation $ v^{4}$ dominates the total energy density of the universe, and then new inflation starts. During this oscillatory phase, the effective masses of the inflaton and waterfall fields change periodically through their mutual couplings, which leads to the rapid amplification of the field fluctuations ${{\delta}{\sigma}}$ and ${{\delta}{\psi}}$ called the parametric resonance [@Landau; @Shtanov:1994ce; @Kofman:1997yn]. In the present model, the most amplified fluctuations have wavenumber $ k_{\mathrm{peak}}$ [@Kawasaki:2006zv] given by $$\label{eq:2:kpeak}
k_{\mathrm{peak}} \simeq 0.35 m_{ \sigma}.$$ We expect that these enhanced fluctuations produce gravitational waves at the scale $ k_{\mathrm{peak}}$.
Next, we consider the initial condition for the new inflation. Here, interactions between the two inflation sectors become important. During the smooth hybrid inflation, the relevant part of the potential is given by $${ V_{\mathrm{int}} = \frac{1}{2}{ \mu}^{4}{ \phi}^{2}} +
{ \mu}^{ 2}{ v}^{ 2}{ \sigma}{ \phi}.$$ Thus, at the end of the smooth hybrid inflation, the value of the inflaton of the new inflation is given by $${{\phi}_{\mathrm{min}}=-}\frac{{ v}^{2}}{{\mu}^{2}}{\sigma}_{ c}.$$ During the oscillatory phase, the potential energy of the scalar fields averaged over one oscillation time is the half of the total energy density of the universe, which leads to the effective mass of $\phi$, $$\label{eq:nmass}
m_{ \phi}^2
\simeq \frac{3H^2}{2}.$$ Taking into account $ \dot{H} =-\frac{3}{2}H^{2}$, and using eq. (\[eq:nmass\]), one can find that the amplitude of $ \phi$ decreases as $ a^{-3/4}$. Thus, the initial condition for the new inflation is estimated as $${ { \phi}_{\mathrm{ini}}\simeq-}\frac{{ v}^{3}}{{\mu}^{3}}{\sigma}_{ c}.$$ Taking into account this oscillatory phase, and assuming the ordinary thermal history after the reheating, we estimate the total number of $e$-folds $ N_{\mathrm{tot}}$ as $$\label{eq:2:ntot}
N_{\mathrm{tot}}
= N_{H} + N_{\mathrm{new}}
= 57.6 + \frac{2}{3}\ln\mu + \frac{1}{3}\ln \left(\frac{T_{\mathrm{R}}}{10^9\mathrm{GeV}}\right),$$ where we set the reheating temperature as $T_{\mathrm{R}}$.
Parameter search for $\sigma_{i}$
---------------------------------
In this subsection, we search for the allowed region of $\sigma_{i}$ at each $n_s$. At the pivot scale $k_0$, the spectral index $n_s$ and the curvature perturbation $\cal R$ are written in terms of $\sigma_{i}$, the energy scale of the smooth hybrid inflation $\mu$ and the cut-off scale $M$. Then, using the Planck constraint ${\cal R}\simeq4.7\times10^{-5}$ [@Ade:2013zuv], we can write down $\mu$ and $M$ in terms of $n_s$ and $\sigma_{i}$ as $$\label{eq:mu}
\mu
= 7.2\times10^{-3}~
\sqrt{
8~\sigma_{i}^3-\left(n_s-1\right)\sigma_{i}
},$$ $$\label{eq:M}
M
=
81~\sigma_{i}^3
\sqrt{\frac{
3~\sigma_{i}^2-\left(n_s-1\right)
}{
8~\sigma_{i}^3-\left(n_s-1\right)\sigma_{i}
}}.$$ The value of the inflaton $\sigma_{c}$, at which the smooth hybrid inflation ends, is also written in terms of $\sigma_{i}$ and $n_s$ as $$\sigma_{c}
=
0.89~\sigma_{i}
\left[3~\sigma_{i}^2-\left(n_s-1\right)\right]^{1/6}.$$ The $e$-folding number of the smooth hybrid inflation $N_{\mathrm{H}}$ and that of the new inflation $N_{\mathrm{new}}$ are written as $$\begin{split}
N_{\mathrm{H}}
&=
\int^{\sigma_{i}}_{\sigma_c}d\sigma
\frac{\mu^4}{\mu^4\left[
\frac{8}{27}\frac{\left(\mu M\right)^2}{\sigma^5}+\frac{\sigma^3}{2}
\right]}\\
&=
\int^{\sigma_{i}}_{
0.89~\sigma_{i}
\left[3~\sigma_{i}^2-\left(n_s-1\right)\right]^{1/6}
}d\sigma
\frac{1}{
\frac{1}{10}\frac{
\sigma_{i}^6\left(3\sigma_{i}^2-\left(n_s-1\right)\right)
}{\sigma^5}
+ \frac{\sigma^3}{2}
},
\end{split}$$ $$\label{eq:Nn}
\begin{split}
N_{\mathrm{new}}
&=
N_{\mathrm{tot}}-N_{\mathrm{H}}\\
&=
54.3+\frac{1}{3}
\ln \left[
8\sigma_{i}^3-\left(n_s-1\right)\sigma_{i}
\right]\\[0.5\intextsep]
&\hspace{5ex}
-
\int^{\sigma_{i}}_{
0.89~\sigma_{i}
\left[3~\sigma_{i}^2-\left(n_s-1\right)\right]^{1/6}
}d\sigma
\frac{1}{
\frac{1}{10}\frac{
\sigma_{i}^6\left(3\sigma_{i}^2-\left(n_s-1\right)\right)
}{\sigma^5}
+ \frac{\sigma^3}{2}
},
\end{split}$$ where we have used (\[eq:2:ntot\]) and (\[eq:mu\]) for $N_{\mathrm{tot}}$ and $\mu$. Thus, the parameters of the smooth hybrid new inflation are written in terms of $\sigma_{i}$ and $n_s$.
Since the effective potential in the supergravity is uncontrollable over the planck mass, $\sigma_{i}$ and $\mu$ must be smaller than the planck mass. In addition to this, $\sigma_i$ must be larger than $\sigma_c$. This condition guarantees that the hybrid inflation occurs. After the hybrid inflation, the fluctuations of the scalar fields are amplified through the parametric resonance, and then these fluctuations lead to a sharp peak at the scale corresponding to $k_{\rm peak}^{-1}$ in the spectrum of the curvature perturbation [@Kawasaki:2006zv]. The observations of the large scale structures have not seen such enhancement of the curvature perturbations so that the scale corresponding to $k_{\rm peak}^{-1}$ should be sufficiently small. Thus, $N_{\mathrm{H}}$ must be larger than about $10$. Furthermore, since we assume that the new inflation occurs after the hybrid inflation, $N_{\mathrm{new}}$ should be larger than $0$. In addition to these conditions, the cut-off scale $M$ must be larger than $\mu$. These conditions are summarized as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:condition}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
(\mathrm{i}) &
\sigma_{c}<\sigma_{i}<1\\[0.5\intextsep]
(\mathrm{i}\hspace{-.1em}\mathrm{i}) &
\mu < 1\\[0.5\intextsep]
(\mathrm{i}\hspace{-.1em}\mathrm{i}\hspace{-.1em}\mathrm{i}) &
\mu < M
\\[0.5\intextsep]
(\mathrm{i}\hspace{-.1em}\mathrm{v}) &
N_{\mathrm{H}}>10
,~
N_{\mathrm{new}}>0
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ Substituting (\[eq:mu\])$-$(\[eq:Nn\]) into (\[eq:condition\]), we can obtain the maximum and the minimum values of $\sigma_{i}$.
[c c]{}\
[c c]{}\
Fig. \[fig:simami\] shows the maximum and the minimum values of $\sigma_{i}$ at each value of $n_s$. Using (\[eq:mu\]) and (\[eq:M\]), we can get the corresponding maximum and the minimum values of $\mu$ and $M$ which are shown in Fig. \[fig:muM\].
Production of the gravitational waves {#sec:gw_production}
=====================================
During the oscillatory phase, the fluctuations of the scalar fields grow exponentially through the parametric resonance. These growing fluctuations can be a source for gravitational waves. In this section, we calculate the amount of the produced gravitational waves. First, we roughly calculate the energy density of the gravitational waves. Second, we introduce the formalism with which we calculate the energy density and the spectrum of the gravitational waves produced from the scalar fields. Finally, we perform the lattice simulations and calculate the evolution of the fluctuations of the scalar fields. Using the result of the lattice simulations, we estimate the energy density and the spectrum of the gravitational waves.
Order estimate
--------------
In this subsection, we roughly calculate the ratio $\Omega_{\mathrm{gw},p}$ of the energy density of the gravitational waves to the total energy density based on the naive estimation given by Felder and Kofman [@Dufaux:2008dn; @Felder:2006cc]. Here and hereafter the subscript $p$ means the epoch, at which gravitational waves are produced.
Through the parametric resonance, the fluctuations of the scalar fields with the typical length scale $R_{\mathrm{peak}}\simeq k_{\mathrm{peak}}^{-1}$ are enhanced most. These fluctuations produce the gravitational waves. The enhanced fluctuations have self gravitational potential energy $E_{\mathrm{gw}}$. We can write down $E_{\mathrm{gw}}$ at $t_p$ as $$E_{\mathrm{gw}}
\sim
G\frac{
\left(\rho_{\mathrm{tot},p}R_{\mathrm{peak}}^3\right)^2
}{R_{\mathrm{peak}}}
\simeq
\rho_{\mathrm{tot},p}H_{p}^2R_{\mathrm{peak}}^5,$$ where $\rho_{\mathrm{tot},p}$ is the total density and $H_{p}$ is the Hubble parameter. We approximate that the order of the energy of the gravitational waves is comparable to the self gravitational potential energy of the enhanced scalar fields $E_{\mathrm{gw}}$. Under this approximation, the energy density of the gravitational waves $\rho_{\mathrm{gw},p}$ is estimated as $$\rho_{\mathrm{gw},p}
\sim
\frac{E_{\mathrm{gw}}}{R_{\mathrm{peak}}^3}
\sim
\rho_{\mathrm{tot},p}H_{p}^2R_{\mathrm{peak}}^2.$$ Thus, the ratio of the energy density of the gravitational waves to the total energy density $\Omega_{\mathrm{gw},p}$ is given by $$\Omega_{\mathrm{gw},p}
\equiv \frac{\rho_{\mathrm{gw},p}}{\rho_{\mathrm{tot},p}}
\sim \left(R_{\mathrm{{peak}}}H_{p}\right)^2.$$ In this paper we assume that the density of the produced gravitational waves is given by the above equation with introducing a numerical constant as $$\label{eq:3:Omegap0}
\Omega_{\mathrm{gw},p}
= \alpha\left(R_{\mathrm{{peak}}}H_{p}\right)^2,$$ where $\alpha$ will be determined by the numerical simulations presented in Sec. \[subsec:simulation\]. For the smooth hybrid new inflation model, from (\[eq:2:kpeak\]), $R_{\mathrm{peak}}$ is written as $$R_{\mathrm{peak}}
=
\frac{1}{0.35m_{\sigma}}=\frac{1}{0.35}\sqrt{\frac{M}{8\mu^3}}.$$ Using this relation, we can rewrite (\[eq:3:Omegap0\]) as $$\label{eq:3:Omegap}
\Omega_{\mathrm{gw},p}
=0.34~\alpha\left(\frac{\mu M}{M_{\mathrm{pl}}^2}\right).$$
Formalism for calculating gravitational wave spectrum
-----------------------------------------------------
Here, we review the formalism developed by Dufaux et al. [@Dufaux:2007pt] with which we calculate the spectrum of the gravitational waves produced from the fluctuations of the scalar fields.
We consider the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric including the linear perturbation in the spatial metric ${\cal H}_{ij}$. $$ds^2
=
a^2(\tau)
\left[
-d\tau^2 +
\left(
\delta_{ij} + {\cal H}_{ij}(\tau,\vec{x})
\right)dx^{i}dx^{j}
\right],$$ where $\tau$ is the conformal time defined as $dt = ad\tau$. The amplitude of the gravitational waves $h_{ij}$ is defined as the transverse-traceless part of ${\cal H}_{ij}$ $$h_{ij}(\tau,\vec{x})
=
a(\tau){\cal H}_{ij}^{\mathrm{TT}}(\tau,\vec{x}).$$ The superscript TT means the transverse-traceless part. The evolution of $h_{ij}$ is described by the linearized Einstein equation as $$\label{eq:3:heq}
h_{ij}''(\tau,\vec{x})-\nabla^2h_{ij}(\tau,\vec{x})
=
16\pi Ga(\tau)T_{ij}^{\mathrm{TT}}(\tau,\vec{x}).$$ where prime denote the differential with respect to the conformal time. Assuming that the typical physical scale is much smaller than the horizon scale, we neglected the terms including $a''$. Here, $T_{ij}^{\mathrm{TT}}(\tau,\vec{x})$ is computed by applying the projection operator in the momentum space as $$\begin{split}
&T_{ij}^{TT}(\tau,\vec{k})=\Lambda_{ij,kl}(\hat{k})T_{ij}(\tau,\vec{k})
=\Lambda_{ij,kl}\left\{\partial_k\phi\partial_l\phi\right\}(\tau,\vec{k}),\\
&\Lambda_{ij,kl}(\hat{k})
= P_{ik}(\hat{k})P_{jl}(\hat{k}) -\frac{1}{2}P_{ij}(\hat{k})P_{kl}(\hat{k}),\\
&P_{ij}(\hat{k}) = \delta_{ij}-\hat{k}_{i}\hat{k}_{j},
\end{split}$$ where $\left\{\partial_k\phi\partial_{l}\phi\right\}(\tau,\vec{k})$ is the Fourier transform of $\partial_{k}\phi(\tau,\vec{x})\partial_{l}\phi(\tau,\vec{x})$.
We assume that the source term is nonzero only for the time interval $ {\tau}_{i}\leq{\tau}\leq{\tau}_{f}$. In this case we can solve (\[eq:3:heq\]) by using the Green’s function and obtain $$\label{eq:3:h}
{h_{ij}}({\tau},\vec{ k})
= { A_{ij}}(\vec{ k}){ \sin\left[k\left({ \tau}-{ \tau}_{f}\right)\right]}
+{ B_{ij}}(\vec{ k}){ \cos\left[k\left({ \tau}-{ \tau}_{f}\right)\right]}
\hspace{5ex}{ \mathrm{for}}\hspace{1ex}{\tau}\geq{\tau}_{ f},$$ where $$\begin{split}
&{ A_{ij}}(\vec{ k})
={\frac{-16\pi G}{k}\int^{{\tau}_{f}}_{{ \tau}_{i}}d{\tau'}
\cos\left[k\left({\tau}_{f}-{\tau}'\right)\right]a({ \tau}')
T_{ij}^{TT}}({ \tau}',\vec{ k}),\\
&{ B_{ij}}(\vec{ k})
={\frac{16\pi G}{k}\int^{{\tau}_{f}}_{{ \tau}_{i}}d{\tau'}
\sin\left[k\left({\tau}_{f}-{\tau}'\right)\right]a({ \tau}')
T_{ij}^{TT}}({ \tau}',\vec{ k}).
\end{split}$$ Here, $h_{ij}(\tau,\vec{k})$ is the Fourier transform of $h_{ij}(\tau,\vec{x})$.
The energy density of the gravitational waves is given by $$\rho_{\mathrm{gw}}(\tau)
=
\frac{1}{32\pi Ga^4(\tau)}
\braket{
h_{ij}'(\tau,\vec{x}) h_{ij}'(\tau,\vec{x})
}_V
=
\frac{1}{32\pi Ga^4(\tau)V}
\int\frac{d^3k}{\left(2\pi\right)^3}
h_{ij}'(\tau,\vec{k})h_{ij}^{\ast'}(\tau,\vec{k}),$$ where $\langle \cdots\rangle_V$ denotes the average over the spatial volume $V$. Taking the time average over a period of the oscillations, we obtain $\rho_{\mathrm{gw}}(\tau)$ as $$\begin{split}
\rho_{\mathrm{gw}}(\tau)
&=
\frac{4\pi G}{a^4(\tau)V}
\int\frac{d^3k}{\left(2\pi\right)^3}
\sum_{ij}\\
&\hspace{1ex}\times
\left[
\left|
\int^{\tau_{f}}_{\tau_{i}}d\tau'
\cos\left(k\tau'\right)a\left(\tau'\right)T_{ij}^{TT}(\tau',\vec{k})
\right|^2
+
\left|
\int^{\tau_{f}}_{\tau_{i}}d\tau'
\sin\left(k\tau'\right)a\left(\tau'\right)T_{ij}^{TT}(\tau',\vec{k})
\right|^2
\right].
\end{split}$$ Thus, the spectrum of the gravitational waves just after the production is given by $$\label{eq:3:OmegaL}
\Omega_{\mathrm{gw}}\left(k\right)
=
\frac{1}{\rho_{\mathrm{tot}}}
\frac{d\rho_{\mathrm{gw}}(\tau_{f},k)}{d\ln k}
=
\frac{4G^2}{3\pi Va^4(\tau_{f})H^2(\tau_{f})}
S_{k}(\tau_{f}),$$ where $$\label{eq:3:sk}
\begin{split}
S_{k}(\tau_{f})
&=
k^3\int d\Omega_{k}
\sum_{ij}\\
&\times
\left[
\left|
\int^{\tau_{f}}_{\tau_{i}}d\tau'
\cos\left(k\tau'\right)a\left(\tau'\right)T_{ij}^{TT}(\tau',\vec{k})
\right|^2
+
\left|
\int^{\tau_{f}}_{\tau_{i}}d\tau'
\sin\left(k\tau'\right)a\left(\tau'\right)T_{ij}^{TT}(\tau',\vec{k})
\right|^2
\right],
\end{split}$$ and $d\Omega_{k}=d\cos\theta d\phi$.
Lattice simulation {#subsec:simulation}
------------------
The parametric resonance is a nonlinear phenomenon. Thus, in order to estimate the spectrum and energy density of produced gravitational waves precisely, we need to perform the lattice simulations to calculate the time evolution of the fluctuations of the scalar fields.
We perform the lattice simulations with three dimensional comoving box taking the cosmic expansion into account, where the scale factor is determined by the Friedmann equation. In order to resolve the oscillations of the inflaton, we set the time step $dt$ as $$dt = \frac{1}{10}\frac{1}{m_{\sigma}}<\frac{1}{m_{\sigma}}.$$ We set the step number of the time as $1500$, where the ratio of the scale factor at the end of the simulation to that at the beginning is $3.1$ [^1]. By the end of the simulation, the production of the gravitational waves stops. The linear analysis [@Kawasaki:2006zv] shows that the enhancement of the scalar fields occurs at the spacial scale $R_{\mathrm{peak}}\sim1/\left(0.35m_{\sigma}\right)$. Taking this into account, we set the box size of the simulation $V=L^3$ and the grid number $N_{\mathrm{grid}}$ as $L=100/m_{\sigma}$ and $N_{\mathrm{grid}}=256^3$. Then, $L>R_{\mathrm{peak}}$ and $L/N_{\mathrm{grid}}^{1/3}<R_{\mathrm{peak}}$ are satisfied even if we consider the growth of the scale factor. Thus, we can resolve the peak scale $R_{\mathrm{peak}}$ during the simulation. We choose the physical parameters as follows $$\label{eq:3:parameter}
{\mu} = { 1.38\times10^{-3}M_{{\rm pl}}},~
{ v} = { 3.45\times10^{-4}M_{{\rm pl}}},~
{ M} = { 0.545M_{{\rm pl}}},~
{ g} = { 2.0\times10^{-5}},~\mathrm{and}~
{ C_{N} = 0.04},$$ with which the spectral index $n_s-1=-0.035$ is within 1 $\sigma$ deviation from the central value of the Planck result [@Ade:2013zuv]. We set the initial amplitude of the fluctuations of the scalar fields by Rayleigh distribution [@Polarski:1995jg; @Khlebnikov:1996mc; @Khlebnikov:1996zt; @GarciaBellido:2002aj].
[c c]{}\
The inflation model we consider here has three scalar fields $\sigma,~\psi$ and $\phi$, where $\sigma$ is the inflaton of the hybrid inflation, $\psi$ is the waterfall field of the hybrid inflation and $\phi$ is the inflaton of the new inflation. We perform the simulation using these three real scalar fields.[^2] Using the lattice simulations, we calculate the occupation number of the scalar fields in momentum space $n_{f}$ as $$n_{f}
=
\omega_{k}\left(
\frac{|\dot{f}_{k}|^2}{\omega_{k}^2} + |f_{k}|^2
\right),~
\omega_{k}^2 \equiv \frac{k^2}{a^2}+m_{f}^2:~f\in\{\sigma,~\psi,~\phi\},$$ where $f_{k}$ is the Fourier component of $f$. Fig. \[fig:3:n\_real\] shows the time evolution of $n_f$ for the scalar fields. We can see the enhancement of the scalar fields $\sigma$ and $\psi$ by the parametric resonance. [^3]
Using the result of the lattice simulations, we calculate the spectrum of the gravitational waves. Fig. \[fig:3:gw\] shows the spectrum of the gravitational waves produced from three real scalar fields. We can see that as the fluctuations of the scalar fields increase after the first inflation, gravitational waves are produced abundantly. This shows that the enhancement of the scalar fields by the parametric resonance works as the origin of the gravitational waves. Furthermore, we perform the simulations for 30 realizations with different initial random values of the scalar field fluctuations. Using the result of these 30 realizations and (\[eq:3:OmegaL\]), we estimate the amount of the gravitational waves $\Omega_{\mathrm{gw}}|_{\mathrm{Lattice}}$ as $$\label{eq:3:Omegap_Lattice1}
\Omega_{\mathrm{gw}}|_{\mathrm{Lattice}}
=
\left(6.1\pm0.1\right)\times10^{-4}.$$
![ Time evolution of the spectrum of the gravitational waves from $t = 30[1/m_{\sigma}]$ to $t=80[1/m_{\sigma}]$ for every $10[1/m_{\sigma}]$ time interval and at the final time $t=150[1/m_{\sigma}]$ . Here, the vertical axis corresponds to $S_k$ defined in (\[eq:3:sk\]). []{data-label="fig:3:gw"}](./pdf/gw.pdf){width="12cm"}
With the lattice simulations, we can precisely calculate the energy density and the spectrum of the gravitational waves produced during the oscillatory phase. However, because of the cost of the simulation time, we cannot perform the lattice simulation for all parameters allowed in this model. In order to estimate the amount of the gravitational waves for various parameters, we use (\[eq:3:Omegap\]) determining the numerical constant $\alpha$ from the result of the lattice simulations. For the parameters given by (\[eq:3:parameter\]), (\[eq:3:Omegap\]) leads to $$\label{eq:3:Omegap_estimate1}
\Omega_{\mathrm{gw}}|_{\mathrm{estimate}}
\simeq
\alpha\times2.6\times10^{-4}.$$ Comparing (\[eq:3:Omegap\_Lattice1\]) with (\[eq:3:Omegap\_estimate1\]), we can determine the $\alpha$ as $$\alpha\simeq2.71\pm0.05~.$$ Thus, the amount of the gravitational waves just after the production is estimated as $$\Omega_{\mathrm{gw},p}
\simeq \left(0.92 \pm 0.02\right)\frac{\mu M}{M_{\mathrm{pl}}^2}.$$
Present density of gravitational waves {#sec:present_density}
======================================
After the oscillatory phase, the universe is dominated by the false vacuum energy $v^4$ and the new inflation starts. After the new inflation, the universe experiences the reheating followed by the standard thermal history. Because of the cosmic expansion, the gravitational waves are red-shifted and their energy density decreases. Considering these effects, we calculate the present peak frequency of the gravitational wave spectrum $f_{\mathrm{gw},0}$, and the amount of the gravitational waves $\Omega_{\mathrm{gw},0}$.
Peak frequency of gravitational waves
-------------------------------------
As a result of the lattice simulation, it is found that the spectrum of the gravitational waves has a sharp peak at $f_{\mathrm{gw},p}\simeq k_{\mathrm{peak}}/2\pi$, $$f_{\mathrm{gw},p}
=
\frac{0.35m_{\sigma}}{2\pi}.$$ This frequency decreases by the cosmic expansion and the present frequency $f_{\mathrm{gw},0}$ is given by $\left(a_{p}/a_0\right)f_{\mathrm{gw},p}$, where $a_{p}$ is the scale factor at the production of the gravitational waves. We assume that the scale factor $a_{p}$ is approximately equal to the scale factor at the end of the smooth hybrid inflation $a_{\mathrm{H}}$. Then, the ratio $a_0/a_{p}$ is given by $$\frac{a_0}{a_{p}}
\simeq
\frac{a_0}{a_{\mathrm{H}}}
=
8.3\times10^{33}~e^{N_{\mathrm{new}}}
\left(\frac{T_{\mathrm{R}}}{10^9\mathrm{GeV}}\right)^{-1/3}
\left(\frac{\mu}{M_{\mathrm{pl}}}\right)^{4/3}.$$ Thus, the present peak frequency of the gravitational waves $f_{\mathrm{gw},0}$ is given by $$\label{eq:4:fgw0}
f_{\mathrm{gw},0}
=
6.8\times10^7~e^{-N_{\mathrm{new}}}
\left(\frac{T_{\mathrm{R}}}{10^9\mathrm{GeV}}\right)^{1/3}
\left(\frac{\mu}{M_{\mathrm{pl}}}\right)^{2/3}
\left(\frac{\mu M}{M_{\mathrm{pl}}^2}\right)^{-1/2}\mathrm{Hz}.$$
Relic density of gravitational waves
------------------------------------
In this subsection, we consider the effect of the cosmic expansion on the energy density of the gravitational waves. Just after the production, the energy density of the gravitational waves decreases as $a^{-4}$, like radiation. After the wavelength becomes larger than the horizon during the new inflation (horizon exit), the amplitude of the gravitational waves stops decreasing, and the energy density decreases as $a^{-2}$. After the end of the new inflation, the gravitational waves re-enter the horizon (horizon entry), and the energy density decreases as $a^{-4}$ again. Thus, the energy density of the gravitational waves today $\rho_{\mathrm{gw},0}$ is given by $$\rho_{\mathrm{gw},0}
=
\left(\frac{a_0}{a_{\mathrm{H}}}\right)^{-4}
\left(\frac{a_{\mathrm{entry}}}{a_{\mathrm{exit}}}\right)^{2}
\rho_{\mathrm{gw},p}.$$ Here, $a_{\mathrm{exit}}$ is the scale factor at the horizon exit. $a_{\mathrm{entry}}$ is the scale factor at the horizon entry.
If $N_{\mathrm{new}}$ is sufficiently small, the wavelength never exceeds the horizon during the new inflation. We call this case “No horizon exit". As $\sigma_i$ becomes larger, $N_{\mathrm{new}}$ becomes larger and horizon exit occurs during the new inflation. After the new inflation, the horizon begins to grow, and the gravitational waves re-enter the horizon. If $N_{\mathrm{new}}$ is small, the horizon size at the end of the new inflation is not so large compared with the wavelength of the gravitational waves. Thus, the gravitational waves re-enter the horizon soon after the new inflation, i.e., before the reheating is completed. We call this case “Reheating time horizon entry". As $N_{\mathrm{new}}$ becomes larger, the horizon entry occurs later, i.e. during the radiation dominated era. We call this case “Radiation time horizon entry". When $N_{\mathrm{new}}$ becomes much larger, the horizon entry occurs during matter dominated era. We call this case “Matter time horizon entry". In each case, we can write down the $\Omega_{\mathrm{gw},0}$, as $$\label{eq:4:Omega0}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\hspace{-0.5\intextsep}\mathrm{No}~\mathrm{exit} &\hspace{-0.5\intextsep}
h^2\Omega_{\mathrm{gw},0,\mathrm{no}}
=
4.5\times10^{-17}~\mathrm{e}^{-4N_{\mathrm{new}}}
\left(\frac{T_{\mathrm{R}}}{10^9\mathrm{GeV}}\right)^{4/3}
\left(\frac{\mu}{M_{\mathrm{pl}}}\right)^{-4/3}
\Omega_{\mathrm{gw},\mathrm{p}},\\[1.0\intextsep]
&\hspace{-10ex}
{\rm for}~~
\mathrm{e}^{N_{\rm new}} <
1.7 ~ \left(\frac{v}{\mu}\right)^{-2/3}
\left(\frac{\mu M}{M_{\rm pl}^2}\right)^{-1/2},
\\[1.0\intextsep]
\hspace{-0.5\intextsep}\mathrm{Reh.}~\mathrm{entry} &\hspace{-0.5\intextsep}
h^2\Omega_{\mathrm{gw},0,\mathrm{reh}}
=
6.4\times10^{-19}~\mathrm{e}^{2N_{\mathrm{new}}}
\left(\frac{v}{\mu}\right)^{4}
\left(\frac{T_{\mathrm{R}}}{10^9\mathrm{GeV}}\right)^{4/3}
\left(\frac{\mu}{M_{\mathrm{pl}}}\right)^{-4/3}
\left(\frac{\mu M}{M_{\mathrm{pl}}^2}\right)^3
\Omega_{\mathrm{gw},\mathrm{p}},\\[1.0\intextsep]
&\hspace{-10ex}{\rm for}~~
1.7 ~ \left(\frac{v}{\mu}\right)^{-2/3}
\left(\frac{\mu M}{M_{\rm pl}^2}\right)^{-1/2}
<
\mathrm{e}^{N_{\rm new}}
<
1.6\times 10^6 \left(
\frac{T_{\mathrm{R}}}{10^{9}{\rm GeV}}
\right)^{-2/3}
\left(\frac{\mu}{M_{\mathrm{pl}}}\right)^{2/3}
\left(\frac{\mu M}{M_{\rm pl}^2}\right)^{-1/2},
\\[1.0\intextsep]
\hspace{-0.5\intextsep}\mathrm{Ra.}~\mathrm{entry} &\hspace{-0.5\intextsep}
h^2\Omega_{\mathrm{gw},0,\mathrm{ra}}
=
4.0\times10^{-6}
\left(\frac{v}{\mu}\right)^{4}
\left(\frac{\mu M}{M_{\mathrm{pl}}^2}\right)^2
\Omega_{\mathrm{gw},\mathrm{p}},\\[1.0\intextsep]
&\hspace{-10ex}{\rm for}~~
1.6\times 10^6 \left(
\frac{T_{\mathrm{R}}}{10^{9}{\rm GeV}}
\right)^{-2/3}
\left(\frac{\mu}{M_{\mathrm{pl}}}\right)^{2/3}
\left(\frac{\mu M}{M_{\rm pl}^2}\right)^{-1/2}
<
\mathrm{e}^{N_{\rm new}}
\\[.5\intextsep]
&\hspace{10ex}
<
3.2\times 10^{24} ~
\left(\frac{T_{\rm R}}{10^{9}{\rm GeV}}\right)^{1/3}
\left(\frac{\mu}{M_{\rm pl}}\right)^{2/3}
\left(\frac{\mu M}{M_{\rm pl}^2}\right)^{-1/2},
\\[1.0\intextsep]
\hspace{-0.5\intextsep}\mathrm{Ma.}~\mathrm{entry} &\hspace{-0.5\intextsep}
h^2\Omega_{\mathrm{gw},0,\mathrm{ma}}
=
8.7\times10^{-55}~\mathrm{e}^{2N_{\mathrm{new}}}
\left(\frac{v}{\mu}\right)^{4}
\left(\frac{T_{\mathrm{R}}}{10^9\mathrm{GeV}}\right)^{-2/3}
\left(\frac{\mu}{M_{\mathrm{pl}}}\right)^{-4/3}
\left(\frac{\mu M}{M_{\mathrm{pl}}^2}\right)^3
\Omega_{\mathrm{gw},\mathrm{p}},\\[1.0\intextsep]
&\hspace{-10ex}{\rm for}~~
3.2\times 10^{24} ~
\left(\frac{T_{\rm R}}{10^{9}{\rm GeV}}\right)^{1/3}
\left(\frac{\mu}{M_{\rm pl}}\right)^{2/3}
\left(\frac{\mu M}{M_{\rm pl}^2}\right)^{-1/2}
<
\mathrm{e}^{N_{\rm new}}.
\end{array}
\right.$$
$f_{\mathrm{gw},0}$ and $\Omega_{\mathrm{gw},0}$
------------------------------------------------
![ Relations between $\Omega_{\mathrm{gw},0}$ and $f_{\mathrm{gw},0}$ for given spectral indices $n_s= -0.04, -0.038, -0.03, ~0$ and $0.1$. []{data-label="fig:Omega_fg"}](./pdf/Omega0.pdf){width="120mm"}
In this subsection, we calculate the relation between the amount of the gravitational waves today $\Omega_{\mathrm{gw},0}$ and the peak frequency of the gravitational wave spectrum $f_{\mathrm{gw},0}$. In (\[eq:4:fgw0\]) and (\[eq:4:Omega0\]), $f_{\mathrm{gw},0}$ and $\Omega_{\mathrm{gw},0}$ are written in terms of $N_{\mathrm{new}},~\mu,~v,~M$ and $T_{\mathrm{R}}$. Furthermore, in (\[eq:Nn\]), (\[eq:mu\]) and (\[eq:M\]), $N_{\mathrm{new}},~\mu,~M$ are written in terms of $\sigma_{i}$ and $n_s$. Here, we assume that the energy scale of the new inflation $v$ is approximately equal to that of the hybrid inflation $\mu$, and the reheating temperature $T_{\mathrm{R}}$ is $10^9\mathrm{GeV}$. For $\mu \simeq v$ the density of the gravitational waves is maximal so that our estimation gives the upper bound. With these assumptions, $f_{\mathrm{gw},0}$ and $\Omega_{\mathrm{gw},0}$ are written only by $\sigma_{i}$ and $n_s$ as $$\ln f_{\mathrm{gw},0}
=
-39.3-\frac{3}{2}\ln\sigma_{i}
-\frac{1}{4}\ln\left[3\sigma_{i}^2-\left(n_s-1\right)\right]+N_{\mathrm{H}},$$ and $$\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\ln\Omega_{\mathrm{gw},0,\mathrm{no}}
&\hspace{-2ex}=
\ln\alpha -250 +3\ln\sigma_{i}
+\frac{1}{2}\ln\left[3\sigma_{i}-\left(n_s-1\right)\right]
-2\ln\left[8\sigma_{i}^2-\left(n_s-1\right)\right]
+4N_{\mathrm{H}}\\[0.5\intextsep]
\ln\Omega_{\mathrm{gw},0,\mathrm{reh}}
&\hspace{-2ex}=
\ln\alpha +70.1 +12\ln\sigma_{i}
+2\ln\left[3\sigma_{i}-\left(n_s-1\right)\right]
-2N_{\mathrm{H}}\\[0.5\intextsep]
\ln\Omega_{\mathrm{gw},0,\mathrm{ra}}
&\hspace{-2ex}=
\ln\alpha -15.12 +9\ln\sigma_{i}
+\frac{3}{2}\ln\left[3\sigma_{i}^2-\left(n_s-1\right)\right]
\\[0.5\intextsep]
\ln\Omega_{\mathrm{gw},0,\mathrm{ma}}
&\hspace{-2ex}=
\ln\alpha -12.5 +12\ln\sigma_{i}
+2\ln\left[3\sigma^2-\left(n_s-1\right)\right] -2N_{\mathrm{H}}
\end{array}
\right.$$ where domain of $\sigma_{i}$ is constrained as shown in Fig. \[fig:simami\]. Thus, for a given spectral index $n_s$ we can obtain $\Omega_{\mathrm{gw},0}$ as a function of the peak frequency $f_{\mathrm{gw},0}$. Fig. \[fig:Omega\_fg\] shows this relation. At low peak frequencies $f_{{\rm gw},0} \lesssim 40~\rm{Hz}$, the horizon entry occurs during the radiation dominated era. At high peak frequencies $40~{\rm Hz} \lesssim f_{{\rm gw},0} \lesssim 10^5~{\rm Hz}$, the horizon entry occurs during the reheating era. At higher peak frequencies $f_{{\rm gw},0} \gtrsim 10^5~\rm{Hz}$, the horizon exit does not occur. In this model, as $\sigma_{i}$ becomes larger, $\mu$ and $\Omega_{\mathrm{gw},p}$ becomes larger. In addition to this, as $\sigma_{i}$ becomes larger, $N_{\mathrm{new}}$ becomes larger. Hence, $f_{\mathrm{gw},0}$ becomes smaller as shown in (\[eq:4:fgw0\]). When the wavelength is larger than the horizon, the amplitude of the gravitational waves does not decrease. Because of this effect, $\Omega_{\mathrm{gw},p}$ increases. Thus, the curves of the plot have negative slope. When horizon exit does not occur, the amplitude of the gravitational waves always decreases during the new inflation. This effect decreases the amount of the gravitational waves more efficiently than in the case where horizon exit occurs, and the slope of the plot becomes positive at higher frequencies.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
In this paper, we have studied the production of the gravitational waves in the smooth hybrid new inflation model [@Yamaguchi:2004tn; @Kawasaki:2006zv]. After the smooth hybrid inflation, the inflaton and waterfall fields for the hybrid inflation start to oscillate and their fluctuations grow exponentially through the parametric resonance, which leads to the efficient production of gravitational waves. We performed the lattice simulation and calculated the amount of the gravitational waves.
From the result of the lattice simulation, we found the relation between the present gravitational energy density $\Omega _{gw,0}$ and the peak frequency $f_{gw}$. Fig. \[fig:sensiv\] shows the sensitivities of the planned detectors and gravitational wave spectrum predicted from inflation models. This figure shows that the gravitational waves produced in this model can be detectable in the future experiments in some parameter space. For example, the pink line shows the spectrum of gravitational waves produced in a set of parameters $\mu = 3.8\times10^{-4}M_{{\rm pl}},~M=4.1\times10^{-2}M_{{\rm pl}}
,~n_s-1=-0.035$, where $n_s$ is the best-fit value of the Planck result. In this parameter set, the ultimate DECIGO can detect the gravitational waves.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work is supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific research from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, and Culture (MEXT), Japan, No. 14102004 (M.K.), No. 21111006 (M.K.) and also by World Premier International Research Center Initiative (WPI Initiative), MEXT, Japan. K.S. is supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS).
[99]{} R. A. Hulse and J. H. Taylor, Astrophys. J. [**195**]{} (1975) L51. http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/
https://wwwcascina.virgo.infn.it/
http://www.et-gw.eu/
http://gwcenter.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/
http://lisa.nasa.gov/
http://tamago.mtk.nao.ac.jp/decigo
N. Seto, S. Kawamura and T. Nakamura, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{} (2001) 221103 \[astro-ph/0108011\]. S. Kawamura, M. Ando, N. Seto, S. Sato, T. Nakamura, K. Tsubono, N. Kanda and T. Tanaka [*et al.*]{}, Class. Quant. Grav. [**28**]{} (2011) 094011. J. Crowder and N. J. Cornish, Phys. Rev. D [**72**]{} (2005) 083005 \[gr-qc/0506015\]. P. A. R. Ade [*et al.*]{} \[Planck Collaboration\], arXiv:1303.5076 \[astro-ph.CO\]. D. H. Lyth and A. R. Liddle, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Pr. (2009) 497 p
S. Y. Khlebnikov and I. I. Tkachev, Phys. Rev. D [**56**]{} (1997) 653 \[hep-ph/9701423\]. R. Easther and E. A. Lim, JCAP [**0604**]{} (2006) 010 \[astro-ph/0601617\]. J. Garcia-Bellido, D. G. Figueroa and A. Sastre, Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{} (2008) 043517 \[arXiv:0707.0839 \[hep-ph\]\]. J. -F. Dufaux, G. Felder, L. Kofman and O. Navros, JCAP [**0903**]{} (2009) 001 \[arXiv:0812.2917 \[astro-ph\]\]. T. Hiramatsu, M. Kawasaki and K. ’i. Saikawa, JCAP [**1005**]{} (2010) 032 \[arXiv:1002.1555 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. M. Kawasaki and K. ’i. Saikawa, JCAP [**1109**]{} (2011) 008 \[arXiv:1102.5628 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. V. Berezinsky, B. Hnatyk and A. Vilenkin, astro-ph/0001213. T. Damour and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{} (2000) 3761 \[gr-qc/0004075\]. T. Damour and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{} (2005) 063510 \[hep-th/0410222\]. M. Kawasaki, K. Miyamoto and K. Nakayama, Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{} (2010) 103523 \[arXiv:1002.0652 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. J. Garcia-Bellido and A. D. Linde, Phys. Rev. D [**57**]{} (1998) 6075 \[hep-ph/9711360\]. G. N. Felder, J. Garcia-Bellido, P. B. Greene, L. Kofman, A. D. Linde and I. Tkachev, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{} (2001) 011601 \[hep-ph/0012142\]. L. Randall, M. Soljacic and A. H. Guth, Nucl. Phys. B [**472**]{} (1996) 377 \[hep-ph/9512439\]. J. Garcia-Bellido, A. D. Linde and D. Wands, Phys. Rev. D [**54**]{} (1996) 6040 \[astro-ph/9605094\]. K. I. Izawa, M. Kawasaki and T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B [**411**]{} (1997) 249 \[hep-ph/9707201\]. M. Yamaguchi and J. ’i. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{} (2004) 023513 \[hep-ph/0402282\]. G. Lazarides and C. Panagiotakopoulos, Phys. Rev. D [**52**]{} (1995) 559 \[hep-ph/9506325\]. R. Jeannerot, S. Khalil, G. Lazarides and Q. Shafi, JHEP [**0010**]{} (2000) 012 \[hep-ph/0002151\]. M. Kawasaki, T. Takayama, M. Yamaguchi and J. ’i. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. D [**74**]{} (2006) 043525 \[hep-ph/0605271\]. A. D. Linde and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. D [**56**]{} (1997) 1841 \[hep-ph/9703209\]. K. -I. Izawa and T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B [**393**]{} (1997) 331 \[hep-ph/9608359\]. L.Landau and E.Lifschitz, Mechanics (Pergamon, Oxford, 1960);
Y. Shtanov, J. H. Traschen and R. H. Brandenberger, Phys. Rev. D [**51**]{} (1995) 5438 \[hep-ph/9407247\]. L. Kofman, A. D. Linde and A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Rev. D [**56**]{} (1997) 3258 \[hep-ph/9704452\]. G. N. Felder and L. Kofman, Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{} (2007) 043518 \[hep-ph/0606256\]. T. Hiramatsu, M. Kawasaki and K. ’i. Saikawa, JCAP [**1108**]{} (2011) 030 \[arXiv:1012.4558 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. J. F. Dufaux, A. Bergman, G. N. Felder, L. Kofman and J. -P. Uzan, Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{} (2007) 123517 \[arXiv:0707.0875 \[astro-ph\]\]. D. Polarski and A. A. Starobinsky, Class. Quant. Grav. [**13**]{} (1996) 377 \[gr-qc/9504030\]. S. Y. .Khlebnikov and I. I. Tkachev, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{} (1996) 219 \[hep-ph/9603378\]. S. Y. .Khlebnikov and I. I. Tkachev, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{} (1997) 1607 \[hep-ph/9610477\]. J. Garcia-Bellido, M. Garcia Perez and A. Gonzalez-Arroyo, Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{} (2003) 103501 \[hep-ph/0208228\].
[^1]: If we continue the simulation for a larger time step, the energy density of the universe is dominated by the constant energy density $v^4$ and the scale factor increases exponentially with time, which determines the upper limit of the simulation time.
[^2]: More precisely, this model has three complex scalar fields $S,~\Psi$ and $\Phi$. The real part of $S,~\Psi$ and $\Phi$ corresponds to $\sigma,~\psi$ and $\phi$. The imaginary part of each complex scalar fields does not affect on the dynamics of inflation directly. However, there is a possibility that the fluctuations of their imaginary parts are enhanced through the parametric resonance and the shape of the gravitational waves becomes different from that simulated only by three real scalar fields. We have performed the simulations with these three complex scalar fields, from which we confirmed that the spectrum is not altered by the fluctuations of the imaginary part.
[^3]: We have checked that the fluctuations of the inflaton for the new inflation $\phi$ are not enhanced. This means that the inflaton of the new inflation does not affect the dynamics of the oscillatory phase.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We have measured the Hall effect on recently synthesized single crystals of quasi-one-dimensional organic conductor TTF-TCNQ, a well known charge transfer complex that has two kinds of conductive stacks: the donor (TTF) and the acceptor (TCNQ) chains. The measurements were performed in the temperature interval $30{\,\mathrm{K}}<T<300{\,\mathrm{K}}$ and for several different magnetic field and current directions through the crystal. By applying the equivalent isotropic sample (EIS) approach, we have demonstrated the importance of the choice of optimal geometry for accurate Hall effect measurements. Our results show, contrary to past belief, that the Hall coefficient does not depend on the geometry of measurements and that the Hall coefficient value is around zero in high temperature region ($T > 150$ K), implying that there is no dominance of either TTF or TCNQ chain. At lower temperatures, our measurements clearly prove that all three phase transitions of TTF-TCNQ could be identified from Hall effect measurements.'
address:
- '$^1$Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, University of Zagreb, P.O.Box 331, HR-10002 Zagreb, Croatia'
- '$^2$Institute of Physics, P.O.Box 304, HR-10001 Zagreb, Croatia'
- '$^3$Department of Physics, Technical University of Denmark, DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark'
author:
- 'E Tafra$^1$, M Čulo$^2$, M Basletić$^1$, B Korin-Hamzić$^2$, A Hamzić$^1$ and C S Jacobsen$^3$'
bibliography:
- 'etafra.bib'
title: 'The Hall effect in the organic conductor TTF-TCNQ: Choice of geometry for accurate measurements of highly anisotropic system'
---
Introduction
============
Being the first realization of an organic metal, the quasi one-dimensional molecular crystal [TTF–TCNQ]{} (tetrathiafulvalene–tetracyanoquinodimethane) has been studied thoroughly for more than thirty years [@R01; @R02; @R03; @R04]. The planar molecules of [TTF–TCNQ]{} form segregated stacks in a plane-to-plane manner and the molecular $\pi$–orbitals interact preferably along the stacking direction (crystallographic [${{\mathbf{b}}}$]{} direction of the monoclinic structure), leaving only weak interactions in the perpendicular [${{\mathbf{a}}}$]{} and [${{\mathbf{c}}}$]{} crystallographic directions. Due to the formation of linear molecule stacks in the crystal structure and an electronic charge transfer from cationic (TTF) to anionic (TCNQ) complexes, both types of stacks are metallic: TTF column is hole–conducting whereas TCNQ column is electronic–conducting. As a consequence, [TTF–TCNQ]{} displays strongly anisotropic metallic conductivity with ${\sigma_{{\mathbf{b}}}}> {\sigma_{{\mathbf{c}}}}> {\sigma_{{\mathbf{a}}}}$ in a wide temperature range down to about $60{\,\mathrm{K}}$, below which a cascade of phase transitions starts and destroys the metallic character progressively.
The noteworthy renewed interest for [TTF–TCNQ]{} started recently as it was the first material for which ARPES positively identified 1D single-band Hubbard model spectral features [@R05; @R06]. Based on these findings the spectral behaviour of [TTF–TCNQ]{} was interpreted as an evidence for spin-charge separation, signaling a breakdown of the Fermi liquid quasi–particle picture and leading to the appearance of a new state commonly referred to as one–dimensional quantum many–body system known as Luttinger liquid. However, some quantitative values for different parameters are not yet fully available [@R07a; @R07b; @R07c].
It is worth pointing out that although the electrical properties of [TTF–TCNQ]{} have been studied intensively, the investigations of one basic magnetotransport property, the Hall effect, have not been unambiguously completed. The only published Hall effect measurements of [TTF–TCNQ]{} date back to 1977. They were performed in the high temperature metallic region: dc Hall effect measurements in the metallic phase above the phase transitions (for [${{{\mathbf{j}}\|{\mathbf{b}}}}$]{}, [${{{\mathbf{B}}\|{\mathbf{a}}}}$]{}) [@R08], and microwave measurements of the Hall mobility at room temperature (for [${{{\mathbf{j}}\|{\mathbf{b}}}}$]{}, [${{{\mathbf{B}}\|{\mathbf{c}}}}$]{}) [@R09]. However, the obtained results vary in their sign and values. The average value of the Hall coefficient, obtained at room temperature from the dc Hall effect measurements, is negative and approximately consistent with estimates of the electron density implying that the Hall effect and conductivity are dominated by the TCNQ chains. On the other hand, the positive Hall mobility at room temperature, obtained from microwave Hall effect measurements, was interpreted as indication that the carriers in the TCNQ chain relax more rapidly. A direct comparison between those results could not be done not only because the quality of the used samples was most probably not the same, but also because the magnetic field orientations were different in the two experiments. The foreseen measurements in the same geometry (to compare the data and to resolve the question of the importance of the geometry conditions) were not performed. Our aim has been to perform new and systematic Hall effect study on [TTF–TCNQ]{} extending them to higher magnetic fields and lower temperatures (i.e. below the phase transitions) and using different geometries to investigate the possibility of influence of geometry on the value and sign of Hall coefficient and to try to detect phase transitions, thereby gain new information.
Experimental details
====================
The measurements of the conductivity and Hall effect were done in the temperature region $30{\,\mathrm{K}}-300{\,\mathrm{K}}$. The Hall effect was measured in 5 and 9 T magnetic fields. All the single crystals used come from the same batch. Their typical configuration is shown on figure \[Fig1\]: [${{\mathbf{b}}}$]{} direction is the highest conductivity direction, the [${{\mathbf{a}}}$]{} direction with the lowest conductivity is perpendicular to [${{\mathbf{b}}}$]{} in the [${{\mathbf{a}}}$]{}–[${{\mathbf{b}}}$]{} plane, and the [${{\mathbf{c}}}$]{} direction with the intermediate conductivity is perpendicular to the [${{\mathbf{a}}}$]{}–[${{\mathbf{b}}}$]{} plane. Our average room temperature conductivity values for ${\sigma_{{\mathbf{b}}}}$ (400[$\,(\Omega\mathrm{cm})^{-1}$]{}), ${\sigma_{{\mathbf{c}}}}$ (5[$\,(\Omega\mathrm{cm})^{-1}$]{}) and ${\sigma_{{\mathbf{a}}}}$ (0.5[$\,(\Omega\mathrm{cm})^{-1}$]{}) are in good agreement with previously published data [@R03; @R04]. In respect to the samples used in previous measurements, we can state that our recently synthesized samples have much larger dimensions and very good defined geometry, show homogeneous current flow, and are of high quality (concerning high $R(300{\,\mathrm{K}})/R(\mathrm{min})$ ratios).
![Comparison of the size of the real crystals (left) with equivalent isotropic sample EIS (right), with associated contacts for different geometry used in measurements: (i) [${{{\mathbf{j}}\|{\mathbf{b}}}}$]{}, [${{{\mathbf{B}}\|{\mathbf{a}}}}$]{}; (ii) [${{{\mathbf{j}}\|{\mathbf{b}}}}$]{}, [${{{\mathbf{B}}\|{\mathbf{c}}}}$]{}; and (iii) [${{{\mathbf{j}}\|{\mathbf{a}}}}$]{}, [${{{\mathbf{B}}\|{\mathbf{c}}}}$]{}. The real sample dimensions were $4.7\times 0.7\times 0.08{\,\mathrm{mm}}^3$ for (i) and (ii), and $1.01\times 0.88\times 0.07{\,\mathrm{mm}}^3$ for (iii). We also show the $L'/W'$ ratios, at room temperature, obtained using EIS scaling (see text). In order to be clearly observed, the dimensions in [${{\mathbf{c}}}$]{} direction are doubled in all drawings.[]{data-label="Fig1"}](figure1.eps){width="\mysize"}
The samples were cooled slowly ($\sim 3{\,\mathrm{K/h}}$) in order to avoid irreversible resistance jumps that are caused by microcracks well known to appear in all organic conductors. Two (or sometimes three, depending on the size of crystal) pairs of Hall contacts and one pair of current contacts were made on the sides of the crystal by evaporating gold pads to which the $30\,\mu$m gold wires were attached with silver paint. An ac current ($10\,\mu$A to $1{\,\mathrm{mA}}$, $22{\,\mathrm{Hz}}$) was used. For temperatures around and below the phase transitions, a dc technique was also used because of the large resistance increment. Particular care was taken to ensure the temperature stabilization. The Hall voltage was measured at fixed temperatures and in field sweeps from $-B_{\mathrm{max}}$ to $+B_{\mathrm{max}}$ in order to eliminate the possible mixing of the magnetoresistance component. At each temperature the Hall voltage was measured for each pair of Hall contacts to test and/or control the homogeneous current distribution through the sample. However, due to a very steep slope of resistivity in the low temperature region, much better and accurate results were obtained in temperature sweeps in fixed magnetic fields ($-B_{\mathrm{max}}$ and $+B_{\mathrm{max}}$). The Hall voltage $V_H$ was determined as $[V_{xy}(B)-V_{xy}(-B)]/2$ and the Hall coefficient $R_H$ was obtained as $R_H =(V_{H} /IB)t $ ($I$ is the current through the crystal and $t$ is the sample thickness). The linearity of the Hall signal with magnetic field was checked in the whole temperature region investigated.
The Hall effect was measured in several different geometries (i) [${{{\mathbf{j}}\|{\mathbf{b}}}}$]{}, [${{{\mathbf{B}}\|{\mathbf{a}}}}$]{}; (ii) [${{{\mathbf{j}}\|{\mathbf{b}}}}$]{}, [${{{\mathbf{B}}\|{\mathbf{c}}}}$]{}; and (iii) [${{{\mathbf{j}}\|{\mathbf{a}}}}$]{}, [${{{\mathbf{B}}\|{\mathbf{c}}}}$]{}. Moreover, we took care of the concept of the equivalent isotropic sample (EIS) that is crucial for anisotropic conductors [@R10]. Generally, for Hall effect measurements it is important to avoid either shorting of the Hall voltage by the current contacts or a non–uniform current distribution. For isotropic materials this requires that the length/width ($L/W$) ratio obeys the condition $L/W \geq 3$ (where the current is passed along $L$, the Hall voltage develops along $W$ and the magnetic field is along the thickness $t$ of the parallelepiped). For highly anisotropic materials this condition has to be replaced with the more feasible one that takes into account the anisotropy of the conductivity. EIS provides a way of thinking about the current distribution in the anisotropic sample and is realized by a coordinate transformation according to the formulae $\ell'_i = \ell_i (\sigma/\sigma_i)^{1/2}$, where $ \sigma = (\sigma_1 \sigma_2 \sigma_3)^{1/3}$, $\ell_i$ is the actual sample dimension along the $i^\mathrm{th}$ principal axis of conductivity $ \sigma_i$ and $\ell'_i$ is EIS dimension along the $i^\mathrm{th}$ axis. Following this notation, we consider that the acceptable geometry for highly anisotropic materials is the one where $L'/W' = L/W(\sigma_{W}/\sigma_{L})^{1/2} \geq 3$.
Figure \[Fig1\] shows typical crystal configurations with corresponding contacts as well as the comparison of the size of the real crystals with EIS for different geometry used in our Hall effect measurements. The typical dimensions of our [TTF–TCNQ]{} crystals were $4.7\times 0.7\times 0.08{\,\mathrm{mm}}^3$ for the [${{\mathbf{b}}}$]{}, [${{\mathbf{a}}}$]{} and [${{\mathbf{c}}}$]{} direction, respectively. Considering first the geometry used in [@R08] ([${{{\mathbf{j}}\|{\mathbf{b}}}}$]{}, [${{{\mathbf{B}}\|{\mathbf{a}}}}$]{} – cf. figure \[Fig1\]) the EIS coordinate transformation gives the ratio $L'/W' =\ell'_b/\ell'_c = 6.3$, which is the acceptable value. However the anisotropy is temperature dependent; the ratio ${\sigma_{{\mathbf{b}}}}/{\sigma_{{\mathbf{c}}}}$ increases from about $10^2$ at room temperature to almost $10^3$ at $60{\,\mathrm{K}}$, and therefore the related $L'/W'$ values are also changing with temperature. For our sample dimensions this gives at $60{\,\mathrm{K}}$ $\ell'_b/\ell'_c \approx 1.8$, implying that this geometry shows pronounced deterioration with cooling and as a consequence could yield potentially inaccurate results. Indeed, we have obtained very poor results for this geometry. This was also true for the [${{{\mathbf{j}}\|{\mathbf{b}}}}$]{}, [${{{\mathbf{B}}\|{\mathbf{c}}}}$]{} geometry (that was used in [@R09]) which, for our samples, already at room temperature had an unsatisfactory value $L'/W' =\ell'_b/\ell'_a \approx 0.2$, and get even worse with cooling. These obstacles motivated us to search for yet another geometry that connotes another current direction than [${{{\mathbf{j}}\|{\mathbf{b}}}}$]{} and that fulfils the $L'/W' \geq 3$ condition for Hall effect measurements. The choice of the sample geometry is however limited with the sample dimensions and disposable area for contacts. The only choice turned out to be [${{{\mathbf{j}}\|{\mathbf{a}}}}$]{} because it is impossible to position the Hall contacts along the tiny [${{\mathbf{c}}}$]{} direction. We have also selected [${{{\mathbf{B}}\|{\mathbf{c}}}}$]{} that ensures a remarkable $L/W$ value. Finally, in order to decrease $\ell_b$ and consequently $\ell'_b$ we have cut the sample along [${{\mathbf{b}}}$]{} direction to approximately $1/4$ of its original dimension. Thus the final dimensions of one of the measured samples which showed the best Hall effect results, were $1.01 \times 0.88 \times 0.07{\,\mathrm{mm}}^3$ for [${{\mathbf{b}}}$]{}, [${{\mathbf{a}}}$]{} and [${{\mathbf{c}}}$]{} directions, respectively, with $L'/W' =\ell'_a/\ell'_b = 24$ at room temperature that increases up to $64$ at $60{\,\mathrm{K}}$ (the real crystal and corresponding EIS are also shown on figure \[Fig1\]). Summing up this part, we point out that our analysis indicate that the [${{{\mathbf{j}}\|{\mathbf{a}}}}$]{}, [${{{\mathbf{B}}\|{\mathbf{c}}}}$]{} geometry should be markedly favourable for [TTF–TCNQ]{} Hall effect measurements.
Results
=======
Figure \[Fig2\] shows the temperature dependence of the resistivity along the highest conductivity direction ${\rho_{{\mathbf{b}}}}(T)$ and along the lowest conductivity direction ${\rho_{{\mathbf{a}}}}(T)$, in the temperature range $30{\,\mathrm{K}}<T<300{\,\mathrm{K}}$, measured on samples that were used for Hall effect. The results show a good agreement with the previously published data [@R03] comprising the values of room temperature resistivity, the metallic behaviour for both directions from room temperature down to about $60{\,\mathrm{K}}$ below which the increase of resistivity indicates a cascade of phase transitions (at $54{\,\mathrm{K}}, 49{\,\mathrm{K}}, 38{\,\mathrm{K}}$) that destroy the metallic character. Further below the phase transitions the resistivity increases exponentially.
![The temperature dependence of the resistivities ${\rho_{{\mathbf{b}}}}$ and ${\rho_{{\mathbf{a}}}}$ (measured along the [${{\mathbf{b}}}$]{} and [${{\mathbf{a}}}$]{} crystal directions) for [TTF–TCNQ]{} in the temperature range $30{\,\mathrm{K}}<T<300{\,\mathrm{K}}$. The results are for the samples used for Hall effect measurements.[]{data-label="Fig2"}](figure2.eps){width="\mysize"}
![The Hall resistivity vs. magnetic field, for [${{{\mathbf{j}}\|{\mathbf{a}}}}$]{}, [${{{\mathbf{B}}\|{\mathbf{c}}}}$]{} and for $T=34{\,\mathrm{K}}$.[]{data-label="Fig3"}](figure3.eps){width="\mysize"}
The magnetic field dependence of the Hall resistance (up to $B = 5{\,\mathrm{T}}$) is shown in figure \[Fig3\] for $T = 34{\,\mathrm{K}}$ and for [${{{\mathbf{j}}\|{\mathbf{a}}}}$]{}, [${{{\mathbf{B}}\|{\mathbf{c}}}}$]{} geometry, which we consider as an optimal one. The data show that the Hall resistivity is linear with magnetic field.
![The temperature dependence of the Hall coefficient $R_H$ for $30{\,\mathrm{K}}<T<300{\,\mathrm{K}}$. The results are shown for (i) [${{{\mathbf{j}}\|{\mathbf{a}}}}$]{}, [${{{\mathbf{B}}\|{\mathbf{c}}}}$]{}, $B=5{\,\mathrm{T}}$, ($\bullet$), the error bars which do not exceed 5% are not shown; (ii) [${{{\mathbf{j}}\|{\mathbf{b}}}}$]{}, [${{{\mathbf{B}}\|{\mathbf{c}}}}$]{}, $B=9{\,\mathrm{T}}$, ($\blacktriangledown$); and (iii) [${{{\mathbf{j}}\|{\mathbf{b}}}}$]{}, [${{{\mathbf{B}}\|{\mathbf{a}}}}$]{}, $B=9{\,\mathrm{T}}$, ($\circ$). The results from [@R08] ([${{{\mathbf{j}}\|{\mathbf{b}}}}$]{}, [${{{\mathbf{B}}\|{\mathbf{a}}}}$]{}) ($\times$) and [@R09] ([${{{\mathbf{j}}\|{\mathbf{b}}}}$]{}, [${{{\mathbf{B}}\|{\mathbf{c}}}}$]{}) ($\square$) are also shown. The dashed lines correspond to value calculated for 1D band picture, $R_H = \pm 3.2 \times 10^{-3}{\,\mathrm{cm}}^3$/C – see section \[sec:discussion\]. Inset: $R_H(T)$ vs. $T$ for $T>150{\,\mathrm{K}}$ in more details in order to demonstrate $R_H(T) \approx 0$.[]{data-label="Fig5"}](figure4.eps){width="\mysize"}
Figure \[Fig5\] shows the temperature dependence of the Hall coefficient $R_H$ for $30{\,\mathrm{K}}<T<300{\,\mathrm{K}}$. The results are shown for several samples and for different geometries (i) [${{{\mathbf{j}}\|{\mathbf{b}}}}$]{}, [${{{\mathbf{B}}\|{\mathbf{a}}}}$]{}; (ii) [${{{\mathbf{j}}\|{\mathbf{b}}}}$]{}, [${{{\mathbf{B}}\|{\mathbf{c}}}}$]{}; and (iii) [${{{\mathbf{j}}\|{\mathbf{a}}}}$]{}, [${{{\mathbf{B}}\|{\mathbf{c}}}}$]{}. At the increased scale (figure \[Fig5\] – Inset) it can be clearly seen that $R_H$ is around zero for $T>150{\,\mathrm{K}}$. Below this temperature, $R_H$ is becoming positive down to phase transitions temperatures region within which it changes its sign to negative values. It should be noted that for the first two geometries we have obtained quite scattered data at high temperatures and the signals were not at all detectable at lower temperatures. However, for the [${{{\mathbf{j}}\|{\mathbf{a}}}}$]{}, [${{{\mathbf{B}}\|{\mathbf{c}}}}$]{} geometry, where the Hall voltage $V_H$ develops along the [${{\mathbf{b}}}$]{} axis, we have obtained very good results for $T<150{\,\mathrm{K}}$. These measurements were performed on two samples and one of them is presented on figure \[Fig5\]. Although both samples were good quality ones, we show the data for the sample for which the Hall contacts were positioned strictly opposite to each other. This is, true enough, a textbook requirement for a good Hall effect measurement, but, due to the extremely small dimensions for this geometry, not at all an easy task to achieve. The results for another sample confirm the obtained data with positive $R_H$ for $T<150{\,\mathrm{K}}$ and above phase transitions, and negative $R_H$ below.
The data for $T>150{\,\mathrm{K}}$ were determined as the average of the several measurements taken at fixed temperature, during the cooling and heating cycles, using several samples and Hall contacts. The error bars show the uncertainty in the determination of small $R_H$ values. The scattering in the data comes also from the fact that during a field sweeps from $-B_{\mathrm{max}}$ to $+B_{\mathrm{max}}$ at fixed temperatures the small temperature drift occurs (a common and well known source of error in this kind of measurements). Figure \[Fig5\] also contains the data from [@R08] and [@R09].
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
As mentioned above, [TTF–TCNQ]{} shows metallic behaviour down to about $60{\,\mathrm{K}}$ and undergo the phase transitions at ${T_H}= 54{\,\mathrm{K}}$, ${T_I}= 49{\,\mathrm{K}}$ and ${T_L}= 38{\,\mathrm{K}}$ toward an insulating ground state [@R03; @R04]. The phase transition at $54{\,\mathrm{K}}$ is manifested as a drop of the conductivity by a factor of about 2 and at ${T_L}= 38{\,\mathrm{K}}$ a first–order transition toward an insulating ground state occurs. Between $54{\,\mathrm{K}}$ and $38{\,\mathrm{K}}$, charge density waves (CDWs) successively develop first in the TCNQ and than in the TTF stacks. These transitions have been ascribed to the instability of the one–dimensional electronic gas due to the Peierls mechanism. All CDW phase transitions of [TTF–TCNQ]{}, investigated in detail by X-ray diffuse scattering experiments [@R12] and elastic neutron scattering [@R13], have been recently identified using a low temperature scanning tunnelling microscope (STM) [@R14] that provides a direct experimental proof for the existence of phase–modulated and amplitude–modulated CDWs.
The present Hall effect investigations of a [TTF–TCNQ]{} single crystals were performed in a broad temperature range $30{\,\mathrm{K}}-300{\,\mathrm{K}}$. Although the primary goal was to achieve the best possible experimental conditions in order to provide information regarding the variance of the old Hall effect results (concerning the sign and value of the Hall coefficient at high temperatures above phase transitions), even more important was whether the change in the Hall coefficient could be observed in the temperature range of the phase transitions, which would then give an experimental proof about successive development of CDWs first in the TCNQ and than in TTF stacks. In what follows we shall therefore discuss separately the obtained data for $R_H(T)$ (regarding the sign and value) for the high ($150{\,\mathrm{K}}<T<300{\,\mathrm{K}}$) and low ($30{\,\mathrm{K}}<T<150{\,\mathrm{K}}$) temperature ranges.
Taking into consideration the quasi–one dimensionality of [TTF–TCNQ]{}, the standard expression for the low field Hall coefficient for an anisotropic tight binding band should be used: $R_H = (1/ne)(k_F b/\tan k_Fb)$ where $b$ is lattice constant along the [${{\mathbf{b}}}$]{} axis. As a partial charge is transferred from TTF to TCNQ stacks and the charge density $\rho$ potentially available for transport is determined by the value of $k_F$ at which the bonding TCNQ band crosses the antibonding TTF band, leading to $2k_F=\rho\pi /b$ in the 1D band picture, we obtain $k_Fb= 0.29\pi$ (taking a band filling of $0.58{\,\mathrm{el/TCNQ}}$) [@R12]. The calculated Hall coefficient value is then $R_H=\pm 3.2\times10^{-3}{\,\mathrm{cm}}^3/$C and is represented by dashed line in figure \[Fig5\] (‘$-$’ for electrons only, and ‘$+$’ for holes only). The old data from [@R08] are not far from this calculated value for electrons only. However, our results for all configurations used and for $T>150{\,\mathrm{K}}$ are around $R_H = 0$ (the tiny inclination towards negative values above 250 K is probably irrelevant), indicating that the Hall coefficient results do not depend on the geometry conditions during measurements. If our data are compared with those from [@R08] (where the negative Hall coefficient was obtained) and [@R09] (where the positive Hall coefficient was obtained for another geometry), apparently, the difference could not be solely attributed to the geometry configuration used for measurements. It would be correct to note, that the possible cause could be also the different sample quality, which is now difficult to confirm, but cannot be excluded. Namely, the thermoelectric power (TEP) results (from the same period as [@R08; @R09]) have shown that at high temperatures the TEP is negative and approximately linear in temperature indicating the metallic state, while at $T < 54{\,\mathrm{K}}$ positive and negative signs were found in samples from different sources [@R17a; @R17b]. On the other hand, our results are quite consistent with the measurements of $^{13}$C NMR in [TTF–TCNQ]{} (obtained more than 20 years ago as well [@R15]) that were somehow in contradiction with expected ‘narrower’ TTF band due to the previous suggestions that the dominant carriers are electrons located on TCNQ stacks [@R08]. In conclusion of this part, we state that our Hall coefficient results, above 150 K, show $R_H \approx 0$ for all geometries studied, and do not confirm dominance of neither electrons nor holes in transport properties [@R16]. In other words, they show the possibility that electron–like (TCNQ stacks) and hole-like (TTF stacks) contributions effectively cancel each other giving $R_H \approx 0$, which indicate that both chains equally contribute to the conductivity.
![The temperature dependence of the Hall coefficient $R_H(T)$ between $30{\,\mathrm{K}}$ and $150{\,\mathrm{K}}$ for [${{{\mathbf{j}}\|{\mathbf{a}}}}$]{}, [${{{\mathbf{B}}\|{\mathbf{c}}}}$]{}, for our best sample (the error bars which amount to around 5% are not shown). The strong upturn in $R_H(T)$ indicates the phase transition ${T_L}= 38{\,\mathrm{K}}$. Inset shows the temperature interval around phase transitions ${T_H}= 54{\,\mathrm{K}}$ and ${T_I}= 49{\,\mathrm{K}}$. The dashed lines correspond to values calculated for 1D band picture, $R_H = \pm 3.2 \times 10^{-3}{\,\mathrm{cm}}^3$/C – see text[]{data-label="Fig7"}](figure5.eps){width="\mysize"}
The temperature dependence of the Hall coefficient in the $30{\,\mathrm{K}}<T<150{\,\mathrm{K}}$ temperature range for our best sample and for the [${{{\mathbf{j}}\|{\mathbf{a}}}}$]{}, [${{{\mathbf{B}}\|{\mathbf{c}}}}$]{} geometry is presented in figure \[Fig7\]. As discussed previously, the other two geometries ([${{{\mathbf{j}}\|{\mathbf{b}}}}$]{}, [${{{\mathbf{B}}\|{\mathbf{a}}}}$]{} and [${{{\mathbf{j}}\|{\mathbf{b}}}}$]{}, [${{{\mathbf{B}}\|{\mathbf{c}}}}$]{}) did not give conceivable data due to the geometry limitation for anisotropic samples. For $100{\,\mathrm{K}}<T<150{\,\mathrm{K}}$, $R_H$ is small and positive indicating that TTF stack (holes) contributes more to the conductivity than TCNQ stack (electrons). Here, we would like to remind again on the $^{13}$C NMR measurements [@R15], which have shown that the density of states of TCNQ stacks starts decreasing appreciably below about $150{\,\mathrm{K}}$: this may explain the fact that $R_H$ was not detectable above $150{\,\mathrm{K}}$ indicating the equal contribution of TTF and TCNQ stacks in the transport, while below $150{\,\mathrm{K}}$ a small positive $R_H$ may be correlated to the decrease of the density of states on TCNQ stacks. We do not give special significance to the obtained $R_H$ values regarding the determination of accurate number of electrons and/or holes that participate in transport properties, as there is substantial experimental evidence that Coulomb interaction plays an essential role in the electronic structure of [TTF–TCNQ]{} ([@R04; @R07a; @R07b; @R07c]) and a purely band theoretical description may be inadequate. The smooth increase of positive $R_H$ below $100{\,\mathrm{K}}$ down to ${T_H}\approx 54{\,\mathrm{K}}$ – which is clearly perceived in the inset of figure \[Fig7\] – can also be ascribed to a pre-transitional behaviour. However, as the temperature is lowered in the phase transition range, our Hall data show features which have not been observed up to now: all three phase transitions of TTF-TCNQ are identified from the Hall effect measurements as indicated on figure \[Fig7\]. Around ${T_H}= 54{\,\mathrm{K}}$ there is a maximum in positive $R_H(T)$ that decreases with further cooling and changes its sign around ${T_I}= 49{\,\mathrm{K}}$. The strong temperature dependence of $R_H(T)$ (a pronounced upturn) close to the phase transition at ${T_L}= 38{\,\mathrm{K}}$ marks the first-order phase transition (where, as known, the period in the $a$ direction jumps discontinuously to $4a$ [@R04]) toward insulating ground state. Here it is worth pointing out that such $R_H(T)$ result was not foreseen. Namely, the phase transition at 54 K is driven by the CDW Peierls instability in the TCNQ chains, that is manifested in a drop of the conductivity by a factor of about 2 [@R04]. We have expected that in the temperature region ${T_L}<T<{T_H}$ the dominance of the TTF stacks (i.e. the hole-like carriers contribution to the transport) in Hall coefficient measurements may be found. The gradual decrease of positive $R_H$ below ${T_H}$ (where the reduction of the number of electron-like carriers is expected) and the observed change of sign around ${T_I}$ suggest that both kind of carriers contribute to the conductivity in this transitional region. For the Hall coefficient in a two-band model the resultant value and the sign are determined by the carriers concentrations as well as their mobilities that both have strong and probably different temperature dependencies in this temperature region. $R_H(T)$ then comes from a balance of the hole and electron terms [@Mott]. These facts are even more pronounced with the well-marked upturn close to the phase transition at ${T_L}= 38{\,\mathrm{K}}$. This kind of behaviour is a known feature in semiconductors [@R16]. As the Hall fields created by electrons and holes are opposing each other, the galvanomagnetic effects can have unusually strong temperature variations in regions where the resultant Hall field is nearly zero and where the relative electron-hole population is temperature dependent. Below phase transitions, for $T<38{\,\mathrm{K}}$, $R_H(T)$ is negative with the value that rapidly increases with further temperature decrease following the activated behaviour that corresponds to that of resistivity.
Conclusion
==========
In summary, we have reported measurements of the Hall coefficient $R_H(T)$ at ambient pressure of the quasi–one dimensional organic conductor [TTF–TCNQ]{} for $30{\,\mathrm{K}}<T<300{\,\mathrm{K}}$ and in magnetic fields up to $9{\,\mathrm{T}}$. We have applied the equivalent isotropic sample approach, suggested the way of choosing the best geometry for Hall effect measurements of highly anisotropic samples, and proposed that for the [TTF–TCNQ]{} system the [${{{\mathbf{j}}\|{\mathbf{a}}}}$]{}, [${{{\mathbf{B}}\|{\mathbf{c}}}}$]{} configuration is the best choice.
Above $150{\,\mathrm{K}}$, we could not confirm the dominance of neither electrons nor holes in the transport properties and we suggest the possibility that both chains, electron–like (TCNQ stacks) and hole–like (TTF stacks), equally contribute to the conductivity giving $R_H(T) \approx 0$. Also, based on our data for other measurement geometries, we indicate that the differences in geometry are not important regarding the sign and/or value of the Hall coefficient in this temperature range. For $T<150{\,\mathrm{K}}$ our results show small and positive $R_H(T)$ that may indicate the dominance of holes in this region, and an increase below $100{\,\mathrm{K}}$ down to phase transition at ${T_H}=54{\,\mathrm{K}}$ that could be ascribed to a pre-transitional behaviour. For $30{\,\mathrm{K}}<T<54{\,\mathrm{K}}$ temperature region we have shown that all three phase transitions of TTF-TCNQ can be identified from the Hall effect measurements: (i) around ${T_H}= 54{\,\mathrm{K}}$ there is a maximum in positive $R_H(T)$ (ii) around ${T_I}= 49 K$, $R_H(T)$ changes sign becoming negative for lower temperatures (iii) around ${T_L}= 38{\,\mathrm{K}}$, a pronounced upturn in $R_H(T)$ marks the first-order phase transition towards the insulating ground state for $T<{T_L}$ that is characterized by activated $R_H(T)$ with the activation energy corresponding to that of resistivity.
The work was supported by the Croatian Ministry of Science, Education and Sports grants 119–1191458–1023 and 035–0000000–2836.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Entity alignment is the task of linking entities with the same real-world identity from different knowledge graphs (KGs), which has been recently dominated by embedding-based methods. Such approaches work by learning KG representations so that entity alignment can be performed by measuring the similarities between entity embeddings. While promising, prior works in the field often fail to properly capture complex relation information that commonly exists in multi-relational KGs, leaving much room for improvement. In this paper, we propose a novel Relation-aware Dual-Graph Convolutional Network (RDGCN) to incorporate relation information via attentive interactions between the knowledge graph and its dual relation counterpart, and further capture neighboring structures to learn better entity representations. Experiments on three real-world cross-lingual datasets show that our approach delivers better and more robust results over the state-of-the-art alignment methods by learning better KG representations.'
author:
- Yuting Wu$^1$
- Xiao Liu$^1$
- 'Yansong Feng$^1$[^1]'
- Zheng Wang$^2$
- |
Rui Yan$^1$Dongyan Zhao$^1$\
$^1$Institute of Computer Science and Technology, Peking University, China\
$^2$School of Computing and Communications, Lancaster University, U. K.\
{wyting, lxlisa, fengyansong, ruiyan, zhaodongyan}@pku.edu.cn, [email protected]
bibliography:
- 'ijcai19.bib'
title: 'Relation-Aware Entity Alignment for Heterogeneous Knowledge Graphs'
---
Introduction {#section:intro}
============
Knowledge graphs (KGs) are the building blocks for various AI applications like question-answering [@zhang2018variational], text classification [@wang2016text], recommendation systems [@zhang2016collaborative], etc. Knowledge in KGs is usually organized into triples of $\langle$*head entity, relation, tail entity*$\rangle$. There are considerable works on knowledge representation learning to construct distributed representations for both entities and relations. Exemplary works are the so called *trans-family* methods like TransE [@bordes2013translating], TransH [@wang2014knowledge], and PTransE [@lin2015modeling], which interpret a relation as the translation operating on the embeddings of its head entity and tail entity.
![Examples of triangular structures (reproduced from [@li2018structural]).[]{data-label="triangular"}](triangular.pdf){width="0.7\linewidth"}
However, KGs are usually incomplete, and different KGs are often complementary to each other. This makes a compelling case to design a technique that can integrate heterogeneous knowledge among different KGs. An effective way for doing this is **Entity Alignment**. There have been existing efforts devoted to embed different KGs towards entity alignment. Most of them, like JE [@hao2016joint], MTransE [@chen2016multilingual], JAPE [@sun2017cross], IPTransE [@zhu2017iterative] and BootEA [@sun2018bootstrapping], rely on *trans-family* models to learn entity representations according to a set of prior alignments. The most recent work [@wang2018cross], takes a different approach by utilizing the Graph Convolutional Networks (GCNs) [@Kipf2016Semi] to jointly represent multiple KG entities, showing a new, promising direction for entity alignment.
Compared with conventional feature based methods [@crowd2012; @mahdisoltani2013yago3], embedding-based methods have the advantage of requiring less human involvement in feature construction and can be scaled to large KGs. However, there are still several hurdles that prevent wider adoption of embedding-based approaches. First, as mentioned above, most existing methods use *trans-family* models as the backbone to embed KGs, which are constrained by the assumption $head+relation \approx tail$. This strong assumption makes it inefficient for the model to capture more complex relation information in multi-relational graphs.
As a motivation example, Figure \[triangular\] shows a real-world example from the *DBP15K*$_{ZH-EN}$ [@sun2017cross] dataset. Prior study [@li2018structural] shows that trans-family methods cannot capture the triangular structures depicted in the diagram. For instance, for the structure of Figure \[triangular\](a), TransE requires the three formulas $v_1 + r_a \approx v_2$, $v_2 + r_a \approx v_3$ and $v_1 + r_a \approx v_3$ to hold at the same time. However, to satisfy the former two equations, we would have $v_1 + 2r_a \approx v_3$, which is contradictory to the third equation $v_1 + r_a \approx v_3$. Accordingly, the alignment performance will inevitably be compromised if the KG representations are learned with the trans-family, since more complex structures such as triangular ones frequently appear in multi-relational graphs.
The GCN-based model [@wang2018cross] represents a leap forward for embedding-based entity alignment. However, this approach is also unable to properly model relation information. Since the vanilla GCN operates on the undirected and unlabeled graphs, a GCN-based model would ignore the useful relation information of KGs. Although the Relational Graph Convolutional Networks (R-GCNs) [@schlichtkrull2018modeling] could be used to model multi-relational graphs, an R-GCN simply employs one weight matrix for each relation and would require an excessive set of parameters for real-world KGs that often contain thousands of relations. This drawback makes it difficult to learn an effective R-GCN model. Dual-Primal Graph CNN (DPGCNN) [@monti2018dual] offers a new solution for the problem. DPGCNN alternates convolution operations on the graph and its dual graph, whose vertices correspond to the edges of the original graph, and iteratively applies a graph attention mechanism to enhance primal edge representations using its dual graph. Compared with GCNs and R-GCNs, the DPGCNN can better explore complex edge structures and produce better KG representations.
Inspired by the DPGCNN, in this paper, we propose a novel Relation-aware Dual-Graph Convolutional Network (RDGCN) to tackle the challenge of proper capturing and integration for relation information. While the DPGCNN serves a good starting point, applying it to learn KG representations is not trivial. Doing so requires us to find a way to better approximate relation representations and characterize the relationship between different KG relations. We address this by extending the DPGCNN to develop a weighted model, and explore the head/tail representations initialized with entity names as a proxy to capture relation information without excessive model parameters that are often hard to train.
As a departure from GCNs and R-GCNs, our RDGCN allows multiple rounds of interactions between the primal entity graph and its dual relation graph, enabling the model to effectively incorporate more complex relation information into entity representations. To further integrate neighboring structural information, we also extend GCNs with highway gates.
We evaluate our RDGCN on three real-world datasets. Experimental results show that RDGCN can effectively address the challenges mentioned above and significantly outperforms 6 recently proposed approaches on all datasets. The key contribution of this work is a novel DPGCNN-based model for learning robust KG representations. Our work is the first to extend DPGCNN for entity alignment, which yields significantly better performance over the state-of-the-art alternatives.
Related Work
============
Graph Convolutional Networks
----------------------------
Recently, there has been an increasing interest in extending neural networks to deal with graphs. There have been many encouraging works which are often categorized as spectral approaches [@bruna2014spectral; @cnn_graph; @Kipf2016Semi] and spatial approaches [@atwood2016diffusion; @hamilton2017inductive; @velickovic2018graph]. The GCNs [@Kipf2016Semi] have recently emerged as a powerful deep learning-based approach for many NLP tasks like semantic role labeling [@Marcheggiani2017Encoding] and neural machine translation [@Bastings2017Graph]. Furthermore, as an extension of GCNs, the R-GCNs [@schlichtkrull2018modeling] have recently been proposed to model relational data and have been successfully exploited in link prediction and entity classification. Recently, the graph attention networks (GATs) [@velickovic2018graph] have been proposed and achieved state-of-the-art performance. The DPGCNN [@monti2018dual] discussed in Section \[section:intro\] generalizes GAT model and achieves better performance on vertex classification, link prediction, and graph-guided matrix completion tasks. Inspired by the capability of DPGCNN on determining neighborhood-aware edge features, we propose the first relation-aware multi-graph learning framework for entity alignment.
Entity Alignment
----------------
Previous approaches of entity alignment usually require intensive expert participation [@crowd2012] to design model features [@mahdisoltani2013yago3] or an external source contributed by other users [@Wang2017]. Recently, embedding-based methods [@hao2016joint; @chen2016multilingual; @sun2017cross; @zhu2017iterative; @sun2018bootstrapping; @wang2018cross] have been proposed to address this issue. In addition, NTAM [@conf/ijcai/LiLYWSO18] is a non-translational approach that utilizes a probabilistic model for the alignment task. KDCoE [@chen2018co] is a semi-supervised learning approach for co-training multilingual KG embeddings and the embeddings of entity descriptions.
As a departure from prior work, our approach directly models the relation information by constructing the dual relation graph. As we will show later in the paper, doing so improves the learned entity embeddings which in turn lead to more accurate alignment.
Problem Formulation\[sec:problem\]
==================================
Formally, a KG is represented as $G = (E, R, T)$, where $E, R, T$ are the sets of entities, relations and triples, respectively. Let $G_1 = (E_1, R_1, T_1)$ and $G_2 = (E_2, R_2, T_2)$ be two heterogeneous KGs to be aligned. That is, an entity in $G_1$ may have its counterpart in $G_2$ in a different language or in different surface names. As a starting point, we can collect a small number of equivalent entity pairs between $G_1$ and $G_2$ as the *alignment seeds* $\mathbb{L} = \{(e_{i_1}, e_{i_2}) | e_{i_1} \in E_1, e_{i_2} \in E_2\}$. We define the entity alignment task as automatically finding more equivalent entities using the alignment seeds. Those known aligned entity pairs can be used as training data.
Our Approach: RDGCN
===================
{width="0.9\linewidth"}
In order to better incorporate relation information to the entity representations, given the input KG (i.e., the primal graph), we first construct its dual relation graph whose vertices denote the relations in the original primal graph, and then, we utilize a graph attention mechanism to encourage interactions between the dual relation graph and the primal graph. The resulting vertex representations in primal graph are then fed to GCN [@Kipf2016Semi] layers with highway gates to capture the neighboring structural information. The final entity representations will be used to determine whether two entities should be aligned. Figure \[RDGCN\] provides an overview architecture of our model.
Constructing the Dual Relation Graph
------------------------------------
Without loss of generality, we put $G_1$ and $G_2$ together as the *primal graph* $\mathcal{G}^e=(\mathcal{V}^e,\mathcal{E}^e)$, where the vertex set $\mathcal{V}^e = E_1 \cup E_2$ is the union of all entities in $G_1$ and $G_2$, and the edge set $\mathcal{E}^e = T_1 \cup T_2$ is the union of all edges/triples in $G_1$ and $G_2$. Note that we do not connect the alignment seeds in $\mathcal{G}^e$, thus $G_1$ and $G_2$ are disconnected in $\mathcal{G}^e$.
Given the primal graph $\mathcal{G}^e$, its *dual relation graph* $\mathcal{G}^r=(\mathcal{V}^r,\mathcal{E}^r)$ is constructed as follows: 1) for each type of relation $r$ in $\mathcal{G}^e$, there will be a vertex $v^r$ in $\mathcal{V}^r$, thus $\mathcal{V}^r=R_1 \cup R_2$; 2) if two relations, $r_i$ and $r_j$, share the same head or tail entities in $\mathcal{G}^e$, then we create an edge $u^r_{ij}$ in $\mathcal{G}^r$ connecting $v^r_i$ and $v^r_j$.
Different from the original design of dual graph, here we expect the dual relation graph to be more expressive about the relationship between different $v^r$s in $\mathcal{G}^r$. We thus weight each edge $u^r_{ij}$ in $\mathcal{G}^r$ with a weight $w^r_{ij}$ according to how likely the two relations $v^r_i$ and $v^r_j$ share similar heads or tails in $\mathcal{G}^e$, computed as: $$\label{edge_weight}
w^r_{ij} = H(r_i, r_j) + T(r_i, r_j)$$ $$H(r_i,r_j)=\frac{H_i\cap H_j}{H_i\cup H_j }, \mbox{ } T(r_i,r_j)=\frac{T_i\cap T_j}{T_i\cup T_j }$$ where $H_i$ and $T_i$ are the sets of head and tail entities for relation $r_i$ in $\mathcal{G}^e$ respectively. Here, the overhead for constructing the dual graph is proportional to the number of relation types in the primal graph. In our cases, it takes less than two minutes to construct the graphs for each evaluation dataset.
Interactions between Dual and Primal Graphs
-------------------------------------------
Our goal of introducing dual relation graph is to better incorporate relation information into the primal graph representations. To this end, we propose to apply a graph attention mechanism (GAT) to obtain vertex representations for the dual relation graph and the primal graph iteratively, where the attention mechanism helps to prompt interactions between the two graphs. Each dual-primal interaction contains two layers, the dual attention layer and the primal attention layer. Note that we can stack multiple interactions for mutual improvement on both graphs.
### Dual Attention Layer
Let $\textbf{X}^r \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times 2d}$ denote the input dual vertex representation matrix, where each row corresponds to a vertex in the dual relation graph $\mathcal{G}^r$. Different from the vanilla GAT [@velickovic2018graph], we compute the dual attention scores using the primal vertex features $\hat{\textbf{X}}^e$ (computed by Eq. \[primal\_final\]) produced by the primal attention layer from previous interaction module:
$$\label{dual-update}
\tilde{\textbf{x}}^r_i =\sigma^r(\sum_{j \in N^r_i}\alpha^r_{ij} \textbf{x}^r_j),$$
$$\alpha^r_{ij}=\frac{exp(\eta(w^r_{ij}a^r[\textbf{c}_i\|\textbf{c}_j]))}{\sum_{k \in N^r_i}exp(\eta(w^r_{ik}a^r[\textbf{c}_i\|\textbf{c}_k]))},$$
where $\tilde{\textbf{x}}^r_i$ denotes the $d'$-dimensional output representation at dual vertex $v^r_i$ (corresponding to relation $r_i \in \mathcal{G}^e$); $\textbf{x}^r_j$ denotes the dual representation of vertex $v^r_j$; $N^r_i$ is the set of neighbor indices of $v^r_i$; $\alpha^r_{ij}$ is the dual attention score; $a^r$ is a fully connected layer mapping the $2d'$-dimensional input into a scalar; $\sigma^r$ is the activation function, ReLU; $\eta$ is the Leaky ReLU; $\|$ is the concatenation operation; $\textbf{c}_i$ is the relation representation for relation $r_i$ in $\mathcal{G}^e$ obtained from the previous primal attention layer.
Note that within our graph embedding based framework, we are not able to provide relation representations directly, due to limited training data. We thus approximate the relation representation for $r_i$ by concatenating its averaged head and tail entity representations in $\mathcal{G}^e$ as: $$\label{dualvertex}
\textbf{c}_i=[\frac{\sum_{k \in H_i} \hat{\textbf{x}}^e_k}{|H_i|} \| \frac{\sum_{l \in T_i} \hat{\textbf{x}}^e_l}{|T_i|}],$$ where $\hat{\textbf{x}}^e_k$ and $\hat{\textbf{x}}^e_l$ are the output representations of the $k$-th head entity and $l$-th tail entity of relation $r_i$ from the previous primal attention layer.
A special case is when the current dual attention layer is the first layer of our model, we do not have $\textbf{x}^r_j$ in Eq. \[dual-update\] produced by the previous dual attention layer, therefore, use an initial dual vertex representation produced by Eq. \[dualvertex\] with the initial primal vertex representations $\textbf{X}^{e\_init}$. Similarly, $\textbf{c}_i$ will be obtained with the initial primal $\textbf{X}^{e\_init}$ as well.
### Primal Attention Layer
In this layer, when applying GAT on the primal graph, we can compute the primal attention scores using the dual vertex representations in $\mathcal{G}^r$, which actually correspond to the relations in the primal graph $\mathcal{G}^e$. In this way, we are able to influence the primal vertex embeddings using the relation representations produced by the dual attention layer.
Specifically, we use $\textbf{X}^e \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times d}$ to denote the input primal vertex representation matrix. For an entity $e_q$ in primal graph $\mathcal{G}^e$, its representation $\tilde{\textbf{x}}^e_{q}$ can be computed by:
$$\tilde{\textbf{x}}^e_q=\sigma^e(\sum_{t \in N^e_q}\alpha^e_{qt}\textbf{x}^e_t),$$
$$\alpha^e_{qt}=\frac{exp(\eta(a^e(\tilde{\textbf{x}}^r_{qt})))}{\sum_{k \in N^e_q}exp(\eta(a^e(\tilde{\textbf{x}}^r_{qk})))},$$
where $\tilde{\textbf{x}}^r_{qt}$ denotes the dual representation for $r_{qt}$ (the relation between entity $e_q$ and $e_t$) obtained from $\mathcal{G}^r$; $\alpha^e_{qt}$ is the primal attention score; $N^e_q$ is the set of neighbor indices of entity $e_q$ in $\mathcal{G}^e$; $a^e$ is a fully connected layer mapping the $d'$-dimensional input into a scalar and $\sigma^e$ is the primal layer activation function. In our model, the initial representation matrix for the primal vertices, $\textbf{X}^{e\_init}$, can be initialized using entity names, which provide important evidence for entity alignment. We therefore preserve the evidence explicitly by mixing the initial representations with the output of primal attention layer: $$\label{primal_final}
\hat{\textbf{x}}^e_q=\beta_s*\tilde{\textbf{x}}^e_q+\textbf{x}^{e\_init}_q,$$ where $\hat{\textbf{x}}^e_q$ denotes the final output representation of the interaction module for entity $e_q$ in $\mathcal{G}^e$; $\beta_s$ is a weighting parameter for the $s$-th primal attention layer.
Incorporating Structural Information
------------------------------------
After multiple rounds of interaction between the dual relation graph and the primal graph, we are able to collect relation-aware entity representations from the primal graph. Next, we apply two-layer GCNs [@Kipf2016Semi] with highway gates to the resulting primal graph to further incorporating evidence from their neighboring structures.
In each GCN layer $l$ with entity representations $X^{(l)}$ as input, the output representations $X^{(l+1)}$ can be computed as: $$X^{(l+1)} = \xi(\tilde{D}^{- \frac{1}{2}}\tilde{A}\tilde{D}^{- \frac{1}{2}}X^{(l)}W^{(l)}),$$ where $\tilde{A}=A+I$ is the adjacency matrix of the primal graph $\mathcal{G}^e$ with added self-connections and $I$ is an identity matrix; $\tilde{D}_{jj}=\sum_k\tilde{A}_{jk}$ and $W^{(l)} \in \mathbb{R}^{d^{(l)} \times d^{(l+1)}}$ is a layer-specific trainable weight matrix; $\xi$ is the activation function ReLU. We treat $\mathcal{G}^e$ as an undirected graph when constructing $A$, in order to allow the information to flow in both directions.
In addition, to control the noise accumulated across layers and preserve useful relation information learned from interactions, following the method described in [@Rahimi2018Semi], we introduce layer-wise gates between GCN layers, which is similar in spirit to the highway networks [@Srivastava2015Highway]: $$T(X^{(l)})=\sigma(X^{(l)}W_T^{(l)}+b_T^{(l)}),$$ $$X^{(l+1)}= T(X^{(l)}) \cdot X^{(l+1)}+(1-T(X^{(l)})) \cdot X^{(l)} ,$$ where $X^{(l)}$ is the input to layer $l+1$; $\sigma$ is a sigmoid function; $\cdot$ is element-wise multiplication; $W_T^{(l)}$ and $b_T^{(l)}$ are the weight matrix and bias vector for the transform gate $T(X^{(l)})$.
#### Alignment.
With the final entity representations $\bar{X}$ collected from the output of GCN layers, entity alignment can be performed by simply measuring the distance between two entities. Specifically, the distance, $d(e_1,e_2)$, between two entities, $e_1$ from $G_1$ and $e_2$ from $G_2$ can be calculated as: $$\label{d}
d(e_1,e_2)=\|\bar{x}_{e_1}-\bar{x}_{e_2}\|_{L_1}.$$
Training\[prediction\]
----------------------
For training, we expect the distance between aligned entity pairs to be as close as possible, and the distance between negative entity pairs to be as far as possible. We thus utilize a margin-based scoring function as the training objective: $$L=\sum\limits_{(p,q)\in \mathbb{L}}\sum\limits_{(p',q')\in \mathbb{L'}}\mathrm{max}\{0,d(p,q)-d(p',q')+\gamma\},$$ where $\gamma > 0$ is a margin hyper-parameter; $\mathbb{L}$ is our alignment seeds and $\mathbb{L'}$ is the set of negative instances.
Rather than random sampling, we look for challenging negative samples to train our model. Given a positive aligned pair $(p,q)$, we choose the $\mathcal{K}$-nearest entities of $p$ (or $q$) according to Eq. \[d\] in the embedding space to replace $q$ (or $p$) as the negative instances.
Experimental Setup {#setup}
==================
#### Datasets.
We evaluate our approach on three large-scale cross-lingual datasets from DBP15K [@sun2017cross]. These datasets are built upon Chinese, English, Japanese and French versions of DBpedia. Each dataset contains data from two KGs in different languages and provides 15K pre-aligned entity pairs. Table \[dataset\] gives the statistics of the datasets. We use the same training/testing split with previous works [@sun2018bootstrapping], 30% for training and 70% for testing. Our source code and datasets are freely available online [^2].
**Entities** **Relations** **Rel. triples**
-- -------------- --------------- ------------------ ---------
Chinese 66,469 2,830 153,929
English 98,125 2,317 237,674
Japanese 65,744 2,043 164,373
English 95,680 2,096 233,319
French 66,858 1,379 192,191
English 105,889 2,209 278,590
: Summary of the DBP15K datasets.[]{data-label="dataset"}
#### Comparison models.
We compare our approach against 6 more recent alignment methods that we have mentioned in Section \[section:intro\]: JE [@hao2016joint], MTransE [@chen2016multilingual], JAPE [@sun2017cross], IPTransE [@zhu2017iterative], BootEA [@sun2018bootstrapping] and GCN [@wang2018cross], where the BootEA achieves the best performance on DBP15K.
#### Model variants.
To evaluate different components of our model, we provide four implementation variants of RDGCN for ablation studies, including (1) GCN-s: a two-layered GCN with entity name initialization but no highway gates; (2) R-GCN-s: a two-layered R-GCN [@schlichtkrull2018modeling] with entity name initialization; (3) HGCN-s: a two-layered GCN with entity name initialization and highway gates; (4) RD: an implementation of two dual-primal interaction modules, but without the subsequent GCN layers.
#### Implementation details.
The configuration we used is: $\beta_1=0.1$, $\beta_2=0.3$, and $\gamma=1.0$. The dimensions of hidden representations in dual and primal attention layers are $d=300$, $d'=600$, and $\tilde d=300$. All dimensions of hidden representations in GCN layers are 300. The learning rate is set to 0.001 and we sample $\mathcal{K}=125$ negative pairs every 10 epochs. In order to utilize entity names in different KGs for better initialization, we use Google Translate to translate Chinese, Japanese, and French entity names into English, and then use pre-trained English word vectors *glove.840B.300d* [^3] to construct the input entity representations for the primal graph. Note that Google Translate can not guarantee accurate translations for named entities without any context. We manually check 100 English translations for Japanese/Chinese entity names, and find around 20% of English translations as incorrect, posing further challenges for our model.
#### Metrics.
We use Hits@k, a widely used metric [@sun2018bootstrapping; @wang2018cross] in our experiments. A Hits@k score (higher is better) is computed by measuring the proportion of correctly aligned entities ranked in the top $k$ list.
Results and Discussion\[sec:results\]
=====================================
---------- -------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- --------- -------- ---------
Hits@1 Hits@10 Hits@1 Hits@10 Hits@1 Hits@10
JE 21.27 42.77 18.92 39.97 15.38 38.84
MTransE 30.83 61.41 27.86 57.45 24.41 55.55
JAPE 41.18 74.46 36.25 68.50 32.39 66.68
IPTransE 40.59 73.47 36.69 69.26 33.30 68.54
BootEA 62.94 **84.75 & 62.23 & 85.39 & 65.30 & 87.44\
GCN & 41.25 & 74.38 & 39.91 & 74.46 & 37.29 & 74.49\
**GCN-s & 50.82 & 79.15 & 53.09 & 82.96 & 54.49 & 84.73\
**R-GCN-s& 46.57 & 74.29 & 48.68 & 77.82 & 51.11 & 80.07\
**HGCN-s & 69.65 & 82.53 & 75.54 & 87.87 & 88.09 & 95.27\
**RD & 61.81 & 73.83 & 68.54 & 80.22 & 84.64 & 91.98\
**RDGCN & **70.75 & 84.55 & **76.74 & **89.54 & **88.64 & **95.72\
**********************
---------- -------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- --------- -------- ---------
: The overall alignment performance for all models on the DBP15K datasets. Numbers in bold indicate the best performance.[]{data-label="cross"}
Main Results\[overall\]
-----------------------
Table \[cross\] shows the performance of all compared approaches on the evaluation datasets. By using a bootstrapping process to iteratively explore many unlabeled data, BootEA gives the best Hits@10 score on *DBP15K*$_{ZH-EN}$ and clearly outperforms GCN and other translation-based models. It is not surprising that GCN outperforms most translation-based models, i.e., JE, MTransE, JAPE and IPTransE. By performing graph convolution over an entity’s neighbors, GCN is able to capture more structural characteristics of knowledge graphs, especially when using more GCN layers, while the translation assumption in translation-based models focuses more on the relationship among heads, tails and relations.
We observe that RDGCN gives the best performance across all metrics and datasets, except for Hits@10 on *DBP15K*$_{ZH-EN}$ where the performance of RDGCN is second to BootEA with a marginally lower score (84.55 vs 84.75). While BootEA serves a strong baseline by showing what can be achieved by exploiting many unlabeled data, our RDGCN has the advantage of requiring less prior alignment data to learn better representations. We believe that a bootstrapping process can further improve the performance of RDGCN, and we leave this for future work. Later in Section \[sec:prioralignmentdata\], we show that RDGCN maintains consistent performance and significantly outperforms BootEA when the training dataset size is reduced. The good performance of RDGCN is largely attributed to its capability for learning relation-aware embeddings.
{width="0.88\linewidth"}
Ablation Studies
----------------
#### GCN-s vs. GCN.
As shown in Table \[cross\], GCN-s considerably improves GCN in all datasets, resulting in a 17.2% increase on Hits@1 on *DBP15K*$_{FR-EN}$. As mentioned in Section \[setup\], the three cross-lingual datasets require us to handle cross-lingual data through rough machine translations, which is likely to introduce lots of noise ($\sim$80% accuracy in our pilot study). But our improvement over GCN shows that although noisy in nature, those rough translations can still provide useful evidence to capture, thus should not be ignored.
#### GCN-s vs. R-GCN-s.
R-GCN is an extension of GCN by explicitly modeling the KG relations, but in our experiments, we observe that GCN-s achieves better performance than R-GCN-s on all datasets. As discussed in Section \[section:intro\], R-GCN usually requires much more training data to learn an effective model due to its large number of parameters, and the available training data in our evaluation might not be sufficient for fully unlocking the potential of R-GCN.
#### HGCN-s vs. GCN-s.
Comparing HGCN-s with GCN-s, we can see that HGCN-s greatly boosts the performance of GCN-s after employing the layer-wise highway gates, e.g., over 30% improvement of Hits@1 on *DBP15K*$_{FR-EN}$. This is mainly due to their capability of preventing noisy vertices from driving the KG representations.
#### HGCN-s vs. RDGCN.
When comparing HGCN-s with RDGCN, we can see that the dual-primal interaction modules are crucial to the performance: removing the dual and primal attention layers leads to a drop of 1.1% on Hits@1 and 2.02% on Hits@10 on *DBP15K*$_{ZH-EN}$. The interaction modules explore the relation characteristics of KGs by introducing the approximate relation information and fully integrate the relation and entity information after multiple interactions between the dual relation graph and the primal graph. The results show that effective modeling and use of relation information is beneficial for entity alignment.
#### RD vs. RDGCN.
Comparing RD with RDGCN, there is a significant drop in performance when removing the GCN layers from our model, e.g., the Hits@1 of RD and RDGCN differ by 8.94% on *DBP15K*$_{ZH-EN}$. This is not surprising, because the dual-primal graph interactions are designed to integrate KG relation information, while the GCN layers can effectively capture the neighboring structural information of KGs. These two key components are, to some extent, complementary to each other, and should be combined together to learn better relation-aware representations.
Analysis\[sec:prioralignmentdata\]
----------------------------------
#### Triangular structures.
Figure \[analysis\](d) shows the performance of RDGCN and BootEA, the state-of-the-art alignment model, on the testing instances with triangular structures. We can see that the alignment accuracy of our RDGCN for entities with triangular structures is significantly higher than that of BootEA in all three datasets, showing that RDGCN can better deal with the complex relation information.
#### Impact of available prior alignments.
We further compare our RDGCN with BootEA by varying the proportion of pre-aligned entities from 10% to 40% with a step of 10%. As expected, the results of both models on all three datasets gradually improve with an increased amount of prior alignment information. According to Figure \[analysis\](a-c), our RDGCN consistently outperforms BootEA, and seems to be insensitive to the proportion of prior alignments. When only using 10% of the pre-aligned entity pairs as training data, RDGCN still achieves promising results. For example, RDGCN using 10% of prior alignments achieves 86.35% for Hits@1 on *DBP15K*$_{FR-EN}$. This result translates to a 17.79% higher Hits@1 score over BootEA when BootEA uses 40% of prior alignments. These results further confirm the robustness of our model, especially with limited prior alignments.
![An example in *DBP15K*$_{ZH-EN}$, where the blue dash lines indicate the connected entities should be aligned. []{data-label="casestudy"}](casestudy.pdf){width="0.9\linewidth"}
#### Case study.
Figure \[casestudy\] shows an example in *DBP15K*$_{ZH-EN}$ and the target entity pair, $(v_{ZH}$ and $v_{EN})$, should not be aligned. The competitive translation-based models, including BootEA, give lower distance scores for $(v_{ZH}$ and $v_{EN})$, suggesting that these two entities should be aligned. This is because those models fail to address the specific relation information associated with the three aligned neighboring entities. For this example, both $v_1$ and $v_5$ indicate the person *Chiang\_Ching-kuo*, but $v_1$ has the relation *parents* with $v_{ZH}$, while $v_2$ has the relation *children* with $v_{EN}$. Utilizing such information, a better alignment model should produce a larger distance score for the two entities despite they have similar neighbors. By carefully considering the relation information during the dual-primal interactions, our RDGCN gives a larger distance score, leading to the correct alignment result.
Conclusions
===========
This paper presents a novel Relation-aware Dual-Graph Convolutional Network for entity alignment over heterogeneous KGs. Our approach is designed to explore complex relation information that commonly exists in multi-relational KGs. By modeling the attentive interactions between the primal graph and dual relation graph, our model is able to incorporate relation information with neighboring structural information through gated GCN layers, and learn better entity representations for alignment. Compared to the state-of-the-art methods, our model uses less training data but achieves the best alignment performance across three real-world datasets.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work is supported in part by the NSFC (Grant No. 61672057, 61672058, 61872294), the National Hi-Tech R&D Program of China (No. 2018YFC0831905), and a UK Royal Society International Collaboration Grant (IE161012). For any correspondence, please contact Yansong Feng.
[^1]: Corresponding author.
[^2]: https://github.com/StephanieWyt/RDGCN
[^3]: http://nlp.stanford.edu/projects/glove/
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider the fiber cone of monomial ideals. It is shown that for monomial ideals $I\subset K[x,y]$ of height $2$, generated by $3$ elements, the fiber cone $F(I)$ of $I$ is a hypersurface ring, and that $F(I)$ has positive depth for interesting classes of height $2$ monomial ideals $I\subset K[x,y]$, which are generated by $4$ elements. For these classes of ideals we also show that $F(I)$ is Cohen–Macaulay if and only if the defining ideal $J$ of $F(I)$ is generated by at most 3 elements. In all the cases a minimal set of generators of $J$ is determined.'
address:
- 'Jürgen Herzog, Fachbereich Mathematik, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Campus Essen, 45117 Essen, Germany'
- 'Guangjun Zhu, School of Mathematical Sciences, Soochow University, Suzhou 215006, P. R. China'
author:
- 'Jürgen Herzog and Guangjun Zhu$^{^*}$'
title: On the fiber cone of monomial ideals
---
[^1]
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
Let $I\subset S$ be a graded ideal in the polynomial ring $S=K[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ over the field $K$. Let $\mm=(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ be the graded maximal ideal of $S$, and $R(I)=\Dirsum_{j\geq 0}I^j$ the Rees algebra of $I$. Then the fiber cone of $I$ is the standard graded $K$-algebra $F(I)=R(I)/\mm R(I)$. Let $\mu(L)$ denote the minimal number of generators of a graded ideal $L\subset S$. Motivated by the fact that $\mu(I^k)\leq \mu(I^{k+1})$ for all $k\geq 1$, if $\depth F(I)>0$, we ask when $F(I)$ have positive depth. In concrete cases this question is hard to answer.
In this paper we focus on monomial ideals $I$ of height $2$ in a polynomial with two variables. It turns out that even this case, which is the simplest possible to consider, the problem is pretty hard. For example, $\depth F(I)=0$ for the ideal $I=(x^{25}, x^{20}y^{5}, x^{19}y^{19}, x^{5}y^{20}, y^{25})\subset K[x,y]$. On the other hand, by checking hundreds of examples, we could not find any monomial ideal $I\subset K[x,y]$ of height $2$ with $\mu(I)\leq 4$ and $\depth F(I)=0$. Thus we expect that $\depth F(I)>0$, if $\mu(I)\leq 4$. This is trivially true when $\mu(I)=2$, in which case $F(I)$ is a polynomial ring. For the case $\mu(I)=3$, we show that $F(I)$ is a hypersurface ring, and hence is Cohen–Macaulay. This is the content of Section $2$.
For a Noetherian local ring with infinite residue class field, Heinzer and Kim [@HK Proposition 5.4] give several equivalent conditions for $F(I)$ being a hypersurface ring, and in [@HK Theorem 5.6 ] they provide a sufficient condition for this in terms of a depth condition for the associated graded ring of $I$. But all these criteria are hard to apply in our concrete case. Our approach in this, and also in the other cases, considered later in this paper, is more straightforward, and is aimed at computing the generators of the defining ideal $J$ of $F(I)$ explicitly. This approach always leads to the problem to find integer solutions to linear inequalities with integer coefficients. Of course, in general, this is a difficult problem, and hence we can present only partial results for the depth problem of the fiber cone of a monomial ideal $I\subset K[x,y]$ for height $2$ and with $4$ generators.
In Section $3$ we consider symmetric ideals, that is ideals $I\subset K[x,y]$, $I=(x^c, x^by^a, x^ay^b, y^c)$ with $c>b>a>0$ and $\gcd(a,b,c)=1$. In [@HMQ] it is shown that in this case $F(I)$ is Cohen–Macaulay if and only if $b=a+1$, and this is the case if and only if $\mu(J)\leq 3$. More generally, the Cohen–Macaulayness of $F(I)$ holds for $F(I)\cong K[x^c, x^{c-a_1}y^{a_1}, x^{c-a_2}y^{a_2}, y^c]$ with $0<a_1<a_2< c$, if and only if $\mu(J)\leq 3$, as was shown by Bresinsky, Schenzel and Vogel [@BSV Lemma 4]. Here, as before, $J$ denotes the defining ideal of $F(I)$. Note that such rings may be viewed as the coordinate ring of a projective monomial curve. Projective monomial curves have been studied in many papers, see for example [@BR], [@CN], [@HS], [@MPT] and [@RR]. For the symmetric ideal $I$, the fiber cone $F(I)$ is the coordinate ring of a projective monomial curve only if $a+b=c$. Yet, also when $a+b\neq c$, it is shown in Corollary \[noteasy\] that $F(I)$ is Cohen–Macaulay, if and only if $\mu(J)\leq 3$.
In the last section we study the fiber cone of monomial ideals of the form $I=(x^{2a},x^{a}y^{b},x^{c}y^{d},y^{2b})$. It turns out that the fiber cone of this type of ideals is a complete intersection. The different cases to be discussed are treated in Theorem \[Romania\], Theorem \[kolon\] and Theorem \[Hibinotcome\], respectively.
We expect that the results regarding the depth of the fiber cone obtained for the monomial ideals considered in this paper hold for all monomial ideals of the form $I=(x^a,x^cy^d,x^ey^f,y^b)$. In other words, we expect that for any ideal of this type we always have $\depth F(I)>0$, and that $F(I)$ is Cohen-Macaulay, if and only if the defining ideal $J$ of $F(I)$ is generated by at most $3$ elements.
Generalities about the relations of the fiber cone
==================================================
Let $K$ be a field, $S=K[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ the polynomial ring in $n$ indeterminates with graded maximal ideal $\mm=(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$, and $I\subset S$ a monomial ideal with minimal set of monomial generators $G(I)=\{u_1,\ldots,u_m\}$. We denote by $R(I)=\Dirsum_{j\geq 0}I^j$ the Rees algebra of $I$ and by $F(I)=\Dirsum_{j\geq 0}I^j/\mm I^j$ the fiber cone of $I$.
Let $F(I)\cong T/J$, where $T=K[z_1, \ldots, z_{m}]$ is the polynomial ring over $K$, and $J$ is the kernel of the $K$-algebra homomorphism $T\to F(I)$ defined by $z_i\mapsto u_i+\mm I$ for $i=1,\ldots,m$. The relations of $F(I)$ can be obtained from the relations of the Rees ring by reduction modulo $\mm$. The Rees ring $R(I)$ of $I$ is a toric standard graded $S$-algebra. Therefore, the relations belonging to a minimal set of generators of the defining ideal $L$ of $R(I)$ are of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{relation}
f=u\prod_{i=1}^{m}z_i^{r_i}-v\prod_{i=1}^{m}z_i^{s_i},\end{aligned}$$ with $\gcd(u\prod_{i=1}^{m}z_i^{r_i}, v\prod_{i=1}^{m}z_i^{s_i})=1$, where $u$ and $v$ are monomials in $S$, satisfying $$u\prod_{i=1}^{m} u_i^{r_i}=v\prod_{i=1}^{m}u_i^{s_i}.$$ In addition one has $$\sum_{i=1}^{m }r_i=\sum_{i=1}^{m}s_i>0.$$ In particular it follows that $J$ is generated by monomials and homogeneous binomials.
The case when $F(I)$ is a hypersurface
======================================
We turn to the special case described in the following
\[special\] Let $I\subset S$ be the monomial ideal with $G(I)=\{u_1,\ldots,u_{n+1}\}$, where $u_i=x_i^{a_i}$ for $i=1,\dots, n$ and $u_{n+1}=x_1^{b_1}\cdots
x_n^{b_n}$ with $0<b_i<a_i$ for $i=1,\ldots,n$. If $\prod\limits_{i=1}^{n+1}z_i^{r_i}\in J$ with $r_{n+1}>0$, then $z_n^{r_{n+1}}\in J$.
In view of (\[relation\]) there exists $f\in L$ of the form $f=\prod\limits_{i=1}^{n+1}z_i^{r_i}-v\prod_{i=1}^{n}z_i^{s_i}$. Suppose that $r_i>0$ for some $i<n+1$. Since $\gcd(\prod\limits_{i=1}^{n+1}z_i^{r_i}, v\prod_{i=1}^{n}z_i^{s_i})=1$, we may further assume that $f=(\prod_{i=1}^{t}z_i^{r_i})z_{n+1}^{r_{n+1}}-v\prod_{i=t+1}^{n}z_i^{s_i}$ with $r_{n+1}=\sum_{i=t+1}^{n}s_i-c$, where $c=\sum_{i=1}^{t}r_i>0$. It follows that $$\prod_{i=t+1}^{n}x_i^{b_ir_{n+1}}=v'\prod_{i=t+1}^{n}x_i^{a_is_i},$$ where $v'$ is a monomial in $S$, which implies that $b_ir_{n+1}\geq a_is_i$ for $i=t+1,\ldots,n$. We consider the following three cases:
\(i) There exists some $j\in \{t+1,\ldots,n\}$ such that $s_j\geq c$. Then $f=z_{n+1}^{r_{n+1}}-wz_j^{s_j-c}\prod\limits_{\begin{subarray}{c}
i=t+1\\
i\neq j
\end{subarray}}^{n}z_i^{s_i}$ with $w=v'x_j^{a_jc}\prod_{i=1}^{t}x_i^{b_ir_{n+1}}$ belongs to $L$.
\(ii) $s_j<c$ for all $j\in \{t+1,\ldots,n\}$ and there exist $i_1,\ldots,i_m\in \{t+1,\ldots,n\}$ such that $c=\sum\limits_{j=1}^{m}s_{i_j}$. Then $f=z_{n+1}^{r_{n+1}}-w\prod\limits_{\begin{subarray}{c}
i=t+1\\
i\notin\{i_1,\ldots,i_m\}
\end{subarray}}^{n}z_i^{s_i}$ with $w=v'(\prod\limits_{j=1}^{m}x_{ij}^{a_{ij}s_{ij}})(\prod\limits_{i=1}^{t}x_i^{b_ir_{n+1}})$ belongs to $L$.
\(iii) There exists some $m$ such that $s_{1}+\dots+s_{m}<c<s_{1}+\dots+s_{{m+1}}$. Then $f=z_{n+1}^{r_{n+1}}-w(\prod\limits_{
i=m+2}^{n}z_i^{s_i})z_{m+1}^{s_{m+1}-(c-\sum\limits_{i=1}^{m}s_{i})}$ with $w=v'(\prod\limits_{j=1}^{m}x_j^{a_js_j})(\prod\limits_{i=1}^{t}x_i^{b_ir_{n+1}})x_{m+1}^{a_{m+1}(c-\sum\limits_{i=1}^{m}s_{i})}$ belongs to $L$.
In all three cases it follows that $z_{n+1}^{r_{n+1}}\in J$, as desired.
Let $H$ be the hyperplane in $\RR^n$ passing through the points $a_i\eb_i$, $i=1,\ldots,n$, where $\eb_1,\ldots,\eb_n$ is the standard unit basis of $\RR^n$. Then $$H=\{(b_1,\ldots,b_n)\in \RR^n\: \sum_{i=1}^n\frac{b_i}{a_i}=1\}.$$ Let $H^{\pm}$ be the two open half spaces defined by $H$. Then $$H^+=\{(b_1,\ldots,b_n)\in \RR^n\: \sum_{i=1}^n\frac{b_i}{a_i}>1\} \quad \text{and} \quad H^-=\{(b_1,\ldots,b_n)\in \RR^n\:
\sum_{i=1}^n\frac{b_i}{a_i}<1\}.$$
With this notation introduced we now have
\[$n+1$generators\] Let $I=(x_1^{a_1},\ldots,x_n^{a_n},\prod\limits_{i=1}^{n}x_i^{b_i})\subset S=K[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ with $a_i>b_i>0$ for $i=1,\dots,n$, and let $\bb=(b_1,\ldots,b_n)$. Then there exist integers $r_i$ such that $$J= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
(z_{n+1}^{r_{n+1}}-\prod_{i=1}^nz_i^{r_i} ), & \text{if}\ \ \bb\in H,\\
(z_{n+1}^{r_{n+1}}), & \text{if} \ \ \bb\in H^+,\\
(\prod_{i=1}^nz_i^{r_i}), & \text{if}\ \ \bb\in H^-.
\end{array}
\right.$$
Let $f=u\prod_{i=1}^{n+1}z_i^{r_i}-v\prod_{i=1}^{n+1}z_i^{s_i}$ be a binomial as in (\[relation\]) that is a minimal generator of $L$. Then $\gcd(\prod_{i=1}^{n+1}z_i^{r_i}, \prod_{i=1}^{n+1}z_i^{s_i})=1$. Hence we may assume that $f=u\prod_{i=t+1}^{n+1}z_i^{r_i}-v\prod_{i=1}^{t}z_i^{s_i}$.
Notice that $f$ induces a non-zero element in $J$ if and only if $u=1$ or $v=1$, and all generators of $J$ are obtained in this way.
We claim: $r_{n+1}>0$. Indeed, assume first that $u=1$, then $f=\prod_{i=t+1}^{n+1}z_i^{r_i}-v\prod_{i=1}^{t}z_i^{s_i}$. If $r_{n+1}=0$, then $\prod_{i=t+1}^{n}x_i^{a_ir_i}=v\prod_{i=1}^{t}x_i^{a_is_i}$. It follows that $v=(\prod_{i=t+1}^{n}x_i^{a_ir_i})v'$ for some monomial $v'$. This implies that $1=v' \prod_{i=1}^tx_i^{a_is_i}$, so that $s_i=0$ for all $i$, a contradiction. Similar argument for $v=1$.
Assume first that $\bb\in H$. In this case $F(I)\iso K[x_1^{a_1},\ldots,x_n^{a_n},\prod_{i=1}^nx_i^{b_i}]$, and hence $F(I)$ is a domain and $J$ is a prime ideal of height $1$. Therefore, $J$ does not contain any monomial generator, and so $f= \prod_{i=t+1}^{n+1}z_i^{r_i}- \prod_{i=1}^tz_i^{s_i}$. It follows that $$\prod_{i=1}^tx_i^{b_ir_{n+1}}\prod_{i=t+1}^{n}x_i^{a_ir_i+b_ir_{n+1}}=\prod_{i=1}^tx_i^{a_is_i}.$$ This implies that $t=n$, so that $f= z_{n+1}^{r_{n+1}}-\prod_{i=1}^{n}z_i^{s_i}$.
Since $f$ is a minimal generator of $J$ and since $J$ is a prime ideal, it follows that $f$ is irreducible. Therefore, the principal ideal $(f)\subset J$ is a prime ideal. Since $J$ is a prime ideal of height $1$, this implies that $J=(f)$.
Next we consider the case that $\bb \in H^+$. In this case we see that $u=1$ and $v\neq 1$. Then it follows that the generators of $J$ are induced from binomials of the form $f=\prod_{i=t+1}^{n+1}z_i^{r_i}-v\prod_{i=1}^{t}z_i^{s_i}$ with $r_{n+1}>0$. This implies that $J$ is generated by monomials of the form $z_{n+1}^{r_{n+1}}\prod_{i=1}^nz_i^{r_i}$ with $r_{n+1}>0$. By applying Lemma \[special\], it follows that $J=(w_1,\ldots,w_m)$ with $w_j=z_{n+1}^{r_{n+1,j}}$ for $j=1,\ldots,m$. Let $r_{n+1}=\min\{r_{n+1,j}\:\; j=1,\ldots,m\}$. Then $J=(z_{n+1}^{r_{n+1}})$.
Finally assume that $\bb\in H^-$. Then $u\neq 1$ and $v=1$. In this case, all generators of $J$ are of the form $z_1^{t_1}\cdots z_n^{t_n}$. Say, $J=(w_1,\ldots,w_m)$ with $w_j=z_1^{t_{1,j}}\cdots z_n^{t_{n,j}}$ for $j=1,\ldots,m$. Let $w=z_1^{s_1}\cdots z_n^{s_n}$ with $s_i=\min\{t_{i,1},\ldots,t_{i,m}\}$. Then $w_j=v_jw$ for $j=1,\ldots, m$ and monomials $v_j$ in $T$. We will show that $w\in J$. Then this implies $J=(w)$.
Indeed, since $w_j\in J$, there exists a monomial $u_j\in S$ such that $u_jz_{n+1}^{r_{n+1,j}}\prod_{i=t+1}^{n}z_i^{r_{i,j}}-w_j\in L$. Claim: $r_{i,j}=0$ for all $i=t+1,\ldots,n$, $j=1,\ldots,m$. Otherwise, there exist some $i\in \{t+1,\ldots,n\}$ such that $r_{i,j}>0$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $r_{i,j}>0$ for $i=t+1,\ldots,
n$. This implies that $u_j(\prod_{i=1}^{n}x_{i}^{b_ir_{n+1,j}})(\prod_{i=t+1}^{n}x_i^{a_ir_{i,j}})=\prod_{i=1}^{n}x_{i}^{a_{i}t_{i,j}}$. It follows that $t_{i,j}>0$ for $i=t+1,\ldots, n$. Then $\gcd(u_jz_{n+1}^{r_{n+1,j}}\prod_{i=t+1}^{n}z_i^{r_{i,j}},\prod_{i=1}^{n}z_i^{t_{i,j}})\neq 1$, a contradiction.
Therefore, for any $w_j\in J$, there exists a monomial $u_j\in S$ such that $u_jz_{n+1}^{r_{n+1,j}}-w_j\in L$, where $r_{n+1,j}=\sum_{i=1}^nt_{i,j}$. This is equivalent to saying that $b_i(\sum_{k=1}^nt_{k,j})\leq a_it_{i,j}$ for any $i=1,\ldots,n$ and $j=1,\ldots,m$. Now we have $$b_i(\sum_{k=1}^ns_k)\leq \min_{j=1,\ldots,m}\{ b_i(\sum_{k=1}^nt_{k,j})\}\le \min_{j=1,\ldots,m}\{a_it_{i,j}\}= a_is_i.$$ This shows that there exists a monomial $u\in S$ such that $uz_{n+1}^{r_{n+1}}-w\in L$, where $r_{n+1}=\sum_{k=1}^ns_k$. It remains to be shown that $u\neq 1$. Then this implies that $w\in J$. Suppose $u=1$. Then $b_ir_{n+1}=a_is_i$ for all $i$. This implies that $\sum_{i=1}^n\frac{b_i}{a_i}=1$. Therefore, $\bb \in H$, a contradiction.
\[hyper\] With the assumptions and notation of Theorem \[$n+1$generators\], the fiber cone $F(I)$ is a hypersurface ring. Moreover, $F(I)$ is a domain if and only if $\bb\in H$. The fiber cone $F(I)$ has exactly one non-zero minimal prime ideal if $\bb\in H^+$, and it has precisely $n$ non-zero minimal prime ideals if $\bb\in H^-$.
The last sentence of the statement of Corollary \[hyper\] also follows from [@S Corollary 4.6]. This corollary implies in particular, that $\depth F(I)=2$, if $I\subset K[x,y]$ is a non principal monomial ideal of $\height 2$ generated by 3 elements. There exist some examples of non principal monomial ideals $I\subset K[x,y]$ of $\height 2$ with more than 4 generators and $\depth F(I)=0$.
Symmetric ideals
================
In the following, we study in more detail those symmetric ideals $I$ with $\mu(I)=4$. We fix the following notation. Let $0<a<b<c$ be integers with $\gcd(a,b,c)=1$. Then we define the symmetric ideal $I=(x^c,x^by^a,x^ay^b,y^c)$. We let $T= K[z_1,\ldots,z_4]$ be the polynomial ring, and let $J$ be the kernel of the canonical map $T\to F(I)$ with $z_i\mapsto u_i$ for $i=1, \ldots,4$, where $u_1=x^c$, $u_2=x^by^a$, $u_3=x^{a}y^{b}$ and $u_4=y^c$.
\[symmetricidealup\] Let $I=(x^c,x^by^a,x^ay^b,y^c)\subset K[x,y]$ be a symmetric monomial ideal with $b+a>c$. Then we have
1. The ideal $J$ is minimally generated as given in one of the following four cases, and each of these cases occur.
1. $J=(z_2z_3, z_2^r, z_3^r)$;
2. $J=(z_2z_3, z_2^r, z_3^r)+L$, where $L$ is minimally generated by monomials of the form $z_1^iz_3^j$ and $z_2^jz_4^i$ with $i,j>0$;
3. $J=(z_2z_3, z_2^{m+1}, z_3^{m+1}, z_1^\ell z_3^m-z_2^mz_4^\ell)$, where $\ell=\frac{b-a}{\gcd(c,b-a)}$ and\
$m=\frac{c}{\gcd(c,b-a)}$.
4. $J=(z_2z_3, z_2^{r}, z_3^{r}, z_1^\ell z_3^m-z_2^mz_4^\ell)+L'$, where $L'$ is minimally generated by monomials of the form $z_1^{i'}z_3^{j'}$ and $z_2^{j'}z_4^{i'}$ with $i',j'>0$, $\ell=\frac{b-a}{\gcd(c,b-a)}$ and $m=\frac{c}{\gcd(c,b-a)}$.
2. $F(I)$ is Cohen–Macaulay if and only if $J$ is generated as in case [*(i)*]{}. Otherwise, $\depth F(I)=1$.
\(a) We first show that the monomials $z_2z_3, z_2^r, z_3^r$ belong to $J$ in all four cases. Indeed, we have $u_2u_3=x^{a+b-c}y^{a+b-c}u_1u_4$, which implies that $z_2z_3\in J$.
Since $b+a>c$, we have $\frac{a}{c-a}>\frac{c-b}{b}$. Thus there exist positive integers $m$ and $n$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{essen}\frac{c-b}{b}m\leq n\leq \frac{a}{c-a}m.\end{aligned}$$ This implies that $br\geq cm$ and $ar\geq cn$, where $r=m+n$. Moreover one of the two inequalities must be strict, because in (\[essen\]) one of the two inequalities must be strict. This implies that $z_2^{r}-vz_1^{m}z_4^{n}$ is a relation of $R(I)$ with a monomial $v\neq 1$. Hence $z_2^r \in J$. Of course we may assume that $r$ is the smallest integer with $z_2^r\in J$. By symmetry we also have $z_3^r\in J$.
Case (i) can happen for example, when $I=(x^4,x^3y^2,x^2y^3, y^4)$. In this example, $J=(z_2z_3, z_2^2, z_3^2)$.
Next we show that if $J$ is generated by monomials, then $J$ must be of the form (i) or (ii). Indeed, let $u$ be any other monomial generator of $J$ which is not of the form given in (ii). Then $u=z_1^{i}z_2^{j}z_4^{k}$ with $i>0$ or $u=z_1^{i}z_3^{j}z_4^{k}$ with $k>0$. By symmetry it is enough to show that $u=z_1^{i}z_2^{j}z_4^{k}$ with $i>0$ is not a minimal generator of $J$.
More generally we show that elements of the following type do not belong to any minimal set of generators of $J$: (1) $z_1^{i}z_2^{j}z_3^{k}$, $z_2^{i}z_3^{j}z_4^{k}$ with $i,j,k>0$; (2) $z_1^{r}$, $z_4^{r}$, $z_1^{r}-z_2^{i}z_3^{j}z_4^{k}$, $z_4^{r}-z_1^{i}z_2^{j}z_3^{k}$; (3) $z_1^{i}z_2^{j}$, $z_3^{k}z_4^{\ell}$, $z_1^{i}z_2^{j}-z_3^{k}z_4^{\ell}$ with $i,\ell>0$; (4) $z_1^{i}z_2^{j}z_4^{k}$ with $i>0$, $z_1^{i}z_3^{j}z_4^{k}$ with $k>0$, $z_3^{r}-z_1^{i}z_2^{j}z_4^{k}$, $z_2^{r}-z_1^{i}z_3^{j}z_4^{k}$; (5) $z_1^{i}z_4^{j}$, $z_1^{i}z_4^{j}-z_2^{k}z_3^{\ell}$ with $i,j>0$.
Indeed, (1) follows from the fact $z_2z_3\in J$.
By symmetry, type (2) reduces to $z_1^{r}$, $z_1^{r}-z_2^{i}z_3^{j}z_4^{k}$. This can only happen when there exists some relation $f=z_1^{r}-vz_2^{i}z_3^{j}z_4^{k}$ in $R(I)$ with a monomial $v\in K[x,y]$. Then $u_{1}^{r}=vu_2^iu_3^ju_4^k$, that is, $x^{cr}=vx^{bi+aj}y^{ai+bj+ck}$. This implies that $x$ divides $y$, a contradiction.
By symmetry, type (3) reduces to $z_1^{i}z_2^{j}$, $z_1^{i}z_2^{j}-z_3^{k}z_4^{\ell}$ with $i,\ell>0$. This can only happen if there exists a relation $f=z_1^{i}z_2^{j}-vz_3^{k}z_4^{\ell}$ in $R(I)$ with a monomial $v\in K[x,y]$. Then $u_1^{i}u_2^{j}=vu_3^{k}u_4^{\ell}$, that is, $x^{ci+bj}y^{aj}=vx^{ak}y^{bk+c\ell}$. This implies that $ci+bj\geq ak$, $aj\geq bk+c\ell$, $i+j=k+\ell$, and the equalities hold if and only if $v=1$. It follows that $i-\ell\geq \frac{a+b}{c}(k-j)>k-j$, a contradiction.
Also by symmetry, type (4) reduces to $z_1^{i}z_2^{j}z_4^{k}$, $z_3^{r}-z_1^{i}z_2^{j}z_4^{k}$ with $i>0$. This can only happen if there exists some relation $f=z_1^{i}z_2^{j}z_4^{k}-vz_3^{r}$ in $R(I)$ with a monomial $v\in K[x,y]$. This implies that $ci+bj\geq ar$, $aj+ck\geq br$, $i+j+k=r$, and the above equalities hold if and only if $v=1$. This implies that $i+k\geq \frac{a+b}{c}(r-j)>r-j$, a contradiction.
For type (5), if $z_1^{i}z_4^{j}$ is a minimal generator of $J$, then there exists a relation $f=z_1^{i}z_4^{j}-vz_2^kz_3^{\ell}$ in $R(I)$ with a monomial $v\neq 1$. It follows that $ci\geq bk+a\ell$, $cj\geq ak+b\ell$ and $i+j=k+\ell$. This implies that $i+j\geq \frac{a+b}{c}(k+\ell)>k+\ell$, a contradiction.
If $z_1^{i}z_4^{j}-z_2^{k}z_3^{\ell} \in J$, then $ci=bk+a\ell$, $cj=ak+b\ell$ and $i+j=k+\ell$. It follows that $i+j=0$, a contradiction.
Case (ii) also can happen for example, when $I=(x^{10},x^9y^2,x^2y^9, y^{10})$. In this example, $J=(z_2z_3, z_2^5, z_3^5,z_1z_3^{4},z_2^{4}z_4)$.
This discussion shows that $J$ is indeed of the form (i) or (ii), when $J$ does not contain a binomial generator.
Finally we show that if the minimal generators of $J$ contain some binomials, then $J$ must be of the form (iii) or (iv). Indeed, by the above discussions, we know that the possible forms of monomial generators and binomial generators are $z_1^iz_3^j$, $z_2^kz_4^{\ell}$ with $i,j,k,\ell>0$ and $z_1^{i}z_3^{j}-z_2^{k}z_4^{s}$ with $i,j>0$ respectively.
If $z_1^{i}z_3^{j}-z_2^{k}z_4^{s}$ with $i,j>0$ is a minimal generator of $J$, then $ci+aj=bk$, $bj=ak+cs$ and $i+j=k+s$. It follows that $i=s$ and $k=j$. In this case, we obtain that $ci=(b-a)j$, that is $\frac{c}{\gcd(c,b-a)}i=\frac{b-a}{\gcd(c,b-a)}j$. This yields that $j=\frac{c}{\gcd(c,b-a)}t$ and $i=\frac{b-a}{\gcd(c,b-a)}t$ for some integer $t$. Therefore, $z_1^{\ell}z_3^{m}-z_2^{m}z_4^{\ell}$ divides $z_1^{i}z_3^{j}-z_2^{j}z_4^{i}$, where $\ell=\frac{b-a}{\gcd(c,b-a)}$ and $m=\frac{c}{\gcd(c,b-a)}$.
Cases (iii) and (iv) may actually occur. For example, when $I=(x^{10},x^8y^3,x^3y^8, y^{10})$, then $J=(z_2z_3, z_2^3, z_3^3,z_1z_3^{2}-z_2^{2}z_4)$; when $I=(x^{30},x^{29}y^2,x^2y^{29}, y^{30})$, then $J=(z_2z_3, z_2^{15}, z_3^{15},z_1^9z_3^{10}-z_2^{10}z_4^9,z_1z_3^{14},z_2^{14}z_4,z_1^3z_3^{13},z_2^{13}z_4^3,z_1^5z_3^{12},z_2^{12}z_4^5,z_1^7z_3^{11},z_2^{11}z_4^7)$.
To conclude the proof of part (a) of the theorem, we show that the degree $r$ of the pure power generators $z_2^{r}$, $z_3^{r}$ of $J$ in case (iii) must be $m+1$. It is clear that $r\geq m+1$. If $r>m+1$, then $z_1^{\ell}z_3^{m+1}=z_3(z_1^{\ell}z_3^{m}-z_2^{m}z_4^{\ell})+z_2^{m-1}z_4^{\ell}(z_2z_3)\in J$, contradicting the fact that no monomial different from $z_2z_3, z_2^r, z_3^r$ belongs to a minimal set of generators of $J$.
\(b) It is clear that in case (i), $z_1$ and $z_4$ are nonzero divisors of $F(I)$. So in this case $F(I)$ is Cohen–Macaulay.
Next we show that if $J$ is generated by more than three elements, then $F(I)$ is not Cohen–Macaulay. This then shows that $F(I)$ is not Cohen–Macaulay in the cases (ii), (iii) and (iv).
Indeed, suppose that $\mu(J)=t\geq 4$, and that $F(I)$ is Cohen–Macaulay. Since $\height J=2$, the generators of $J$ are the maximal minors of a $(t-1)\times t$-matrix $A$ whose entries are homogeneous polynomials of positive degree, see for example [@BH Theorem 1.4.17]. In all four cases one of the generators is $z_2z_3$, which is a maximal minor $A$. This implies that $t\leq 3$, a contradiction.
Finally we show that $\depth F(I)=1$ in the cases (ii), (iii) and (iv). It is enough to show that $\depth F(I)>0$ in these three cases. In case (ii), we have $J=J_1\sect J_2$, where $J_1=(z_2,z_3 ^r,z_1^iz_3^j,\ldots)$ and $J_2=(z_3, z_2^r,z_2^jz_4^i,\ldots)$. For $J_1$, the element $z_4$ does not appear in the support of the generators of $J_1$, and for $J_2$ it is $z_1$. Thus $\depth T/J_1>0$ and $\depth T/J_2>0$. Since there is a natural injective map $F(I)=T/J\to T/J_1\dirsum T/J_2$, we see that $\depth F(I)>0$.
In case (iii), by considering $S$-pairs, one immediately sees that the elements $z_2z_3, z_2^{m+1}, z_3^{m+1}, z_1^\ell z_3^m-z_2^mz_4^\ell$ form a Gröbner basis with respect to the lexicographic order induced by $z_1>z_2>z_3>z_4$. Hence $\ini_<(J)=(z_2z_3, z_2^{m+1}, z_3^{m+1}, z_1^\ell z_3^m)$. Since $z_4$ does not appear in the support of any monomial of $\ini_<(J)$, we see that $z_4$ is a nonzero-divisor on $T/\ini_<(J)$, and hence $\depth T/\ini_<(J)>0$. Quite generally one always has $\depth T/\ini_<(J)\leq \depth T/J$. Thus $\depth T/J>0$.
Similar to case (iii), in case (iv), one sees that the elements $z_2z_3, z_2^{r}, z_3^{r}, z_1^\ell z_3^m-z_2^mz_4^\ell, z_1^{i'}z_3^{j'}, z_2^{j'}z_4^{i'},\ldots$ form a Gröbner basis with respect to the lexicographic order induced by $z_1>z_2>z_3>z_4$. Hence $\ini_<(J)=(z_2z_3, z_2^{r}, z_3^{r}, z_1^\ell z_3^m, z_1^{i'}z_3^{j'}, z_2^{j'}z_4^{i'},\ldots)$. We obtain that $\ini_<(J)=J'\sect J''$, where $J'=(z_2,z_3 ^r,z_1^\ell z_3^m,z_1^{i'}z_3^{j'},\ldots)$ and $J''=(z_3, z_2^r, z_2^{j'}z_4^{i'},\ldots)$. For $J'$, the element $z_4$ does not appear in the support of the generators of $J'$, and for $J''$ it is $z_1$. Thus $\depth T/J'>0$ and $\depth T/J''>0$. Since there is a natural injective map $T/\ini_<(J)\to T/J'\dirsum T/J''$, we see that $\depth T/\ini_<(J)>0$. Thus $\depth T/J>0$ because of one always has $\depth T/\ini_<(J)\leq \depth T/J$.
Next, we consider the case $b+a<c$. In this case, we have $\frac{1}{a}>\frac{1}{c-b}$. Thus there exist positive integers $i$ and $j$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Iranfood}\frac{b-a}{c-b}j\leq i\leq \frac{b-a}{a}j.\end{aligned}$$ Let $\Sc=\{(i,j)\in \mathbb{N}^{2}\mid \frac{b-a}{c-b}j\leq i\leq \frac{b-a}{a}j\}$ and $\leq$ be the partial ordering on $\Sc$ with $(i,j)\leq
(i',j')$ if and only if $i\leq i'$, $j\leq j'$.
\[symmetricidealdown\] Let $I=(x^c,x^by^a,x^ay^b,y^c)\subset K[x,y]$ be a symmetric monomial ideal with $b+a<c$. Let $(i,j)$ be the minimal element of the poset $\Sc$. Then we have:
1. The ideal $J$ is minimally generated as given in one of the following four cases, and each of these cases occur.
1. $J=(z_1z_4, z_1^{i}z_3^{j}, z_2^{j}z_4^{i})$;
2. $J=(z_1z_4, z_1^{i}z_3^{j}, z_2^{j}z_4^{i})+L$, where $L$ is minimally generated by monomials of the forms $z_1^{i}z_3^{j}$ and $z_2^{j}z_4^{i}$ with $i,j>0$;
3. $J=(z_1z_4, z_1^{i}z_3^{j}, z_2^{j}z_4^{i}, z_1^\ell z_3^m-z_2^mz_4^\ell)$, where $l=\frac{b-a}{\gcd(c,b-a)}$ and $m=\frac{c}{\gcd(c,b-a)}$;
4. $J=(z_1z_4, z_1^{i}z_3^{j}, z_2^{j}z_4^{i}, z_1^\ell z_3^m-z_2^mz_4^\ell)+L'$, where where $L'$ is minimally generated by monomials of the forms $z_1^{i'}z_3^{j'}$ and $z_2^{j'}z_4^{i'}$ with $i',j'>0$, $l=\frac{b-a}{\gcd(c,b-a)}$ and $m=\frac{c}{\gcd(c,b-a)}$.
2. $F(I)$ is Cohen–Macaulay if and only if $J$ is generated as in case [*(i)*]{}. Otherwise, $\depth F(I)=1$.
We omit the proof of (a) which follows the same line of arguments as the proof of part (a) of Theorem \[symmetricidealup\].
\(b) Recall $F(I)\cong T/J$, if $T/J$ is Cohen-Macaulay, then $\mu(J)\leq 3$, because the Hilbert-Burch matrix of $J$ must be a $2\times 3$-matrix since $z_1z_4\in J$. On the other hand, if $J=(z_1z_4, z_1^{i}z_3^{j}, z_2^{j}z_4^{i})$, then $J$ is the ideal of $2$-minors of the matrix $$\left( {\begin{array}{ccc}
z_{1}^{i-1}z_3^j, & z_4,& 0 \\
z_{2}^iz_4^{j-1}, & 0, &z_1 \\
\end{array} } \right).$$ This implies that $F(I)$ is Cohen–Macaulay.
\[symmetricidealon\] Let $I=(x^c,x^by^a,x^ay^b,y^c)\subset K[x,y]$ be a symmetric monomial ideal. Then $\depth F(I)>0$.
If $a+b\neq c$, then the assertion is shown in Theorem \[symmetricidealup\] and Theorem \[symmetricidealdown\]. If $a+b=c$, then $F(I)=K[x^c,x^by^a,x^ay^b,y^c]$ is a domain, so that $\depth F(I)>0$, also in this case.
\[noteasy\] Let $I=(x^c,x^by^a,x^ay^b,y^c)\subset K[x,y]$ be a symmetric monomial ideal. Then the following conditions are equivalent:
1. $F(I)$ is Cohen–Macaulay;
2. $\mu(J)\leq 3$;
3. $\mu(J)= 3$.
The equivalence of (a) and (b) is shown in the above theorems when $a+b\neq c$. In the case that $a+b=c$, it is shown in [@BSV Lemma 4]. The equivalence of (b) and (c) also follows form the above theorems.
The fiber cone of $I=(x^{2a},x^{a}y^{b},x^{c}y^{d},y^{2b})$
===========================================================
We consider a special class of ideals $I\subset K[x,y]$, whose fiber cone is a complete intersection. In this section we assume that we are given positive integers $a,b,c,d$ such that $\gcd(a,c)=1$, $\gcd(b,d)=1$ and $b\geq a>c$.
First we consider the case $bc+ad>2ab$. Thus we have $\frac{2b}{2b-d}-\frac{2a}{c}>0$ and $\frac{b}{2b-d}-\frac{a}{c}>0$. Therefore, there exist positive integers $i$, $j$ and $s$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Dusseldorfineq}\frac{2a}{c}i+\frac{a}{c}j\leq s\leq \frac{2b}{2b-d}i+\frac{b}{2b-d}j.\end{aligned}$$
Let $\Tc=\{(i,j,s)\in \mathbb{N}^{3}\mid \frac{2a}{c}i+\frac{a}{c}j\leq s\leq \frac{2b}{2b-d}i+\frac{b}{2b-d}j\}$, and let $r$ be the smallest integer such that $(i,j,r)\in \Tc$. Then we have
\[Romania\] Let $I=(x^{2a},x^{a}y^{b},x^{c}y^{d},y^{2b})\subset K[x,y]$ be the monomial ideal with $bc+ad>2ab$. Let $K[z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4]$ be the polynomial ring, and let $J$ be the kernel of the canonical map $T\to F(I)$ with $z_i\mapsto u_i$ for $i=1, \ldots,4$, where $u_1=x^{2a}$, $u_2=x^ay^b$, $u_3=x^cy^d$ and $u_4=y^{2b}$. Then $J=(z_2^2-z_1z_4, z_3^{r})$. In particular, $J$ is a complete intersection.
Notice that $u_2^2=u_1u_4$, which implies that $z_2^2-z_1z_4\in J$. By the choice of $r$, we have $cr\geq 2ai+aj$ and $dr\geq bj+2bk$, where $k=r-i-j$. Moreover one of the two inequalities must be strict, because in (\[Dusseldorfineq\]) one of the two inequalities must be strict. This implies that $z_3^{r}-vz_1^{i}z_2^{j}z_4^{k}$ is a relation of $R(I)$ with a monomial $v\neq 1$. Hence $z_3^r \in J$.
It remains to be shown that $J\subseteq (z_2^2-z_1z_4, z_3^{r})$. We know that the generators of $J$ are monomials or binomials arising from relations $f=u\prod_{i=1}^{4}z_i^{r_i}-v\prod_{i=1}^{4}z_i^{s_i}$ of the Rees ring by reduction modulo $(x,y)$. Thus the possible minimal generators of $J$ must be of the form as follows: (1) $z_i^r$, with $r\geq 2$ for $i=1,\ldots,4$; (2) $z_1^{r}-z_2^iz_3^jz_4^{r-i-j}$, $z_2^{r}-z_1^iz_3^jz_4^{r-i-j}$, $z_3^{r}-z_1^iz_2^jz_4^{r-i-j}$, $z_4^{r}-z_1^iz_2^jz_3^{r-i-j}$ with $r\geq 2$; (3) $z_1^iz_2^jz_3^{k}$, $z_1^iz_2^jz_4^{k}$, $z_1^iz_3^jz_4^{k}$, $z_2^iz_3^jz_4^{k}$ with $i,j,k>0$; (4) $z_1^iz_2^j-z_3^{k}z_4^{\ell}$, $z_1^iz_3^j-z_2^{k}z_4^{\ell}$, $z_1^iz_4^j-z_2^{k}z_3^{\ell}$ with $i+j>0$; (5) $z_1^iz_2^j$, $z_3^{i}z_4^{j}$, $z_1^iz_3^j$, $z_2^{i}z_4^{j}$, $z_1^iz_4^j$, $z_2^{i}z_3^{j}$ with $i,j>0$.
Some of these monomials and binomials listed above do belong to $J$, but are not minimal except $z_2^2-z_1z_4, z_3^{r}$ by direct calculations. We demonstrate this in some cases. In the remaining cases the arguments are similar. It is obvious that $z_1^r, z_4^r,z_1^{r}-z_2^iz_3^jz_4^{r-i-j}, z_4^{r}-z_1^iz_2^jz_3^{r-i-j}$ do not belong to $J$.
If $z_2^r\in J$, then there exists some relation $f=z_2^r-vz_1^iz_3^jz_4^{k}$ in $R(I)$ with $r=i+j+k$ and a monomial $v\neq 1$. It follows that $ar\geq 2ai+cj$, $br\geq dj+2bk$ and one of the two inequalities must be strict. Thus we have $(\frac{c}{2a}+\frac{d}{2b}-1)j<0$, this implies that $j<0$, a contradiction.
If $z_3^{r}-z_1^iz_2^jz_4^{k}\in J$, where $k=r-i-j$, then $cr=2ai+aj$ and $dr=bj+2bk$. It follows that $(\frac{c}{2a}+\frac{d}{2b}-1)r=0$, this implies that $r=0$, a contradiction.
If $z_1^iz_2^jz_3^{k}\in J$ with $i,j,k>0$, then there exists some relation $f=z_1^iz_2^jz_3^{k}-vz_4^{r}$ in $R(I)$ with $r=i+j+k$ and a monomial $v\in K[x,y]$. It follows that $x^{2ai+aj+ck}\mid v$, $bj+dk\geq 2br$. Thus we have $2bi+bj+(2b-d)k\leq 0$, this implies that $i=j=k=0$ or at least one of $i,j,k$ is negative, a contradiction.
If $z_1^iz_3^jz_4^{k}$ with $i,j,k>0$ is a minimal generator of $J$, then there exists some relation $f=z_1^iz_3^jz_4^{k}-vz_2^{r}$ in $R(I)$ with $r=i+j+k$ and a monomial $v\in K[x,y]$. It follows that $2ai+cj\geq ar$, $dj+2bk\geq br$. We consider three cases:
\(i) $i=k$, then we have $2ai+cj\geq a(2i+j)$. This implies that $cj\geq aj$. From the fact $c<a$, we can get $j=0$, a contradiction.
\(ii) $i<k$, then $z_2^{2i}z_3^jz_4^{k-i}=z_1^iz_3^jz_4^{k}-((z_1z_4)^{i}-z_2^{2i})z_3^{j}z_4^{k-i}$ is a minimal generator of $J$, a contradiction.
\(iii) $i>k$, this case can be proved as similar to (ii).
If $z_1^iz_2^j-z_3^{k}z_4^{\ell}\in J$ with $i+j>0$, then $2ai+aj=ck$, $bj=dk+2b\ell$ and $i+j=k+\ell$. This implies that $i=j=k=\ell=0$, a contradiction.
If $z_1^iz_3^j$ with $i,j>0$ is a minimal generator of $J$. Then $j<r$, and there exists some relation $f=z_1^iz_3^j-vz_2^kz_4^{\ell}$ in $R(I)$ with $i+j=k+\ell$ and a monomial $v\neq 1$. It follows that $u_1^iu_3^j=vu_2^ku_4^{\ell}$. We consider three cases; (i) $k=0$, then we have $dj\geq 2b\ell$. Hence $j>\ell$ because $d<2b$, a contradiction. (ii) $k>0$ and $i\geq k$, then $u_1^{i-k}u_3^{j}=vu_4^{k+\ell}$. This implies that $dj\geq2b(k+\ell)$. From the fact that $d<2b$, we have $j>k+\ell$, a contradiction. (iii) $k>0$ and $i<k$, then $u_3^{j}=vu_1^{k-i}u_4^{k+\ell}$. By the choice of $r$, we know that $j\geq r$, a contradiction.
Finally, if $z_2^{r}-z_1^iz_3^jz_4^{k}\in J$, then we have $ar=2ai+cj$, $br=dj+2bk$ and $r=i+j+k$. It follows that $i=k$ and $j=0$. Hence $z_2^{2}-z_1z_4$ divides $z_2^{r}-z_1^iz_3^jz_4^{k}$.
Next, we consider the case $bc+ad<2ab$. In this case, we have $0<(2-\frac{d}{b})-\frac{c}{a}<1$. Thus there exist positive integers $s$ and $\ell$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{inequality1} \frac{c}{a}s\leq \ell\leq (2-\frac{d}{b})s.\end{aligned}$$ Let $\D=\{(s,\ell)\in \mathbb{N}^{2}\mid \frac{c}{a}s\leq \ell\leq (2-\frac{d}{b})s\}$, and let $r$ be the smallest integer such that $(r,\ell)\in \D$. We set $i=\frac{\ell}{2}$ and $j=0$ if $\ell$ is even, and $i=\frac{\ell-1}{2}$ and $j=1$, if $\ell$ is odd.
With the same methods as in the proof of Theorem \[Romania\] one obtains
\[kolon\] Let $I=(x^{2a},x^{a}y^{b},x^{c}y^{d},y^{2b})\subset K[x,y]$ be the monomial ideal with $bc+ad<2ab$. We write $F(I)\cong K[z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4]/J$ as in Theorem \[Romania\]. Then $J=(z_2^2-z_1z_4, z_1^{i}z_2^{j}z_4^{r-i-j})$. In particular, $J$ is a complete intersection.
Notice that $u_2^2=u_1u_4$, which implies that $z_2^2-z_1z_4\in J$. By the choice of $i,j,r$, we have $\ell=2i+j$. Set $k=r-i-j$. We obtain that $2ai+j\geq cr$, $bj+2bk\geq dr$. Moreover one of the two inequalities must be strict, because in (\[inequality1\]) one of the two inequalities must be strict. This implies that $z_1^{i}z_2^{j}z_4^{r-i-j}-vz_3^{r}$ is a relation of $R(I)$ with a monomial $v\neq 1$. Hence $z_1^{i}z_2^{j}z_4^{r-i-j}\in J$.
The proof for the fact that $J\subseteq (z_2^2-z_1z_4, z_1^{i}z_2^{j}z_4^{r-i-j})$ is a case by case discussion as in Theorem \[Romania\] which we omit.
\[Hibinotcome\] Let $I=(x^{2a},x^{a}y^{b},x^{c}y^{d},y^{2b})\subset K[x,y]$ be the monomial ideal with $bc+ad=2ab$. Then $F(I)\cong K[z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4]/J$, where $J=(z_2^2-z_1z_4, z_3^{a}-z_1^{i}z_2^{j}z_4^{a-i-j})$. Here $i=\frac{c}{2}$ and $j=0$, if $c$ is even, and $i=\frac{c-1}{2}$ and $j=1$, if $c$ is odd. In particular, $J$ is a complete intersection.
Notice that $u_2^2=u_1u_4$, which implies that $z_2^2-z_1z_4\in J$. Next we show that $z_3^{a}-z_1^{i}z_2^{j}z_4^{a-i-j}\in J$. Indeed, if $c$ is even, then $c=2c'$. It follows that $ad=2ab-bc=2b(a-c')$. Hence $u_3^a=x^{ac}y^{ad}=x^{2ac'}y^{2b(a-c')}=u_1^{c'}u_4^{a-c'}=u_1^{\frac{c}{2}}u_4^{a-\frac{c}{2}}=u_1^{i}u_2^{j}u_4^{a-i-j}$ where $i=\frac{c}{2}$ and $j=0$. If $c$ is odd, then $c=2c'+1$, i.e., $c'=\frac{c-1}{2}$. It follows that $ad=2ab-bc=2b(a-c')-b$. Therefore, $u_3^a=x^{ac}y^{ad}=x^{ac}y^{2b(a-c')-b}=x^{a(2c'+1)}y^{2b(a-c')-b}=x^{a(2c'+1)}y^{2b(a-c'-1)+b}
=u_1^{\frac{c-1}{2}}u_2u_4^{a-\frac{c+1}{2}}=u_1^{i}u_2^{j}u_4^{a-i-j}$, where $i=\frac{c-1}{2}$ and $j=1$.
Let $L=( z_2^2-z_1z_4, z_3^{a}-z_1^{i}z_2^{j}z_4^{a-i-j})$. Since $\ini_<(L)=(z_2^2,z_3^a)$ with respect to the lexicographic order induced by $z_3>z_2>z_1>z_4$, we see that $L$ is generated by a regular sequence, and hence $\height(L)=2$. We will show that $L$ is a prime ideal. This will then prove that $L=J$, since $L\subseteq J$ and $J$ is also a prime ideal of height $2$, because $F(I)\iso K[x^{2a},x^{a}y^{b},x^{c}y^{d},y^{2b}].$
In order to see that $L$ is a prime ideal, we first observe that $z_1$ is a nonzero-divisor modulo $L$, because it is a nonzero-divisor modulo $\ini_<(L)$. Therefore, by localization, we obtain an injective map $T/L\to (T/L)_{z_1}$. Thus it suffices to show that $(T/L)_{z_1}$ is a domain. Note that $L_{z_1}=(z_2^2z_1^{-1}-z_4, f)$ where $f=z_3^{a}-z_1^{i}z_2^{j}z_4^{a-i-j}$. Replacing $z_4$ by $z_2^2z_1^{-1}$ in $f$, we obtain that $T_{z_1}/L_{z_1}=K[z_1^{\pm 1},z_2,z_3]/(g)$ where $(g)=(z_3^a-z_1^{i}z_2^{j}(z_2^2z_1^{-1})^{a-i-j})=(z_3^a-z_1^{-a+2i+j}z_2^{2a-2i-j})=(z_2^{2a-2i-j}-z_3^az_1^{a-2i-j})=(z_2^{a-c}-z_1^{a-c}z_3^{a})$, where $c=2i+j$.
The $K$-algebra $A=K[z_1,z_2,z_3]/(h)$ is a domain, where $h=z_2^{a-c}-z_1^{a-c}z_3^{a}$, because $\gcd(a,c)=1$. Indeed, let $v=(c-a,a-c,-a)\in \ZZ^3$, and let $L=\ZZ v$ the sublattice of $\ZZ^3$ spanned by $v$. Then $(h)$ may be viewed as the lattice ideal of $L$. The condition $\gcd(a,c)=1$ implies that $\ZZ^3/L$ is torsionfree. Therefore, by [@HHO Theorem 3.17] it follows that $A$ is a toric ring, and hence a domain. Now this implies that $T_{z_1}/L_{z_1}=K[z_1^{\pm 1},z_2,z_3]/(g)$ is a domain, because it is isomorphic to $A_{z_1}$.
[**Acknowledgement.**]{} This paper is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 11271275) and by the Foundation of the Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions.
[99]{}
H. Bresinsky, B. Renschuch, Basisbestimmung Veronesescher Projektionsideale mit allgemeiner Nullstelle $(t_0^m,t_0^{m-r}t_1^r, t_0^{m-s}t_1^s, t_1^m)$, [*Mathematische Nachrichten*]{}, 96, 1980, 257–269.
H. Bresinsky, P. Schenzel and W. Vogel, On Liaison, Arithmetical Buchsbaum Curves and Monomial Curves in $\mathbb{P}^3$, [*J. Algebra,*]{} 86, 1984, 283–301.
M. P. Cavaliere and G. Niesi, On monomial curves and Cohen-Macaulay type, [*Manuscripta Mathematica*]{}. 49, 1985, 147–159.
W. J. Heinzer and M. K. Kim, Properties of fiber cone of ideals in local rings, [*Comm. Algebra*]{}, 31, 2003, 3529–546.
W. Bruns and J. Herzog, Cohen Macaulay Rings, revised ed., Cambridge Stud. Adv. Math., vol. 39, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998.
J. Herzog, T. Hibi and H. Ohsugi, Binomial Ideals, Graduate Texts in Mathematics 260, Springer, London, 2010.
J. Herzog, M. Mohammadi Saem and N. Zamani, On the number of generators of powers of an ideal, 2017, arXiv:1707.07302.
J. Herzog, M. Mohammadi Saem and A. A. Qureshi, The fiber cone of a monomial ideal in two variables, To appear in [*J. Symbolic Computation*]{}, 2017, arXiv:1707.07302V3.
J. Herzog and D. I. Stamate, Cohen-Macaulay criteria for projective monomial curves via Gröbner bases, [*Acta Mathematica Vietnamica*]{} 44 (1), 2019, 51-64.
S. Molinelli, D. P. Patil, and G. Tamone, On the Cohen-Macaulayness of the coordinate ring of certain projective monomial curves, [*Contributions to Algebra and Geometry*]{}, 40, 1999, 437–458.
L. Reid and L. G. Roberts, Maximal and Cohen-Macaulay projective monomial curves, [*J. Algebra*]{}, 307, 2007, 409–423.
P. Singla, Minimal monomial reductions and the reduced fiber ring of an extremal ideal, [*Illinois J. Math.*]{}, 51 (4) (2007), 1085–1102.
[^1]: The paper was written while the second author was visiting the Department of Mathematics of University Duisburg-Essen. She spent a memorable time at Essen, so she would like to express her hearty thanks to Maja for hospitality. She also wishes to thank for the hospitality of Department of Mathematics of University Duisburg-Essen, Germany.\
\* Corresponding author.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Passive reaction effects in grasp stability analysis occur when the contact forces and joint torques applied by a grasp change in response to external disturbances applied to the grasped object. For example, nonbackdrivable actuators (e.g. highly geared servos) will passively resist external disturbances without an actively applied command; for numerous robot hands using such motors, these effects can be highly beneficial as they increase grasp resistance without requiring active control. We introduce a grasp stability analysis method that can model these effects, and, for a given grasp, distinguish between disturbances that will be passively resisted and those that will not. We find that, in order to achieve this, the grasp model must include accurate energetic constraints. One way to achieve this is to consider the Maximum Dissipation Principle (MDP), a part of the Coulomb friction model that is rarely used in grasp stability analysis. However, the MDP constraints are non-convex, and difficult to solve efficiently. We thus introduce a convex relaxation method, along with an algorithm that successively refines this relaxation locally in order to obtain solutions to arbitrary accuracy efficiently. Our resulting algorithm can determine if a grasp is passively stable, solve for equilibrium contact forces and compute optimal actuator commands for stability. Its implementation is publicly available as part of the open-source GraspIt! simulator.'
author:
-
bibliography:
- 'bib/grasping.bib'
- 'bib/thesis.bib'
title: |
Accurate Energetic Constraints for\
Passive Grasp Stability Analysis
---
[Maximilian Haas-Heger]{} Maximilian Haas-Heger received the MEng degree in Aeronautical Engineering from Imperial College London in 2015. Since 2015, he is a PhD candidate in the Robotic Manipulation and Mobility Lab at Columbia University in New York. His research focuses on the theoretical foundations of robotic grasping, specifically applied to the development accurate grasp models.
[Matei Ciocarlie]{} Matei Ciocarlie (S’07-M’12) earned the Ph.D. degree in Computer Science from Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. He was a Research Scientist at Willow Garage, Inc., Menlo Park, CA, USA, and a Senior Research Scientist with Google, Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA. He is currently an Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering with affiliated appointments in the Computer Science Department and Data Science Institute at Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. His work focuses on robot motor control, mechanism and sensor design, planning and learning, all aiming to demonstrate complex motor skills such as dexterous manipulation.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In light of the recent LHC Higgs search data, we investigate the pair production of a SM-like Higgs boson around 125 GeV in the MSSM and NMSSM. We first scan the parameter space of each model by considering various experimental constraints, and then calculate the Higgs pair production rate in the allowed parameter space. We find that in most cases the dominant contribution to the Higgs pair production comes from the gluon fusion process and the production rate can be greatly enhanced, maximally 10 times larger than the SM prediction (even for a TeV-scale stop the production rate can still be enhanced by a factor of 1.3). We also calculate the $\chi^2$ value with the current Higgs data and find that in the most favored parameter region the production rate is enhanced by a factor of 1.45 in the MSSM, while in the NMSSM the production rate can be enhanced or suppressed ($\sigma_{SUSY}/\sigma_{SM}$ varies from 0.7 to 2.4).'
author:
- 'Junjie Cao$^{1,2}$, Zhaoxia Heng$^1$, Liangliang Shang$^1$, Peihua Wan$^1$, Jin Min Yang$^3$'
title: Pair Production of a 125 GeV Higgs Boson in MSSM and NMSSM at the LHC
---
Introduction
============
Based on the combined data collected at the center-of-mass energies of 7 TeV and 8 TeV, the experimental programme to probe the mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking at the LHC has recently witnessed the discovery of a new particle around 125 GeV [@1207ATLAS-CMS]. The properties of this particle, according to the updated analyses of the ATLAS and CMS collaborations at the end of 2012 [@1212ATLAS-CMS], roughly agree with the the Standard Model (SM) prediction and thus it should play a role in both the symmetry breaking and the mass generation. However, the issue of whether this particle is the SM Higgs boson is still open, and indeed there are some motivations, such as the gauge hierarchy problem and the excess in the di-photon channel over the SM prediction [@1207ATLAS-CMS; @1212ATLAS-CMS], to consider new physics interpretation of this boson. Studies in this direction have been performed intensively in low energy supersymmetry (SUSY) and it was found that some SUSY models can naturally provide a 125 GeV Higgs boson [@Feb-Cao; @Carena-Higgsmass; @1213-125GeV-Higgs], and fit the data better than the SM [@July-Cao] (similar studies have also been performed in some non-SUSY models like the little Higgs models and two-Higgs-doublet or Higgs-triplet models [@125-other]).
After the discovery of the Higgs boson, the next important task for the LHC is to test the property of this Higgs boson by measuring all the possible production and decay channels with high luminosity. Among the production channels, the Higgs pair production is a rare process at the LHC. Since it can play an important role for testing the Higgs self-couplings [@SM-NLO-35fb; @1213-DHiggs] (the determination of the Higgs self-couplings is of great importance since it is indispensable to reconstruct the Higgs potential), it will be measured at the LHC with high luminosity.
In the SM the Higgs pair production at the LHC proceeds by the parton process $gg \to h h$ through the heavy quark induced box diagrams and also through the production of an off-shell Higgs which subsequently splits into two on-shell Higgs bosons [@SM-LO-20fb; @DHiggsInSM]. The production rate is rather low for $\sqrt{s} = 14 {\rm TeV}$, about 20 fb at leading order [@SM-LO-20fb] and reaching roughly 35 fb after including the next-to-leading order QCD correction [@SM-NLO-35fb]. The capability of the LHC to detect this production process was investigated in [@bbgaga; @bbWW; @bbtautau; @DHiggs-Detect]. These analyses showed that for a 125 GeV Higgs boson the most efficient channel is $g g \to h h \to b \bar{b} \gamma \gamma$ with 6 signal events over 14 background events expected for 600 fb$^{-1}$ integrated luminosity after considering some elaborate cuts [@bbgaga] (the detection through other channels like $h h \to b \bar{b} W^+ W^-$ and $h h \to b \bar{b} \tau^+ \tau^-$ has also been studied recently [@bbWW; @bbtautau]). In principle, the capability can be further improved if the recently developed jet substructure technique [@JetSubstructure] is applied for the Higgs tagging.
The Higgs pair production at the LHC may also be a sensitive probe for new physics. In supersymmetric models such as the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) [@MSSM], the pair production of the SM-like Higgs boson receives additional contributions from the loops of the third generation squarks and also from the parton process $b \bar{b} \to H_i \to h h$ with $H_i$ denoting a CP-even non-standard Higgs boson [@RunningMass; @DHiggsInMSSM]. It was found that in some cases (e.g., a light stop with a large trilinear soft breaking parameter $A_t$ and/or a large $\tan \beta$ together with moderately light $H_i$), these new contributions may be far dominant over the SM contribution, and as a result, the rate of the pair production may be enhanced by several orders [@RunningMass; @DHiggsInMSSM]. Note that since the experimental constraints (direct or indirect) on the SUSY parameter space have been becoming more and more stringent, the previous MSSM results should be updated by considering the latest constraints. This is one aim of this work. To be specific, we will consider the following new constraints:
- The currently measured Higgs boson mass $m_h = 125$ GeV [@1212ATLAS-CMS]. In SUSY this mass is sensitive to radiative correction and thus the third generation squark sector has been tightly limited.
- The LHC search for the third generation squarks [@1213ThirdSquark-LHC]. So far although the relevant bounds are rather weak and usually hypothesis-dependent, it becomes more and more clear that a stop lighter than about 200 GeV is strongly disfavored.
- The observation of $B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^-$ by the LHCb [@1213Bsmumu]. In the MSSM it is well known that the branching ratio of $B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^-$ is proportional to $\tan^6\beta/m_H^4$ for a large $\tan \beta$ and a moderately light $H$ [@Bobeth]. Since the experimental value of $B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^-$ coincides well with the SM prediction, $\tan \beta$ as a function of $m_{H}$ has been upper bounded.
- The LHC search for a non-standard Higgs boson $H$ through the process $p p \to H \to \tau^+ \tau^-$ [@Htautau]. Such the search relies on the enhanced $H \bar{b} b$ coupling and the nought signal seen by the LHC experiments implies that a broad region in the $\tan \beta-m_H$ plane has been ruled out.
- The global fit of the SUSY predictions on various Higgs signals to the Higgs data reported by the ATLAS and CMS collaborations [@GlobalFit], the dark matter relic density [@WMAP] as well as the XENON2012 dark matter search results [@XENON2012] can also limit SUSY parameters in a complex way. ¡¡
Another motivation of this work comes from the fact that the Next-to-Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (NMSSM) [@NMSSM] is found to be more favored by the Higgs data and the fine-tuning argument [@July-Cao]. So far the studies on the Higgs pair production in the NMSSM are still absent. So it is necessary to extend the study to the NMSSM.
This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we briefly introduce the features of the Higgs sector in the MSSM and NMSSM. Then in Sec. III we present our results for the Higgs pair production in both models. Some intuitive understandings on the results are also presented. Finally, we summarize our conclusions in Sec. IV.
Higgs sector in MSSM and NMSSM
==============================
As the most economical realization of SUSY in particle physics, the MSSM [@MSSM] has been intensively studied. However, since this model suffers from some problems such as the unnaturalness of $\mu$ parameter, it is well motivated to go beyond this minimal framework. Among the extensions of the MSSM, the NMSSM as the simplest extension by singlet field [@NMSSM] has been paid much attention. The differences between the two models come from their superpotentials and soft-breaking terms, which are given by $$\begin{aligned}
W_{\rm MSSM}&=& Y_u\hat{Q}\cdot\hat{H_u}\hat{U}-Y_d \hat{Q}\cdot\hat{H_d}\hat{D}
-Y_e \hat{L}\cdot\hat{H_d} \hat{E} + \mu \hat{H_u}\cdot \hat{H_d}, \label{MSSM-pot}\\
W_{\rm NMSSM}&=&Y_u\hat{Q}\cdot\hat{H_u}\hat{U}-Y_d \hat{Q}\cdot\hat{H_d}\hat{D}
-Y_e \hat{L}\cdot\hat{H_d} \hat{E} + \lambda\hat{H_u} \cdot \hat{H_d} \hat{S}
+ \frac{1}{3}\kappa \hat{S^3},\\
V_{\rm soft}^{\rm MSSM}&=&\tilde m_u^2|H_u|^2 + \tilde m_d^2|H_d|^2
+ (B\mu H_u\cdot H_d + h.c.),\\
V_{\rm soft}^{\rm NMSSM}&=&\tilde m_u^2|H_u|^2 + \tilde m_d^2|H_d|^2
+ \tilde m_S^2|S|^2 +(A_\lambda \lambda SH_u\cdot H_d
+\frac{A_\kappa}{3}\kappa S^3 + h.c.).\end{aligned}$$ Here $\hat{H}_i$ ($i=u,d$) and $\hat{S}$ denote gauge doublet and singlet Higgs superfields respectively, $\hat{Q}$, $\hat{U}$, $\hat{D}$, $\hat{L}$ and $\hat{E}$ represent matter superfields with $Y_i$ ($i=u,d,e$) being their Yukawa coupling coefficients, $\tilde{m}_i$ ($i=u,d,S$), $B$, $A_\lambda$, and $A_\kappa$ are all soft-breaking parameters and the dimensionless parameters $\lambda$ and $\kappa$ reflect coupling strengthes of Higgs self interactions. Note the $\mu$-term in the MSSM is replaced by Higgs self interactions in the NMSSM, so when the singlet field $\hat{S}$ develops a vacuum expectation value $s$, an effective $\mu$ is generated by $\mu_{eff} = \lambda s$.
Like the general treatment of the multiple-Higgs theory, one can write the Higgs fields in the NMSSM as $$\begin{aligned}
H_u = \left ( \begin{array}{c} H_u^+ \\
v_u +\frac{ \phi_u + i \varphi_u}{\sqrt{2}}
\end{array} \right),~~
H_d & =& \left ( \begin{array}{c}
v_d + \frac{\phi_d + i \varphi_d}{\sqrt{2}}\\
H_d^- \end{array} \right),~~
S = s + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left(\sigma + i \xi \right),\end{aligned}$$ and diagonalize their mass matrices to get Higgs mass eigenstates: $$\begin{aligned}
\left( \begin{array}{c} H_1 \\
H_2 \\ H_3 \end{array} \right) = U_H \left( \begin{array}{c} \phi_u
\\ \phi_d\\ \sigma\end{array} \right),~ \left(\begin{array}{c} A_1\\
A_2\\ G^0 \end{array} \right) = U_A \left(\begin{array}{c} \varphi_u
\\ \varphi_d \\ \xi \end{array} \right),~ \left(\begin{array}{c} H^+
\\G^+ \end{array} \right) =U_C \left(\begin{array}{c}H_u^+\\ H_d^+
\end{array} \right). \label{rotation}\end{aligned}$$ Here $H_1$, $H_2$, $H_3$ with convention $m_{H_1}<m_{H_2}<m_{H_3}$ and $A_1$, $A_2$ with convention $m_{A_1} < m_{A_2}$ denote the physical CP-even and CP-odd Higgs bosons respectively, $G^0$ and $G^+$ are Goldstone bosons eaten by $Z$ and $W$ bosons respectively, and $H^+$ is the physical charged Higgs boson. The Higgs sector in the MSSM can be treated in a similar way except that it predicts only two physical CP-even states and one physical CP-odd state, and consequently, the rotation matrices $U_H$ and $U_A$ are reduced to $2 \times 2$ matrices.
![Feynman diagrams for the pair production of the SM-like Higgs boson via gluon fusion in the MSSM and NMSSM with $H_I$ denoting a CP-even Higgs ($I=1,2$ for the MSSM and $I=1,2,3$ for the NMSSM) and $\tilde q_{i,j}$ ($i,j=1,2$) for a squark. The diagrams with initial gluons or final Higgs bosons interchanged are not shown here. For the quarks and squarks we only consider the third generation due to their large Yukawa couplings.[]{data-label="fig-diagram-total"}](fig1.ps){width="12cm"}
One distinct feature of the MSSM is that $H_1$ usually acts as the SM-like Higgs boson (denoted by $h$ hereafter) and its mass is upper bounded by $m_Z$ at tree level. Obviously, to coincide with the LHC discovery of a 125 GeV boson, large radiative correction to $m_h$ is needed, which in turn usually requires the trilinear soft breaking parameter $A_t$ to be large. For example, in the case of large $m_A$ and moderate $\tan\beta$, $m_h$ is given by [@Carena-Higgsmass] $$\label{mh}
m^2_{h} \simeq M^2_Z\cos^2 2\beta +
\frac{3m^4_t}{4\pi^2v^2} \left[\ln\frac{m^2_{\tilde t}}{m^2_t} +
\frac{X^2_t}{m^2_{\tilde t}} \left( 1 - \frac{X^2_t}{12m^2_{\tilde t}}\right)\right],$$ where the first term is the tree-level mass and the last two terms are the dominant corrections from the top-stop sector, $m_{\tilde t} = \sqrt{m_{\tilde{t}_1}m_{\tilde{t}_2}}$ ($m_{\tilde{t}_i}$ denotes stop mass with convention $m_{\tilde{t}_1} < m_{\tilde{t}_2}$) represents the average stop mass scale and $X_t \equiv A_t - \mu \cot\beta$. One can easily check that for a 500 GeV and 1 TeV stop, $|A_t|$ should be respectively about 1.8 TeV and 3.5 TeV to give $m_h \simeq 125~{\rm GeV}$.
In the NMSSM, $m_h$ exhibits at least two new features [@Feb-Cao]. One is that it gets additional contribution at tree level so that $m_{h,tree}^2 = (m_Z^2 - \lambda^2 v^2 ) \cos^2 2 \beta + \lambda^2 v^2$, and for $\lambda \sim 0.7 $ and $\tan \beta \sim 1$, $m_h$ can reach 125 GeV even without the radiative correction. The other feature is that the mixing between the doublet and singlet Higgs fields can significantly alter the mass. To be more explicit, if the state $H_1$ is $h$, the mixing is to pull down the mass, while if $H_2$ acts as $h$, the mixing will push up the mass. Another remarkable character of the NMSSM is that in the limit of very small $\lambda$ and $\kappa$ (but keep $\mu$ fixed), the singlet field decouples from the theory so that the phenomenology of the NMSSM reduces to the MSSM. So in order to get a Higgs sector significantly different from the MSSM, one should consider a large $\lambda$.
Throughout this work, we require $0.50 \leq \lambda \leq 0.7$ in our discussion of the NMSSM and we consider two scenarios:
- NMSSM1 scenario: $H_1$ acts as the SM-like Higgs boson. For this scenario, the additional tree-level contribution to $m_h$ is canceled by the mixing effect, and if the mixing effect is dominant, the parameters in the stop sector will be tightly limited in order to give $m_h \simeq 125 {\rm ~GeV}$.
- NMSSM2 scenario: $H_2$ acts as the SM-like Higgs boson. In this scenario, both the additional tree-level contribution and the mixing effect can push up the mass. So for appropriate values of $\lambda$ and $\tan \beta$, $m_h$ can easily reach 125 GeV even without the radiative correction.
![Feynman diagrams for the parton process $b\bar b\to hh$ in the MSSM and NMSSM.[]{data-label="fig-diagram-bb"}](fig2.ps){width="15cm"}
Calculations and numerical results
==================================
In SUSY the pair production of the SM-like Higgs boson proceeds through the gluon fusion shown in Fig.\[fig-diagram-total\] and the $b\bar b$ annihilation shown in Fig.\[fig-diagram-bb\]. These diagrams indicate that the genuine SUSY contribution to the amplitude is of the same perturbation order as the SM contribution. So the SUSY prediction on the production rate may significantly deviate from the SM result. To ensure the correctness of our calculation, we checked that we can reproduce the SM results presented in [@SM-LO-20fb] and the MSSM results in [@RunningMass]. Since the analytic expressions are quite lengthy, we do not present here their explicit forms.
In our numerical calculation we take $m_t=173$ GeV, $m_b=4.2$ GeV, $m_Z=91.0$ GeV, $m_W=80.0$ GeV and $\alpha=1/128$ [@PDG], and use CT10 [@CT10] to generate the parton distribution functions with the renormalization scale $\mu_R$ and the factorization scale $\mu_F$ chosen to be $2 m_h$. The collision energy of the LHC is fixed to be 14 ${\rm TeV}$. Then we find that for $m_h=125$ GeV, the production rate in the SM is 18.7 fb for $gg\to hh$ and 0.02 fb for $b\bar{b}\to hh$ (the rates change very little when $m_h$ varies from 123 GeV to 127 GeV).
For each SUSY model we use the package NMSSMTools-3.2.0 [@NMSSMTools] to scan over the parameter space and then select the samples which give a SM-like Higgs boson in the range of $125 \pm 2 ~{\rm GeV} $ and also satisfy various experimental constraints, including those listed in Section I. The strategy of our scan is same as in [@July-Cao] except for three updates. First, since the rare decay $B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^-$ has been recently observed with $Br(B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^-) = 3.2^{+1.5}_{-1.2} \times 10^{-9}$ [@1213Bsmumu], we use a double-sided limit $0.8 \times 10^{-9} \leq Br(B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^-) \leq 6.2 \times 10^{-9}$. Second, for the LHC search of the non-standard Higgs boson, we use the latest experimental data [@Htautau]. The third one is that we require stops heavier than 200 GeV [@1213ThirdSquark-LHC]. After the scan, we calculate the Higgs pair production rate in the allowed parameter space. We will demonstrate the ratio $\sigma_{SUSY}/\sigma_{SM}$ for each surviving sample. Of course, such a ratio is less sensitive to higher order QCD corrections.
![The scatter plots of the surviving samples, showing $\sigma_{SUSY}/\sigma_{SM}$ versus the SM-like Higgs boson mass. The plus ’+’ (blue) denote the results with only the gluon fusion contribution, while the circles ’$\circ$’ (pink) are for the total results. []{data-label="fig-ratio-mh"}](fig3.ps){width="15cm"}
In Fig. \[fig-ratio-mh\] we show the normalized production rate as a function of the Higgs boson mass for the surviving samples in the MSSM and NMSSM (for the NMSSM we show the results for the NMSSM1 and NMSSM2 scenarios defined in Sec.II). This figure shows two common features for the three scenarios. One is that the production rate can deviate significantly from the SM prediction: in most cases the deviation exceeds $30\%$ and in some specail cases the production rate can be enhanced by one order. The other feature is that for most cases the dominant contribution to the pair production comes from the gluon fusion, which is reflected by the approximate overlap of ’$\circ$’ (pink) with ’+’ (blue). Fig. \[fig-ratio-mh\] also exhibits some difference between different scenarios. For example, in the MSSM the $b\bar{b}$ annihilation contribution can be dominant for some surviving samples, which, however, never occurs in the NMSSM. Another difference is that the NMSSM1 tends to predict a larger production rate than other scenarios.
Now we explain some features of the results in Fig. \[fig-ratio-mh\]. First, we investigate the cases of the MSSM where the $b\bar{b}$ annihilation plays the dominant role in the production. We find that they are characterized by a moderately large $\tan \beta$ ($\tan \beta \sim 10$ so that the $Hb\bar{b}$ coupling is enhanced), a moderately light $H$ ($ 300{\rm ~GeV} \lesssim m_H \lesssim 400{\rm ~GeV} $) and a relatively large $Hhh$ coupling. While for the NMSSM scenarios, since we are considering large $\lambda$ case, only a relatively small $\tan \beta$ is allowed so that the $H_i b\bar{b}$ coupling is never enhanced sufficiently [@Feb-Cao]. We also scrutinize the characters of the gluon fusion contribution in the MSSM. As the first step, we compare the sbottom loop contribution with the stop loop. We find that for the surviving samples the former is usually much smaller than the latter. Next we divide the amplitude of Fig. \[fig-diagram-total\] into five parts with $M_1,M_2,M_3,M_4$ and $M_5$ denoting the contributions from diagrams (1)+(2), (3)+(4), (5), (6)+(7) and (8)+(9)+(10), respectively. For each of the amplitude, it is UV finite so we can learn its relative size directly. We find that the magnitudes of $M_2$ and $M_3$ are much larger than the others. This can be understood as follows: among the diagrams in Fig. \[fig-diagram-total\], only (3), (4) and (5) involve the chiral flipping of the internal stop, so in the limit $ m_{\tilde{t}_2},
m_{\tilde{t}_1} \gg 2 m_h$ the main parts of $M_2$ and $M_3$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
M \sim \alpha_s^2 Y_t^2 ( c_1 \sin^2 2\theta_t \frac{A_t^2}{m_{\tilde{t}_1}^2} + c_2 \frac{A_t^2}{m_{\tilde{t}_2}^2}) \label{simpleform}\end{aligned}$$ where $Y_t$ is the top quark Yukawa coupling, $\theta_t$ and $A_t$ are respectively the chiral mixing angle and the trilinear soft breaking parameter in the stop sector, and $c_{1} $ and $c_2$ are ${\cal{O}}(1)$ coefficients with opposite signs. Since a large $A_t$ is strongly favored to predict $m_h \sim 125 {\rm ~GeV}$ in the MSSM [@Feb-Cao] and the other contributions are usually proportional to $m_t^2/m_{\tilde{t}_i}^2$ or $m_h^2/m_{\tilde{t}_i}^2$, one can easily conclude that $M_2$ and $M_3$ should be most important among the five amplitudes. In fact, we checked that without the strong cancelation between $M_2$ and $M_3$, the production rate can easily exceed 100 fb for most surviving samples.
![Same as Fig \[fig-ratio-mh\], but showing $A_t/m_{\tilde{t}_1}$ versus $m_{\tilde{t}_1}$. The samples are classified according to the value of $R=\sigma_{SUSY}(gg\to hh)/\sigma_{SM}(gg\to hh)$ with $\sigma$ denoting the hadronic cross section via $gg\to hh$.[]{data-label="fig-ratio-atmst1mst1"}](fig4.ps){width="15cm"}
As a proof for the validity of Eq.(\[simpleform\]), in Fig. \[fig-ratio-atmst1mst1\] we show $A_t/m_{\tilde{t}_1}$ versus $m_{\tilde{t}_1}$, where the samples are classified according to the value of $R=\sigma_{SUSY}(gg\to hh)/\sigma_{SM}(gg\to hh)$. The left panel indicates that in the MSSM the region characterized by a light $m_{\tilde{t}_1}$ and a large $|A_t/m_{\tilde{t}_1}|$ usually predicts a large $R$. This can be understood as follows. In the MSSM with a light $\tilde{t}_1$, the other stop ($\tilde{t}_2$) must be sufficiently heavy in order to predict $m_h \sim 125 {\rm ~GeV}$ [@Feb-Cao]. Then, after expressing $\sin^2 2 \theta_t$ in terms of $A_t$ and stop masses, one can find that the first term in Eq.(\[simpleform\]) scales like $ (A_t/m_{\tilde{t}_1})^4 (m_t^2 m_{\tilde{t}_1}^2/m_{\tilde{t}_2}^4)$, and therefore its value grows rapidly with the increase of $|A_t/m_{\tilde{t}_1}|$ and is unlikely to be canceled out by the second term in Eq.(\[simpleform\]). In fact, the upper left region of the panel reflects such a behavior. This panel also indicates that even for $\tilde{t}_1$ and $\tilde{t}_2$ at TeV scale, the production rate in the MSSM may still deviate from its SM prediction by more than $30\%$. This is obvious since $|A_t|$ in Eq.(\[simpleform\]) is usually larger than stop masses [@Feb-Cao]. Finally, we note that for $m_{\tilde{t}_1} > 1 ~{\rm TeV}$, there exist some cases where the deviation is small even for $A_t/m_{\tilde{t}_1} \sim 3$. We checked that these cases actually correspond to a small mass splitting between $\tilde{t}_1$ and $\tilde{t}_2$. In such a situation, the first term in Eq.(\[simpleform\]) is proportional to $A_t^2/m_{\tilde{t}_1}^2$ (since $\theta_t \simeq \pi/4$), and its contribution to the rate is severely canceled by the second term.
![Same as Fig. \[fig-ratio-mh\], but showing $\sigma_{SUSY}/\sigma_{SM}$ versus $\chi^2$. Here only the samples satisfying 125 GeV $\le m_h \leq 126$ GeV are plotted.[]{data-label="fig-ratio-chisq"}](fig5.ps){width="15cm"}
Eq.(\[simpleform\]) may also be used to explain the results of the NMSSM1 scenario. In this scenario we checked that the mixing effect on $m_h$ often exceeds the additional tree level contribution (as discussed in Sec. II), and consequently the soft breaking parameters in the stop sector are more tightly limited than the other two scenarios. For example, given the same values of $m_{\tilde{t}_1}$ and $m_{\tilde{t}_2}$ for the three scenarios, the NMSSM1 scenario usually prefers a larger $|A_t|$. Consequently, this scenario tends to predict the largest production rate according to Eq.(\[simpleform\]). As for the $R$ value in the NMSSM2 scenario, the situation is quite complex because a large $\lambda$ alone can push the value of $m_h$ up to about 125 GeV and thus the soft breaking parameters in the stop sector are not so constrained by the Higgs mass [@Feb-Cao]. But, anyway, this scenario still has the features that $R$ is maximized for a large $A_t$ and a light $\tilde{t}_1$ and that $R$ can deviate sizably from unity for TeV-scale stops.
Finally, we focus on the samples which predict a SM-like Higgs boson in the best fitted mass region, $125 {\rm ~GeV} \le m_h \leq 126 {\rm ~GeV}$ [@GlobalFit]. For these samples, we calculate the $\chi^2$ value with the LHC Higgs data (for details, see [@July-Cao; @GlobalFit]) and show its correlation with the normalized rate $\sigma_{SUSY}/\sigma_{SM}$ in Fig. \[fig-ratio-chisq\]. This figure indicates that in the MSSM and NMSSM2 scenarios, there exist a lot of samples with $\chi^2$ much smaller than its SM value ($\chi^2_{SM} =16.5$), which implies that the MSSM and NMSSM2 scenarios may be favored by the current data [@July-Cao]. In contrast, the NMSSM1 scenario can only slightly improve the fit. From this figure we also see that in the favored parameter space with a small $\chi^2$ the production rate can sizably deviate from the SM prediction ( in the parameter space with a large $\chi^2$ the production rate can be several times larger than the SM value). For example, in the low $\chi^2$ region of the MSSM, the normalized rate is approximately 1.45, while in the NMSSM2 scenario the rate varies from 0.7 to 2.4.
Summary and Conclusions {#Sum}
=======================
Recently, the CMS and ATLAS collaborations announced the discovery of a new resonance whose property is in rough agreement with the SM Higgs boson. But the nature of this new state, especially its role in electroweak symmetry breaking, needs to be scrutinized. So the most urgent task for the LHC is to test the property of this Higgs-like boson by measuring all the possible production and decay channels with high luminosity. Among the production channels, the Higgs pair production is a rare process at the LHC. Since it can play an important role for testing the Higgs self-couplings, it will be measured at the LHC with high luminosity.
In this work we studied the pair production of the SM-like Higgs boson in the popular SUSY models: the MSSM and NMSSM. To make our study realistic, we first scanned the parameter space of each model by considering various experimental constraints. Then we examined the Higgs pair production in the allowed parameter space. We found that for most cases in both models, the dominant contribution to the pair production comes from the gluon fusion process with its rate maximized at a moderately light $\tilde{t}_1$ and a large trilinear soft breaking parameter $A_t$. The production rate can be sizably enhanced relative to the SM prediction: $\sigma_{SUSY}/\sigma_{SM}$ can reach 10, and even for a TeV-scale stop it can also exceed 1.3. For each model we also calculated its $\chi^2$ with current Higgs data and found that in the most favored parameter region the value of $\sigma_{SUSY}/\sigma_{SM}$ is approximately 1.45 in the MSSM, while in the NMSSM it varies from 0.7 to 2.4.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
We thank Jingya Zhu for helpful discussions. This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NNSFC) under grant No. 10775039, 11075045, 11275245, 11222548, 10821504, 11135003 and 11247268, and by the Project of Knowledge Innovation Program (PKIP) of Chinese Academy of Sciences under grant No. KJCX2.YW.W10.
[32]{}
G. Aad [*et al.*]{} \[ATLAS Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B [**716**]{}, 1 (2012); S. Chatrchyan [*et al.*]{} \[CMS Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B [**716**]{}, 30 (2012). The ATLAS Collaboration ATLAS-CONF-2012-170; The CMS Collaboration CMS-PAS-HIG-12-045.
J. Cao, [*et al.*]{}, JHEP [**1203**]{}, 086 (2012); Phys. Lett. B [**710**]{}, 665 (2012); Phys. Lett. B [**703**]{}, 462 (2011). M. Carena, S. Gori, N. R. Shah and C. E. M. Wagner, JHEP [**1203**]{}, 014 (2012). P. Draper [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**85**]{}, 095007 (2012); S. Heinemeyer, O. Stal and G. Weiglein, Phys. Lett. B [**710**]{}, 201 (2012); A. Arbey [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**708**]{}, 162 (2012); C. -F. Chang [*et al.*]{}, JHEP [**1206**]{}, 128 (2012); M. Carena [*et al.*]{}, JHEP [**1207**]{}, 175 (2012); V. Barger, M. Ishida and W. -Y. Keung, arXiv:1207.0779; K. Hagiwara, J. S. Lee, J. Nakamura, arXiv:1207.0802; J. Ke [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:1207.0990; arXiv:1211.2427; T. Li [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:1207.1051; M. R. Buckley and D. Hooper, Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 075008 (2012); J. F. Gunion, Y. Jiang, S. Kraml, arXiv:1207.1545; H. An, T. Liu, L.-T. Wang, arXiv:1207.2473. Z. Kang [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 095020 (2012); arXiv:1208.2673; D. Chung, A. J. Long and L. -T. Wang, arXiv:1209.1819; G. Bhattacharyya and T. S. Ray, arXiv:1210.0594; G. Belanger [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:1210.1976; H. Baer [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:1210.3019; Z. Heng, arXiv:1210.3751; P. M. Ferreira [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:1211.3131; D. Berenstein, T. Liu and E. Perkins, arXiv:1211.4288; K. Cheung, C. -T. Lu and T. -C. Yuan, arXiv:1212.1288; J. Cao [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:1301.4641; T. Liu [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:1301.5479.
J. Cao, Z. Heng, J. M. Yang and J. Zhu, JHEP [**1210**]{}, 079 (2012). J. Reuter, M. Tonini, arXiv:1212.5930; X.-F. Han [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:1301.0090; L. Wang J. M. Yang, 84, 075024 (2011); 79, 055013 (2009); C. Haluch, R. Matheus, 85, 095016 (2012); X.-G. He, B. Ren, J. Tandean, 85, 093019 (2012); A. Arhrib, R. Benbrik, C.-H. Chen, arXiv:1205.5536; E. Cervero and J.-M. Gerard, arXiv:1202.1973; L. Wang, X.-F. Han, 1205, 088 (2012); A. Drozd [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:1211.3580; S. Chang [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:1210.3439; N. Chen, H.-J. He, 1204, 062 (2012); T. Abe, N. Chen, H.-J. He, arXiv:1207.4103; C. Han [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:1212.6728; A. G. Akeroyd, S. Moretti, 86, 035015 (2012); A. Arhrib [*et al.*]{}, 1204, 136 (2012); L. Wang, X.-F. Han, 86, 095007 (2012); 87, 015015 (2013). J. Baglio [it al.]{}, arXiv:1212.5581; D. Y. Shao, C. S. Li, H. T. Li and J. Wang, arXiv:1301.1245.
G. D. Kribs and A. Martin, arXiv:1207.4496; S. Dawson, E. Furlan and I. Lewis, arXiv:1210.6663; M. J. Dolan, C. Englert and M. Spannowsky, arXiv:1210.8166; H. Sun, Y. -J. Zhou and H. Chen, Eur. Phys. J. [**72**]{}, 2011 (2012); H. Sun and Y. -J. Zhou, arXiv:1211.6201. A. Djouadi, W. Kilian, M. Muhlleitner and P. M. Zerwas, Eur. Phys. J. C [**10**]{}, 45 (1999). T. Plehn, M. Spira and P. M. Zerwas, Nucl. Phys. B [**479**]{}, 46 (1996) \[Erratum-ibid. B [**531**]{}, 655 (1998)\]; D. A. Dicus, C. Kao and S. Willenbrock, Phys. Lett. B [**203**]{}, 457 (1988); E. W. N. Glover and J. J. van der Bij, Nucl. Phys. B [**309**]{}, 282 (1988). U. Baur, T. Plehn and D. L. Rainwater, Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{}, 053004 (2004). A. Papaefstathiou, L. L. Yang and J. Zurita, arXiv:1209.1489; F. Goertz, A. Papaefstathiou, L. L. Yang and J. ¨¦Zurita, arXiv:1301.3492. M. J. Dolan, C. Englert and M. Spannowsky, arXiv:1206.5001. N. D. Christensen, T. Han and T. Li, Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 074003 (2012) arXiv:1206.5816 \[hep-ph\]; R. Contino [*et al.*]{}, JHEP [**1208**]{}, 154 (2012) arXiv:1205.5444 \[hep-ph\]. J. M. Butterworth, A. R. Davison, M. Rubin and G. P. Salam, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 242001 (2008). H. E. Haber and G. L. Kane, Phys. Rept. [**117**]{}, 75 (1985); J. F. Gunion and H. E. Haber, Nucl. Phys. B [**272**]{}, 1 (1986) \[Erratum-ibid. B [**402**]{}, 567 (1993)\]. A. Belyaev [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{}, 075008 (1999). E. Asakawa [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{}, 115002 (2010); A. Arhrib [*et al.*]{}, JHEP [**0908**]{}, 035 (2009); L. G. Jin [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 095004 (2005); A. A. Bendezu and B. A. Kniehl, Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 035006 (2001); C. S. Kim, K. Y. Lee and J. -H. Song, Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 015009 (2001); R. Lafaye [*et al.*]{}, hep-ph/0002238; A. Belyaev, M. Drees and J. K. Mizukoshi, Eur. Phys. J. C [**17**]{}, 337 (2000); S. H. Zhu, C. S. Li and C. S. Gao, Phys. Rev. D [**58**]{}, 015006 (1998); H. Grosse and Y. Liao, Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 115007 (2001); J. -J. Liu [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}, 015001 (2004); Y. -J. Zhou [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 093004 (2003); L. Wang and X. -F. Han, Phys. Lett. B [**696**]{}, 79 (2011); X. -F. Han, L. Wang and J. M. Yang, Nucl. Phys. B [**825**]{}, 222 (2010); L. Wang [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{}, 017702 (2007). The ATLAS collaboration ATLAS-CONF-2013-001; The ATLAS Collaboration CMS-PAS-SUS-12-023.
RAaij [*et al.*]{} \[LHCb Collaboration\], arXiv:1211.2674. C. Bobeth, T. Ewerth, F. Kruger and J. Urban, Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 074014 (2001) \[hep-ph/0104284\]; A. J. Buras, P. H. Chankowski, J. Rosiek and L. Slawianowska, Phys. Lett. B [**546**]{}, 96 (2002) \[hep-ph/0207241\]. The CMS Collaboration CMS-PAS-HIG-11-029.
P. P. Giardino [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**718**]{}, 469 (2012); JHEP [**1206**]{}, 117 (2012) \[arXiv:1203.4254 \[hep-ph\]\]; J. R. Espinosa [*et al.*]{}, JHEP [**1205**]{}, 097 (2012). E. Komatsu [*et al.*]{} \[WMAP Collaboration\], Astrophys. J. Suppl. [**192**]{}, 18 (2011). E. Aprile [*et al.*]{} \[XENON100 Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{}, 181301 (2012). U. Ellwanger, C. Hugonie and A. M. Teixeira, Phys. Rept. 496, 1 (2010); M. Maniatis, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A25 (2010) 3505; J. R. Ellis [*et al.*]{} 39, 844 (1989); M. Drees, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A[**4**]{}, 3635 (1989); S. F. King, P. L. White, 52, 4183 (1995); B. Ananthanarayan, P.N. Pandita, 353, 70 (1995); B. A. Dobrescu, K. T. Matchev, 0009, 031 (2000); R. Dermisek, J. F. Gunion, 95, 041801 (2005); G. Hiller, 70, 034018 (2004); F. Domingo, U. Ellwanger, 0712, 090 (2007); Z. Heng [*et al.*]{}, 77, 095012 (2008); R. N. Hodgkinson, A. Pilaftsis, 76, 015007 (2007); W. Wang [*et al.*]{}, 680, 167 (2009). J. Beringer [*et al.*]{} \[Particle Data Group Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 010001 (2012). H. -L. Lai [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{}, 074024 (2010) arXiv:1007.2241 \[hep-ph\]. U. Ellwanger and C. Hugonie, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**175**]{}, 290 (2006); U. Ellwanger, J. F. Gunion and C. Hugonie, JHEP [**0502**]{}, 066 (2005).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Given a point and an expanding map on the unit interval, we consider the set of points for which the forward orbit under this map is bounded away from the given point. For maps like multiplication by an integer modulo 1, such sets have full Hausdorff dimension. We prove that such sets have a large intersection property, that countable intersections of such sets also have full Hausdorff dimension. This result applies to maps like multiplication by integers modulo 1, but also to nonlinear maps like $x \mapsto 1/x$ modulo 1. We prove that the same thing holds for multiplication modulo 1 by a dense set of non-integer numbers between 1 and 2.'
author:
- |
David Färm\
\
\
title: |
Simultaneously Non-dense Orbits\
Under Different Expanding Maps
---
Introduction
============
Multiplication by integers modulo 1
-----------------------------------
It is well-know that for maps like $f_b \colon [0,1)\to [0,1)$ where $f\colon x \mapsto bx \mod 1$ and $b$ is an integer larger than one, the forward orbit $(f^n(x))_{n=0}^\infty$ is dense for almost all points with respect to the Lebesgue measure. It follows that sets like $$G_{f_b}(x) :=\Big\{\, y\in [0,1): x\notin \overline{\cup_{n=0}^\infty f_b^n(y)}\, \Big\},$$ where $x\in [0,1]$, have zero measure. On the other hand, it is not difficult to see that such sets have full Hausdorff dimension. In this paper we will consider what happens if we start intersecting such sets. For example we will prove a theorem that implies $$\dim_H(G_{f_2}(x) \cap G_{f_3}(x))=1$$ and even $$\dim_H \Big(\bigcap_{b=2}^\infty G_{f_b}(x_b) \Big)=1,$$ where $x_b\in [0,1]$ for all $b$. The key property of $f_b$ is that it generates a symbolic representation of $[0,1)$. Indeed, any number $x\in [0,1)$ can be represented as a sequence $(x_i)_{i=1}^\infty\in \{0,1,\dots b-1\}^{\mathbb N}$, where $x=\sum_{i=1}^\infty \frac{x_i}{b^i}$. This representation is unique except on a countable set. Since we are only interested in Hausdorff dimension this ambiguity can be disregarded. Now, we have a correspondence between $[0,1)$ and $\Sigma_b:=\{0,1,\dots b-1\}^{\mathbb N}$ where $f_b\colon [0,1)\to [0,1)$ corresponds to the left shift $\sigma \colon \Sigma_b \to \Sigma_b$, where $\sigma \colon (x_i)_{i=1}^\infty \mapsto (x_{i+1})_{i=1}^\infty$. Now, instead of considering the set $G_{f_b}(x)$ directly, we can consider the set $$\cup_{n=1}^\infty \Big\{(y_i)_{i=1}^\infty\in \Sigma_b: x_1\dots x_n \neq y_k \dots y_{k+n-1} \forall k\geq 1\Big\}.$$ We can handle much more general maps than these, but to state the main theorems we need to define the main tool of this paper, the $(\alpha,\beta)$-game.
The $\boldsymbol{(\alpha, \beta)}$-game
---------------------------------------
We will use a one dimensional version of a set theoretic game that was introduced by W. Schmidt in [@Schmidt1]. In our case, the game is played on the unit interval $[0,1]$ equipped with Euclidean metric. There are two players, Black and White, and two fixed numbers $\alpha,\beta \in (0,1)$. The rules are as follows.
- [*In the initial step*]{} Black chooses any closed interval $B_0$, and then White chooses a closed interval $W_0 \subset B_0$ such that $|W_0| = \alpha |B_0|$.
- [*Then the following step is repeated.*]{} At step $k$ Black choses a closed interval $B_{k} \subset W_{k-1}$ such that $|B_{k}| = \beta |W_{k-1}|$. Then White chooses a closed interval $W_{k} \subset B_k$ such that $|W_k| = \alpha |B_k|$.
It is clear that the set $$\bigcap_{k=0}^\infty W_k = \bigcap_{k=0}^\infty B_k$$ will always consist of exactly one point. A set $E$ is said to be $(\alpha, \beta)$-winning if White always can achieve that $$\bigcap_{k=0}^\infty W_k \subset E.$$ A set $E$ is said to be $\alpha$-winning if it is $(\alpha, \beta)$-winning for all $\beta$.
For us, the key property of $\alpha$-winning sets proved by Schmidt [@Schmidt1] can be summarised as follows.
\[winninggivesdim\] If the set $E\subset [0,1]$ is $\alpha$-winning for some $\alpha>0$, then $\dim_H(E)=1$.
\[intersectionproperty\] Let $\alpha>0$ and let $(E_i)_{i=1}^\infty$ be a sequence of $\alpha$-winning sets. Then the set $\cap_{i=1}^\infty E_i$ is also $\alpha$-winning.
Expanding maps generating full shifts {#givingfullshift}
-------------------------------------
Let $f\colon [0,1)\to [0,1)$ be such that there are finitely or countably many disjoint intervals $[a,b)\subset [0,1)$ such that $\sum |[a,b)|=1$ and $f|_{[a,b)}$ is monotone and onto for each of these intervals. Note that we do not assume that $f$ is well defined on $[0,1)$, only on each of the intervals $[a,b)$.
We take an enumeration of the intervals and associate each interval to the corresponding number so that we can refer to an interval as $[n]$ where $n$ is the appropriate number. Assume that for each of the intervals $[a,b)$ it holds that $|f(x)-f(y)|\geq |x-y|$ for all $x,y \in [a,b)$. Then we can define cylinders $$C_{\, x_1 \dots x_n}:=\Big\{x\in [0,1):\bigcap_{i=1}^n f^{-(i-1)}(x)\in [x_i] \, \Big\}.$$ If $\lim_{n\to \infty}|C_{x_1 \dots x_n}|= 0$ for all $(x_i)_{i=1}^\infty \in \Sigma:=\{0,1,\dots b-1\}^{\mathbb N}$ or $\{0,1,\dots \}^{\mathbb N}$ depending on if $[0,1)$ was split into finitely or infinitely many parts, we can represent $[0,1)$ by $\Sigma$. If the alphabet is infinite, some points in $[0,1)$ may not have a well-defined expansion. For example, with $f\colon x \mapsto \frac{1}{x} \mod 1$ we cannot represent the set $
\bigcup_{n=0}^\infty f^{-n}(\{0\})$ in $\Sigma$. It is clear that at least Lebesgue almost every point has a well defined expansion.
To study sets like $$G_{f}(x) :=\Big\{\, y\in [0,1): x\notin \overline{\cup_{n=0}^\infty f^n(y)}\, \Big\},$$ we will use their representation in $\Sigma$ which in this case is $$\bigcup_{n=1}^\infty \Big\{\, (y_i)_{i=1}^\infty\in \Sigma: x_1\dots x_n \neq y_k \dots y_{k+n-1} \ \forall k\geq 1\, \Big\}.$$
The key theorem of this paper is the following. We will discuss conditions $(i)$ and $(ii)$ in Section \[conditions\].
\[fullshiftinunitinterval\] Let $f$ be as described above and such that it satisfies the following conditions.
1. There exists an $\alpha_0>0$ such that for each $k \in \mathbb N$, each closed interval ${I\subset [0,1)}$ and each $\beta>0$, when playing the $(\alpha_0,\beta)$ game with ${B_0=I}$, after a finite number of turns White is able put his set $W_j$ in a generation $k$ cylinder for some $j$, thereby avoiding all endpoints of generation $k$ cylinders.
2. There is a positive function $g\colon \mathbb N \to [0, \infty)$ such that $g(m)\to 0$ as $m\to \infty$ and $$\frac{|C_{x_1\dots x_{n+m}}|}{|C_{x_1\dots x_n}|}\leq g(m)$$ for all $(x_i)_{i=1}^\infty\in \Sigma$ and all $n,m \in \mathbb N$.
Then for any $x\in [0,1)$ which has a well-defined expansion there is an $\alpha>0$ such that the set $$G_f(x)=\Big\{\, y\in [0,1): x\notin \overline{\cup_{n=0}^\infty f^n(y)}\, \Big\},$$ is $\alpha$-winning in $[0,1]$. In fact $\alpha=\min\{\alpha_0, \frac{1}{4}\}$ is small enough.
The main result of the paper is the following corollary which follows after using Proposition \[winninggivesdim\] and Proposition \[intersectionproperty\].
Let $(f_i)_{i=1}^\infty$ be a sequence of functions as in Theorem \[fullshiftinunitinterval\] and let $(x_i)_{i=1}^\infty$ be a sequence of points in $[0,1)$ with well-defined expansions. Then $$\dim_H \Big(\bigcap_{i=1}^\infty G_{f_i}(x_i)\Big)=1.$$
$\boldsymbol{\beta}$-shifts where the expansion of 1 terminates
---------------------------------------------------------------
The following method to expand real numbers in non-integer bases was introduced by Rényi [@Renyi] and Parry [@Parry]. For more details and proofs of the statements below, see their articles.
Let $[x]$ denote the integer part of the number $x$. Let $\beta \in (1,2)$. For any $x \in [0, 1]$ we associate the sequence $d(x,\beta) = \{d_n (x, \beta)\}_{n=0}^\infty \in \{0, 1\}^\mathbb N$ defined by $$d_n (x, \beta) :=
[\beta f_\beta^{n} (x)],$$ where $f_\beta (x) = \beta x \mod 1$. The closure of the set $$\{\, d (x,\beta) : x \in [0,1)\,\}$$ is denoted by $S_\beta$ and it is called the $\beta$-shift. It is invariant under the left-shift $\sigma \colon \{i_n\}_{n=0}^\infty \mapsto \{i_{n+1} \}_{n=1}^\infty$ and the map $d (\cdot, \beta) \colon x \mapsto d (x, \beta)$ satisfies $\sigma^n ( d (x, \beta) ) = d ( f_\beta^n (x), \beta)$. If we order $S_\beta$ with the lexicographical ordering then the map $d ( \cdot, \beta)$ is one-to-one and monotone increasing. The subshift $S_\beta$ satisfies $$\label{eq:Sbeta}
S_\beta = \{\, \{j_k\} : \sigma^n \{j_k\} < d (1, \beta) \ \forall n \,\}.$$
If $x \in [0,1]$ then $$x = \sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{d_k (x, \beta) }{\beta^{k + 1}}.$$ We let $\pi_\beta$ be the map $\pi_\beta \colon S_\beta \to [0,1)$ defined by $$\pi_\beta \colon \{i_k\}_{k=0}^\infty \quad \mapsto \quad \sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{i_k}{\beta^{k + 1}}.$$ Hence, $\pi_\beta ( d(x, \beta)) = x$ holds for any $x \in [0,1)$ and $\beta > 1$.
A cylinder $s$ is a subset of $[0,1)$ such that $$s :=\pi_\beta( \{\, \{j_k\}_{k=0}^\infty : i_k = j_k,\ 0\leq k < n \,\})$$ holds for some $n$ and some sequence $\{i_k\}_{k=0}^\infty$. We then say that $s$ is an $n$-cylinder or a cylinder of generation $n$ and write $$s = [i_0 \cdots i_{n-1}].$$ Consider $\beta$ such that the expansion of 1 terminates, such that $d(1, \beta)=j_0 \dots j_{k-1} 0^\infty$. The set of such $\beta$ is dense in $(1,2)$ and for such $\beta$ we can use (\[eq:Sbeta\]) to construct $S_\beta$ from the full shift $\Sigma_2=\{0,1\}^{\mathbb N}$ as follows. There are finitely many words $w$ of length $k$ such that $w<d(1, \beta)$. If we start with $\Sigma_2$ and remove all elements that contain any of these words, then by (\[eq:Sbeta\]) we get $S_\beta$. Thus $S_\beta$ is a subshift of finite type. Such shifts have have well-known properties that we can use to prove the following theorem.
\[SFTunitinterval\] Let $\beta \in (1,2)$ be such that the expansion of 1 terminates. Then for any $x\in [0,1]$ there is an $\alpha>0$ such that the set $$G_{f_\beta}(x)=\Big\{\, y\in [0,1): x\notin \overline{\cup_{n=0}^\infty f^n(y)}\, \Big\},$$ is $\alpha$-winning in $[0,1]$. In fact $\alpha=\frac{1}{4}$ is small enough.
Using Proposition \[winninggivesdim\] and Proposition \[intersectionproperty\] we get
Let $(\beta_i)_{i=1}^\infty$ be a sequence in $(1,2)$ such that that the expansion of 1 terminates for each $\beta_i$ and let $(x_i)_{i=1}^\infty$ be a sequence of points in $[0,1]$. Then $$\dim_H \Big(\bigcap_{i=1}^\infty G_{f_{\beta_i}}(x_i)\Big)=1.$$
Conditions on the maps {#conditions}
======================
Condition $\mathbf{(i)}$
------------------------
Assume that we did not have condition $(i)$. Depending on $f$, there might be points in $[0,1)$ which do not have well-defined representations as sequences. We will be playing the $(\alpha,\beta)$ game, trying to show that our sets are $\alpha$-winning. But if no further restrictions are put on $f$ this will not be possible, as the following example illustrates.
We are going to construct a function $f$ such that for each $\alpha>0$ there is a $\beta>0$ for which the set of points with well-defined representations as sequences is not $(\alpha, \beta)$-winning. First divide $(0,1)$ into the intervals $[\frac{1}{2^i},\frac{1}{2^{i-1}})$ where $i\in \mathbb N$. For each $i$ consider the corresponding interval. Split the interval into $4i$ subintervals of equal size. On every second of these let $f$ be linear onto $[0,1)$. Take all of the remaining subintervals and split them into $4i$ parts and continue this procedure indefinitely. After doing this for each $i$ we have defined a function $f$ except on a set of Lebesgue measure zero. Although this set is small with respect to Lebesgue measure we get into trouble.
For any $\alpha>0$, pick an $i \in \mathbb N$ such that $\frac{1}{i}<\alpha$. Let $\beta$ be such that $\alpha \beta = \frac{1}{4i}$. Let the player Black choose $B_0$ as the interval $[\frac{1}{2^i},\frac{1}{2^{i-1}})$. Then no matter how White chooses $W_0$, it is always possible for Black to choose $B_1$ as one of the $2i$ intervals on which $f$ was not defined until at smaller scale. The player Black can play so that this situation is repeated indefinitely. So, the points at which $f$ is well-defined is not $(\alpha,\beta)$-winning. Since $\alpha>0$ was arbitrary, this set is not $\alpha$-winning for any $\alpha>0$. So, with this $f$, we cannot use the $(\alpha,\beta)$-game.
It is clear that we avoid cases like this if we impose condition $(i)$ on $f$. For a given function $f$, condition $(i)$ may not be that easy to check so we give a sufficient condition for it to be satisfied.
\[endpointscondition\] Let $f$ be a function as described in Section \[givingfullshift\] and let $E(f)$ be the set of endpoints of generation $1$ cylinders. Let $Acc(E)$ denote the set of points of accumulation for a set $E$. If there is an $n\in \mathbb N$ such that $Acc^n(E(f))=\emptyset$, then condition $(i)$ is satisfied.
Assume that White is given an interval $I$ and wants to avoid all endpoints of generation $k$ cylinders. Since $Acc^n(E(f))$ is empty we know that $Acc^{n-1}(E(f))$ is finite. It is then easy for White to avoid this set in finitely many turns if $\alpha \leq \frac{1}{2}$. When this is done, White has placed a set $W_{j_1}$ such that it does not contain any points from $Acc^{n-1}(E(f))$. But then it can at most contain finitely many points from $Acc^{n-2}(E(f))$. Of course White can avoid these in the same way. By induction, White can avoid all points from $E(f)$ in a finite number of turns. This means that White can choose a set $W_{j_n}$ inside a generation $1$ cylinder $C_{x_1}$ after finitely many turns. Let $E(f^2)$ denote the set of endpoints of generation $2$ cylinders in $C_{x_1}$. If $n\geq 2$, White wants to avoid this set as well. But $E(f^2)$ is the inverse image of $E(f)$ under the homeomorphism $f|_{C_{x_1}}\colon C_{x_1} \mapsto [0,1)$. Thus, $E(f^2)$ has the same topological properties as $E(f)$. In particular, $Acc^n(E(f^2))=\emptyset$, so just as he avoided $E(f)$, White can avoid $E(f^2)$ in finitely many turns if $\alpha \leq \frac{1}{2}$. Repeating this argument, we get that White can avoid all endpoints of generation $k$ cylinders after a finite number of turns and place his set $W_j$ inside a generation $k$ cylinder for some finite $j$.
Note that while the condition in Lemma \[endpointscondition\] is sufficient to ensure condition $(i)$ it is by no means necessary. For example consider the middle third Cantor set. It is defined by repeatedly removing the middle third of each interval, starting with $[0,1]$. Let $f$ be the function obtained by letting $f$ be linear from $0$ to $1$ on each removed interval. Then $f$ is well-defined except on the middle third Cantor set which is a perfect set. Thus the conditions of Lemma \[endpointscondition\] are not fulfilled but it is obvious that in the $(\alpha,\beta)$-game, White only needs one turn to avoid the middle third Cantor set if $\alpha = \frac{1}{9}$. The set of endpoints of cylinders from higher generation will only be scalings of $E(f)$ since $f$ is linear on each cylinder. Thus, White can avoid the endpoints of the cylinders of any given generation in finitely many turns.
Condition $\mathbf{(ii)}$
-------------------------
To be able to prove Theorem \[fullshiftinunitinterval\] we need the cylinders to shrink in some uniform way. One way to get this is of course to require uniform expansion, that for some $\lambda>0$ it holds that $|f(x)-f(y)|\geq (1+\lambda)|x-y|$ for all $x,y$ in the same generation $1$ cylinder. We use the weaker Condition $\mbox{(ii)}$ to allow functions like $f\colon x\mapsto \frac{1}{x} \mod 1$.
The continued fraction expansion of numbers $x\in [0,1)$ which is given by the map $f\colon x\mapsto \frac{1}{x} \mod 1$, satisfies Condition $(ii)$.
Let $x\in (0,1)\setminus f^{-1}(0)$. Then $f^\prime (x)=-\frac{1}{x^2}$ and $|f^\prime (x)|\geq 1$. So, with $x\in (0,1)\setminus (f^{-1}(0)\cup f^{-2}(0))$ we have that if $|f^\prime (x)|\leq \frac{9}{4}$, then $$|f^\prime (x)|\leq \frac{9}{4} \quad \Rightarrow \quad x \geq \frac{2}{3} \quad \Rightarrow \quad f(x) \leq \frac{1}{2} \quad \Rightarrow \quad f^\prime (f(x))\geq 4.$$ So $|(f^2)^\prime (x)| \geq \frac{9}{4}> 2$ for all $x\in (0,1)\setminus (f^{-1}(0)\cup f^{-2}(0))$. This implies $$\frac{|C_{x_1\dots x_{n+m}}|}{|C_{x_1\dots x_n}|} \leq \sup_{x \in \tilde C_{x_1\dots x_{n+m}}} \frac{1}{(f^m)^\prime (x)} \leq 2^{-\lfloor \frac{m}{2}\rfloor} =g(m)$$ where $\tilde C_{x_1\dots x_{n+m}}$ means the interior of the cylinder $C_{x_1\dots x_{n+m}}$ and $\lfloor \frac{m}{2}\rfloor$ means the integer part of $\frac{m}{2}$.
Proofs
======
The idea we use to prove Theorem \[fullshiftinunitinterval\] and Theorem \[SFTunitinterval\] is to translate the $(\alpha,\beta)$-game into a game where the players are choosing symbols in a sequence rather than choosing intervals. By using a simple combinatorial argument we can then conclude that our sets are $\alpha$-winning.
A game of sequence building {#sequencebuildingsection}
---------------------------
Consider the following game for two players $\tilde B$ and $\tilde W$ with two parameters $c$ and $n$. The players are building a one sided infinite sequence $y=(y_i)_{i=1}^\infty$ in a finite or countable alphabet. First $\tilde B$ chooses $y=(y_i)_{i=1}^{b_0}$, where he can choose $b_0$ as large as he likes. Then, $(y_i)_{i=b_0+1}^\infty$ is divided into blocks of $n$ symbols.
(6,0.4)(0,0.4) (0,0.4)[(1,0)[3.6]{}]{} (0,0.8)[(1,0)[3.6]{}]{} (3.6,0.4)(0.2,0)[4]{}[(1,0)[0.1]{}]{} (3.6,0.8)(0.2,0)[4]{}[(1,0)[0.1]{}]{}
(0,0.4)[(0,1)[0.4]{}]{} (0.6,0.4)[(0,1)[0.4]{}]{} (1.6,0.4)[(0,1)[0.4]{}]{} (2.6,0.4)[(0,1)[0.4]{}]{} (3.6,0.4)[(0,1)[0.4]{}]{}
(-0.5,0.5)[$y:$]{} (0.2,0)[$b_0$]{} (1,0)[$n$]{} (2,0)[$n$]{} (3,0)[$n$]{}
The game is carried out in one block at a time, so we start in the first block. Consider a list of all possible words of length $n$. This might be infinite depending on whether or not the alphabet is finite. The player $\tilde B$ chooses two disjoint subsets of this list and lets $\tilde W$ pick any one of these two. After $\tilde W$ has made his choice, we have a new list of remaining words. Then $\tilde B$ chooses two disjoint subsets of this list and $\tilde W$ chooses one of these. The players continue like this and the game requires that $\tilde B$ plays so that regardless of how $\tilde W$ plays, this process ends after a finite number of turns, , that sooner or later only one word remains. This word is then put as $(y_i)_{i=b_0+1}^{b_0+n}$. The same procedure is carried out in each block and we get the sequence $y=(y_i)_{i=1}^\infty$. The game requires that $\tilde W$ gets to play at least $cn$ times in each block regardless of how he plays. This puts restrictions on how $\tilde B$ can construct his subsets. For example, at the first turn in a block, $\tilde B$ cannot choose one of his two subsets to consist of only one word.
\[digitgame\] Given any sequence $x=(x_i)_{i=1}^\infty$ and any $c>0$, there is a block size $n$ such that no matter how $\tilde B$ plays in the sequence building game, $\tilde W$ can make sure that there is a number $N$ such that $(x_i)_{i=1}^N \neq (y_i)_{i=k}^{k+N-1}$ for all $k \in \mathbb N$.
Assume that $\tilde B$ chooses the symbols $(y_i)_{i=1}^{b_0}$ and consider $(x_i)_{i=1}^{b_0+2n}$. If we want $y=(y_i)_{i=1}^\infty$ to be such that $(x_i)_{i=1}^{b_0+2n}$ does not occur anywhere in $y$, then it is enough to make sure that none of the $n$-blocks in $y$ occur in $(x_i)_{i=b_0+1}^{b_0+2n}$.
(6,1.8)(0,0)
(1.3,1.4)[(1,0)[2]{}]{} (1.3,1.8)[(1,0)[2]{}]{}
(1.3,1.4)[(0,1)[0.4]{}]{} (3.3,1.4)[(0,1)[0.4]{}]{}
(-0.5,1.5)[$(x_i)_{i=b_0+1}^{b_0+2n}$]{}
(1.6,0.8)(0,0.18)[6]{}[(0,1)[0.09]{}]{} (2.6,0.8)(0,0.18)[6]{}[(0,1)[0.09]{}]{}
(0,0.4)[(1,0)[3.6]{}]{} (0,0.8)[(1,0)[3.6]{}]{} (3.6,0.4)(0.2,0)[4]{}[(1,0)[0.1]{}]{} (3.6,0.8)(0.2,0)[4]{}[(1,0)[0.1]{}]{}
(0,0.4)[(0,1)[0.4]{}]{} (0.6,0.4)[(0,1)[0.4]{}]{} (1.6,0.4)[(0,1)[0.4]{}]{} (2.6,0.4)[(0,1)[0.4]{}]{} (3.6,0.4)[(0,1)[0.4]{}]{}
(-0.5,0.5)[$y$]{} (0.2,0)[$b_0$]{} (1,0)[$n$]{} (2,0)[$n$]{} (3,0)[$n$]{}
There are at most $n+1$ different words of length $n$ in $(x_i)_{i=b_0+1}^{b_0+2n}$ and it is sufficient for $\tilde W$ to avoid all these in each $n$-block. We will refer to the words that we want to avoid as dangerous words. In each $n$-block $\tilde W$ gets to make at least $cn$ choices between disjoint collections of words and thereby he can avoid many of the dangerous words. Indeed, the first time $\tilde W$ plays in a block he considers the two disjoint lists of words he is given by $\tilde B$. Since they are disjoint, at least one of the lists contains half or less of the dangerous words. By choosing this list, $\tilde W$ has avoided at least half of the dangerous words in just one play. The next time $\tilde W$ plays he is given two new disjoint lists of words to choose between. Remember that only at most half of the dangerous words are left among these, so $\tilde W$ can avoid at least half of the remaining dangerous words, leaving only at most $\frac{1}{4}$ of the original dangerous words after his second play. Continuing like this, if $2^{cn}>n+1$ he can avoid all the dangerous words in the $cn$ turns he has at each block. Since $c$ is fixed we can always find large enough $n$ such that this is true. It follows that if $\tilde W$ plays according to this strategy we have that $(x_i)_{i=b_0+1}^{b_0+2n} \neq (y_i)_{i=k}^{k+2n-1}$ for any $k\geq b_0+1$, so $(x_i)_{i=1}^{b_0+2n} \neq (y_i)_{i=k}^{k+b_0+2n-1}$ for any $k\geq 1$. Thus, $N=b_0+2n$ will do the job.
Proof of Theorem \[fullshiftinunitinterval\]
--------------------------------------------
The idea of this proof is to create a strategy for White in the $(\alpha,\beta)$-game so that White can play the role of $\tilde W$ in the sequence building game of Section \[sequencebuildingsection\]. We can then use Proposition \[digitgame\] to finish the proof. It might take several turns by White to be able to do what $\tilde W$ is supposed to do in one play. Each turn by $\tilde W$ will be divided into two phases consisting of turns by White. In the first phase, the task is to choose between disjoint collections of cylinders of some generation $k_i+k$. In the next phase, the task is to make sure that the game continues inside only one cylinder of generation $k_i+k$. This is to make sure that when we start over with phase one, the cylinders we are choosing between, all have the same coding up to the position $k_i+k$. Then choosing between disjoint collections of cylinders of generation $k_{i+1}+k$ is in fact the same thing as choosing between disjoint collections of codings of positions $k_i+k+1, \dots ,k_{i+1}+k$.
The $(\alpha,\beta)$-game starts when the player Black chooses his interval $B_0\subset [0,1]$.
$\mathbf{Phase 1:}$ Let $k_0$ be the largest generation for which there is a cylinder $C_{x_1 \dots x_{k_0}}$ intersecting $B_0$ such that $|C_{x_1 \dots x_{k_0}}|\geq |B_0|$. It might for example be that $k_0=0$, so that $C_{x_1 \dots x_{k_0}}=[0,1)$. By the maximality of $k_0$, all generation $k_0+1$ cylinders intersecting $B_0$ are smaller than $|B_0|$. By condition $(i)$ we know that all cylinders of generation $k_0+k$ intersecting $B_0$ are smaller than $g(k-1)|B_0|$. Let $k$ be a number such that $g(k-1)< \frac{1}{4}$. This is possible since $g(n)\to 0$ as $n\to \infty$, and it implies that the largest cylinder of generation $k_0+k$ intersecting $B_0$ is smaller than $\frac{|B_0|}{4}$.
Let $C'$ be the generation $k_0+k$ cylinder containing the center point of $B_0$. It follows that $B_0 \setminus C'$ consists of two intervals, each of length larger than $\frac{|B_0|}{4}$. Each of these intervals intersects a family of generation $k_0+k$ cylinders and these two families are disjoint. Each family of generation $k_0+k$ cylinders corresponds to a family of codings of positions $1,\dots,k_0+k$. Recall that in the $(\alpha,\beta)$-game, after Black chooses $B_0$, the other player, White, chooses a ball $W_0\subset B_0$ such that $|W_0|=\alpha|B_0|$. So, with $\alpha \leq \frac{1}{4}$, White can choose between two disjoint collections of codings at positions $1, \dots, k_0+k$ by placing $W_0$ to the left or right of $C'$.
(6,1)(0,0.2) (0,0.4)[(1,0)[6]{}]{} (0,0.8)[(1,0)[6]{}]{}
(0,0.4)[(0,1)[0.4]{}]{} (2.3,0.4)[(0,1)[0.4]{}]{} (3.5,0.4)[(0,1)[0.4]{}]{} (6,0.4)[(0,1)[0.4]{}]{}
(0,0.9)[$\overbrace{\rule{7.2cm}{0cm}}$]{} (2.9,1.2)[$B_0$]{} (2.8,0)[$C'$]{}
$\mathbf{Phase 2:}$ After this is done Black will choose an interval $B_1\subset W_0$ and it is up to White to place $W_1$ inside it. We want White to place $W_1$ inside a cylinder of generation $k_0+k$. It might happen that these generation $k_0+k$-cylinders are so small that White cannot do this right away. But by condition $(ii)$, we know that with $\alpha\leq \alpha_0$ then for every $\beta>0$ there is a strategy for the $(\alpha,\beta)$-game that White can use to place his set inside a generation $k_0+k$ cylinder after a finite number of turns, no matter how Black plays.
(6,1)(0,0.2) (0,0.4)[(1,0)[6]{}]{} (0,0.8)[(1,0)[6]{}]{}
(0,0.4)[(0,1)[0.4]{}]{} (0.4,0.4)[(0,1)[0.4]{}]{} (0.9,0.4)[(0,1)[0.4]{}]{} (1.2,0.4)[(0,1)[0.4]{}]{} (1.5,0.4)[(0,1)[0.4]{}]{} (2.3,0.4)[(0,1)[0.4]{}]{} (3.1,0.4)[(0,1)[0.4]{}]{} (3.3,0.4)[(0,1)[0.4]{}]{} (3.6,0.4)[(0,1)[0.4]{}]{} (4,0.4)[(0,1)[0.4]{}]{} (4.5,0.4)[(0,1)[0.4]{}]{} (5.1,0.4)[(0,1)[0.4]{}]{} (6,0.4)[(0,1)[0.4]{}]{}
(0,0.9)[$\overbrace{\rule{7.2cm}{0cm}}$]{} (2.9,1.2)[$B_1$]{} (1.3,0)[generation $k_0+k$-cylinders]{}
If White can place his set $W_1$ inside a cylinder $C_{x_1 \dots x_{k_0+k}}$, then he does. If he cannot, then he uses the following strategy.
First he places $W_1$ so that it only intersects cylinders $C_{x_1 \dots x_{k_0+k}}$ that are contained in $B_1$. This is possible since if there are subsets of cylinders $C_{x_1 \dots x_{k_0+k}}$ in $B_1$, then these parts together cannot constitute more than $2\alpha |B_1|$, otherwise White would have chosen $W_1$ inside one of them. At his next play, if he can place $W_2$ inside a cylinder $C_{x_1 \dots x_{k_0+k}}$ he does. Otherwise White chooses his set $W_2$ according to a $(\alpha,\alpha \beta^2)$-game strategy that allows him to avoid endpoints of generation $k_0+k$ cylinders after finitely many turns. At his next turn if White could not fit $W_3$ inside a cylinder $C_{x_1 \dots x_{k_0+k}}$ he plays $W_3$ so that he avoids generation $k_0+k$ cylinders that are not contained in $B_3$. As long as he cannot place his set inside a cylinder $C_{x_1 \dots x_{k_0+k}}$ White continues like this, every second turn playing to avoid endpoints of generation $k$ cylinders and the rest of the turns playing to avoid cylinders not contained in the set chosen but Black. Then sooner or later White will be able to place his set inside a cylinder $C_{x_1 \dots x_{k_0+k}}$ and he stops.
Let $j_0$ be the number of the turn at which White could play so that his set $W_j \subset C_{x_1 \dots x_{k_0+k}}$. If White needed more than one turn to accomplish this, it means that $C_{x_1 \dots x_{k_0+k}}\subset B_{j_0-2}$. Indeed, at every second play, White makes sure that all cylinders $C_{x_1 \dots x_{k_0+k}}$ that are not fully contained in the set chosen by Black are avoided. We conclude that in this case we have $|C_{x_1 \dots x_{k_0+k}}|\leq |B_{j_0-2}|$.
Now, White has used the turns $0,1,2,\dots ,j_0$ to make the first turn by $\tilde W$ in the sequence building game by choosing between disjoint collections of codings of positions $1, \dots, k_0+k$. He also uses these turns to make sure that the coding of positions $1, \dots, k_0+k$ is fixed after turn number $j_0$. Later on, this fact will allow White to to create the next turn by $\tilde W$.
After turn $j_0$ by White, Black will choose an interval $B_{j_0+1}\subset W_{j_0}$ and we start creating the next turn by $\tilde W$ in the sequence building game.
$\mathbf{Phase 1:}$ Let $k_1$ be the largest generation for which there is a cylinder $C_{x_1 \dots x_{k_1}}$ intersecting $B_{j_0+1}$ such that $|C_{x_1 \dots x_{k_1}}|\geq |B_{j_0+1}|$. Repeating what we did after finding $k_0$, we get that with $\alpha \leq \frac{1}{4}$, White can choose between two disjoint collections of generation $k_1+k$ cylinders. We know that all of these are in the same generation $k_0+k$ cylinder, so White can choose between two disjoint collections of codings at positions $k_0+k+1, \dots, k_1+k$.
$\mathbf{Phase 2:}$ We can then continue as before with $\alpha \leq \alpha_0$, finding a minimal $j_1$ such that $W_{j_1}$ can be placed in a cylinder $|C_{x_1 \dots x_{k_1+k}}|$. Again, if it took more than one turn by White to do this we have $|C_{x_1 \dots x_{k_1+k}}|\leq |B_{j_1-2}|$.
Now, White has used the turns $j_0+1,\dots, j_1$ to make the second turn by $\tilde W$ in the sequence building game by choosing between disjoint collections of codings of positions $k_0+k+1, \dots, k_1+k$ and prepared so that he will be able to make the next turn by $\tilde W$ later on.
We can continue repeating this procedure for each $i\geq 0$ constructing a turn by $\tilde W$ in which $\tilde W$ gets to choose between disjoint collections of codings at positions $k_i+k+1, \dots, k_{i+1}+k$.
(6,1)(1,0.2) (0,0.4)[(1,0)[6]{}]{} (0,0.8)[(1,0)[6]{}]{}
(0,0.4)[(0,1)[0.4]{}]{}
(6,0.4)[(0,1)[0.4]{}]{}
(0,0.4)(0.2,0)[30]{}[(0,1)[0.4]{}]{}
(-0.45,0.53)[$y:$]{} (0.2,-0.1)[$k_0$]{} (0.3,0.2)[(0,1)[0.25]{}]{} (1,-0.1)[$k_1$]{} (1.1,0.2)[(0,1)[0.25]{}]{} (1.9,-0.1)[$k_2$]{} (1.9,0.2)[(0,1)[0.25]{}]{} (4.3,-0.1)[$k_3$]{} (4.3,0.2)[(0,1)[0.25]{}]{} (5.5,-0.1)[$k_4$]{} (5.5,0.2)[(0,1)[0.25]{}]{}
(6,0.4)(0.2,0)[4]{}[(1,0)[0.1]{}]{} (6,0.8)(0.2,0)[4]{}[(1,0)[0.1]{}]{}
Next we will show that $k_{i+1}-k_i$ is bounded. We begin by recalling that we had a function $g$ that gave us a speed at which cylinders shrunk in size as the generation increased. We used this function to find a constant $k$ such that when we increased the generation by $k$ the size shrunk by at least a factor $4$. Since the number $k$ originates from potentially very crude estimates it tells us nothing about the size of $k_{i+1}-k_i$. In some cases, it might well happen that $k_{i+1}-k_i=1$ while for example $k=10$. When looking for a uniform bound on $k_{i+1}-k_i$ it will be convenient to consider only the case $k_{i+1}-k_i>k$. Since we are looking for an upper bound, the case $k_{i+1}-k_i\leq k$ is uninteresting.
We start at phase $1$ when constructing turn number $i$ for $\tilde W$ in the sequence building game. First Black plays by choosing a set $B_1$, then White chooses between two disjoint collections of generation $k_i+k$ cylinders. Then phase $2$ starts as Black plays again. Assume now that White is able to place his set inside a generation $k_i+k$ cylinder at his first turn in phase $2$. This ends phase $2$ and means the end of turn number $i$ for $\tilde W$ in the sequence building game.
After this, it is time to construct turn number $i+1$ by $\tilde W$. Black starts phase $1$ by choosing a set $B_2$. Then we find the maximal generation $k_{i+1}$ such that $B_2$ intersects a cylinder $C_{x_1 \dots x_{k_i+1}}$ such that $|C_{x_1 \dots x_{k_i+1}}|\geq |B_2|$. Since $|B_2|=(\alpha\beta)^2 |B_1|$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
|B_{2}| \leq &|C_{x_1\dots x_{k_{i+1}}}| \leq g(k_{i+1}-k_i-k)|C_{k_1 \dots x_{k_i+k}}|\\
< &g(k_{i+1}-k_i-k)|B_1|=\frac{g(k_{i+1}-k_i-k)|B_2|}{(\alpha \beta )^2}\end{aligned}$$ so $g(k_{i+1}-k_i-k) <(\alpha \beta)^2$. Since $g(n)\to 0$ as $n\to \infty$ this puts a bound on $k_{i+1}-k_i$.
Assume instead that when constructing turn number $i$ for $\tilde W$ in the sequence building game, White needed more than one turn in phase $2$, to place his set inside a generation $k_i+k$ cylinder. We recall that if $W_j$ is the last set chosen by White in this phase, then $|C_{x_1 \dots x_{k_i}}|< |B_{j-2}|$. After this, it is time to construct turn number $i+1$ by $\tilde W$. Black starts phase $1$ by choosing a set $B_{j+1}$. Then we find the maximal generation $k_{i+1}$ such that $B_{j+1}$ intersects a cylinder $C_{x_1 \dots x_{k_{i+1}}}$ such that $|C_{x_1 \dots x_{k_{i+1}}}|\geq |B_{j+1}|$. We get $$\begin{aligned}
|B_{j+1}| \leq &|C_{x_1\dots x_{k_{i+1}}}| \leq g(k_{i+1}-k_i-k) |C_{x_1 \dots x_{k_{i}+k}}| \\
< & g(k_{i+1}-k_i-k)|B_{j-2}|=\frac{g(k_{i+1}-k_i-k)|B_{j+1}|}{(\alpha \beta)^3},\end{aligned}$$ so $g(k_{i+1}-k_i-k) <(\alpha \beta)^3$. Since $g(n)\to 0$ as $n\to \infty$ this puts a bound on $k_{i+1}-k_i$.
What we have proven this far is that if we choose $\alpha\leq \min\{\alpha_0,\frac{1}{4}\}$, then the sequence $k_i$ has a maximal distance between its elements. This implies that if the block size $n$ is large enough, then in the following picture
(6,1)(1,0) (0,0.4)[(1,0)[3.6]{}]{} (0,0.8)[(1,0)[3.6]{}]{} (3.6,0.4)(0.2,0)[4]{}[(1,0)[0.1]{}]{} (3.6,0.8)(0.2,0)[4]{}[(1,0)[0.1]{}]{}
(0,0.4)[(0,1)[0.4]{}]{} (0.6,0.4)[(0,1)[0.4]{}]{} (1.6,0.4)[(0,1)[0.4]{}]{} (2.6,0.4)[(0,1)[0.4]{}]{} (3.6,0.4)[(0,1)[0.4]{}]{}
(-0.5,0.5)[$y:$]{} (0.2,0)[$b_0$]{} (1,0)[$n$]{} (2,0)[$n$]{} (3,0)[$n$]{}
there is at least one $k_i$ in each $n$-block. Increasing $n$ we can clearly make sure that there are at least $cn$ different $k_i$ in each $n$-block for some $c>0$. This implies that if we play the $(\alpha,\beta)$-game in $[0,1]$ with $\alpha\leq \min\{\alpha_0, \frac{1}{4}\}$, then White can use a strategy that transforms the game into the sequence building game. By Proposition \[digitgame\] the player $\tilde W$ can make sure that we get a number in $\Big\{\, z\in [0,1): x\notin \overline{\cup_{n=1}^\infty f^n(z)}\, \,\Big\}$ for any given $x\in [0,1)$ with well-defined expansion, by choosing the block size $n$ in the sequence building game. Since this can be done for any $\alpha\leq \min\{\alpha_0, \frac{1}{4}\}$ and any $\beta>0$ we conclude that $\Big\{\, z\in [0,1): x\notin \overline{\cup_{n=1}^\infty f^n(z)}\, \, \Big\}$ is $\alpha$-winning for all $x\in [0,1)$ with well-defined expansion, if $\alpha \leq \min\{\alpha_0, \frac{1}{4}\}$. This proves the theorem.
Proof of Theorem \[SFTunitinterval\]
------------------------------------
Since the symbol $\beta$ is already used in the $(\alpha,\beta)$-game we will use $b$ instead of $\beta$ to denote the base in the $\beta$-shift.
The method used to prove Theorem \[fullshiftinunitinterval\] works in this case as well, but now we do not have to worry about countable alphabets and points without well-defined expansions. Since $S_b$ is of finite type there is a constant $C_b$ such that $$C_b^{-1}<\frac{C_{x_0\dots x_{n-1}}}{b^{n}}<C_b$$ for all $n$ and all $(x_i)_{i=0}^\infty \in S_b$. This implies that $$\frac{|C_{x_0\dots x_{n+m}}|}{|C_{x_0\dots x_{n}}|} \leq \frac{C_b^2}{b^m}$$ for all $m,n$ and all $(x_i)_{i=0}^\infty \in S_b$. Thus we can let $\frac{C_b^2}{b^m}$ play the role of $g(m)$ from the proof of Theorem \[fullshiftinunitinterval\].
We will now briefly describe how White plays in the $(\alpha,\beta)$-game to construct turn number $i$ in the sequence building game. It all begins as usual with the player Black choosing a set $B_i$.
$\mathbf{Phase 1:}$ We do as in proof of Theorem \[fullshiftinunitinterval\]. We find a minimal $k_i$. Then we choose $k$ large enough so that by placing $W_i$ White can choose between two disjoint collections of generation $k_i+k$ cylinders. For example, $k\geq 1+\frac{4C_b^2}{\log b}$ will be enough.
$\mathbf{Phase 2:}$ We do as in the proof of Theorem \[fullshiftinunitinterval\]. We let White alternate between avoiding cylinders not contained in the sets chosen by Black and avoiding endpoints of generation $k_i+k$ cylinders until White can place his set in a generation $k_i+k$ cylinder.
Just as in the proof of Theorem \[fullshiftinunitinterval\] we conclude that with this sequence of turns, White is able to choose between disjoint collections of codings of positions $k_{i-1}+k+1, \dots k_i+k$. We then do as in proof of Theorem \[fullshiftinunitinterval\] to show that $k_{i+1}-k_i$ is bounded. We then apply Proposition \[digitgame\] to conclude that $\Big\{\, z\in [0,1): x\notin \overline{\cup_{n=1}^\infty f_b^n(z)}\, \, \Big\}$ is $\alpha$-winning for all $x\in [0,1]$ and all $\alpha \leq \frac{1}{4}$. This proves the theorem.
A note on the [$\boldsymbol{(\alpha,\beta)}$-game]{}
----------------------------------------------------
We note that in the proofs of Theorem \[fullshiftinunitinterval\] and Theorem \[SFTunitinterval\], the strategies we describe for White use the fact that Black can not zoom in more than a fixed factor $\gamma$ at each turn in each given game. It would not matter at all for the strategies if Black was allowed at each turn to choose $\gamma \in [\gamma_0,1] $ for some fixed $\gamma_0$. If we also allow White to choose $\alpha \in [\alpha_0,1] $, White can still use the same strategy. This leads us to consider the following modification of the $(\alpha,\beta)$-game.
Let $\alpha_0,\gamma_0 \in (0,1)$ be fixed.
- [*In the initial step*]{} Black chooses any closed interval $B_0$, and then White chooses an $\alpha \in [\alpha_0, 1]$ and a closed interval $W_0 \subset B_0$ such that $|W_0| = \alpha |B_0|$.
- [*Then the following step is repeated.*]{} At step $k$ Black choses $\gamma\in [\gamma_0,1]$ and a closed interval $B_{k} \subset W_{k-1}$ such that $|B_{k}| = \gamma |W_{k-1}|$. Then White chooses a new $\alpha \in [\alpha_0, 1]$ and a closed interval $W_{k} \subset B_k$ such that $|W_k| = \alpha |B_k|$.
The following observation now follows.
In Theorems \[fullshiftinunitinterval\] and \[SFTunitinterval\] with corollaries, the $(\alpha,\beta)$-game can be replaced by the modified $(\alpha,\beta)$-game described in this section.
[0]{}
W. Parry, [*On the $\beta$-expansion of real numbers*]{}, Acta Mathematica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 11 (1960), 401–416.
A. Rényi, [*Representations for real numbers and their ergodic properties*]{}, Acta Mathematica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 8 (1957), 477–493.
W. Schmidt, [*On badly approximable numbers and certain games*]{}, Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 123 (1966), 178–199.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Modern data centers that provide Internet-scale services are stadium-size structures housing tens of thousands of heterogeneous devices (server clusters, networking equipment, power and cooling infrastructures) that must operate continuously and reliably. As part of their operation, these devices produce large amounts of data in the form of event and error logs that are essential not only for identifying problems but also for improving data center efficiency and management. These activities employ data analytics and often exploit hidden statistical patterns and correlations among different factors present in the data. Uncovering these patterns and correlations is challenging due to the sheer volume of data to be analyzed. This paper presents BiDAl, a prototype “log-data analysis framework” that incorporates various Big Data technologies to simplify the analysis of data traces from large clusters. BiDAl is written in Java with a modular and extensible architecture so that different storage backends (currently, HDFS and SQLite are supported), as well as different analysis languages (current implementation supports SQL, R and Hadoop MapReduce) can be easily selected as appropriate. We present the design of BiDAl and describe our experience using it to analyze several public traces of Google data clusters for building a simulation model capable of reproducing observed behavior.'
author:
- 'Alkida Balliu, Dennis Olivetti, Ozalp Babaoglu, Moreno Marzolla, Alina Sîrbu'
title: 'BiDAl: Big Data Analyzer for Cluster Traces[^1]'
---
Introduction
============
Modern Internet-based services such as cloud computing, social networks, online storage, media-sharing, etc., produce enormous amounts of data, not only in terms of user-generated content, but also in the form of usage activity and error logs produced by the devices implementing them. Data centers providing these services contain tens of thousands of computers and other components (e.g., networking equipment, power distribution, air conditioning) that may interact in subtle and unintended ways, making management of the global infrastructure far from straightforward. At the same time, services provided by these huge infrastructures have become vital not only to industry but to society in general, making failures extremely costly both for data center operators and their customers. In this light, monitoring and administering data centers become critical tasks. Some aspects of management, like job scheduling, can be highly automated while others, such as recovery from failures, remain highly dependent on human intervention. The “holy grail” of system management is to render data centers autonomous, self-managing and self-healing; ideally, the system should be capable of analyzing its state and use this information to identify performance or reliability problems and correct them or alert system managers directing them to the root causes of the problem. Even better, the system should be capable of anticipating situations that may lead to performance problems or failures, allowing for proactive countermeasures to steer the system back towards desired operational states. Needless to say, these are very challenging goals [@Salfner2010].
Given the size of modern data centers, the amount of log data they produce is growing steadily, making log management itself technically challenging. For instance, a 2010 Facebook study reports 60 Terabytes of log data being produced by its data centers each day [@Thusoo2010]. For live monitoring of its systems and analyzing their log data, Facebook has developed a dedicated software called Scuba [@Abraham2013] that uses a large in-memory database running on hundreds of servers with 144 GB of RAM each. This infrastructure needs to be upgraded every few weeks to keep up with the increasing computational power and storage requirements that Scuba generates. Log analysis falls within the class of Big Data applications: the data sets are so large that conventional storage and analysis techniques are not appropriate to process them. There is a real need to develop novel tools and techniques for analyzing logs, possibly incorporating data analytics to uncover hidden patterns and correlations that can help system administrators avoid critical states, or to identify the root cause of failures or performance problems.
Numerous studies have analyzed trace data from a variety of sources for different purposes, but typically without relying on an integrated software framework developed specifically for log analysis [@Chen2012; @Liu2012; @Reiss2012]. This is partially due to the sensitive nature of commercial log trace data prohibiting their publication, which in turn leads to fragmentation of analysis frameworks and difficulty in porting them to traces from other sources. One isolated example of an analysis framework is the Failure Trace Archive Toolkit [@Javadi2013], limited however to failure traces. Lack of a more general framework for log data analysis results in time being wasted by researchers in developing software for parsing, interpreting and analysing the data, repeatedly for each new trace [@Javadi2013].
In this paper we describe the Big Data Analyzer (BiDAl), a prototype software tool implementing a general framework, designed for statistical analysis of very large trace data sets. BiDAl integrates several built-in storage types and processing frameworks and can be easily extended to support others. The BiDAl prototype is publicly available through a GNU General Public License (GPL) [@bidalCode]. We illustrate the actual use of BiDAl for analyzing publicly-available Google cluster trace data [@googleData] in order to extract parameters for a cluster simulator which we have implemented.
The contributions of this work are several fold. We first present the novel architecture of BiDAl resulting in extensibility and ease of use. BiDAl incorporates several advanced Big Data technologies to facilitate efficient processing of large datasets for data analytics. We then describe our experience with BiDAl when used to extract workload parameters from Google compute cluster traces. Finally, we describe a simulation model of the Google cluster that, when instantiated with the parameters obtained through BiDAl, is able to reproduce a set of behaviors very similar to those observed in the traces.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. We provide a high level overview of the framework followed by a detailed description of its components in Section \[bidal\]. The framework is applied to characterize machines and workloads in a public Google cluster trace, and used in the development of a cluster simulator in Section \[testcase\]. We discuss related work in Section \[refs\] and conclude with new directions for future work in Section \[conclusions\].
The Big Data Analyzer (BiDAl) prototype {#bidal}
=======================================
General overview
----------------
BiDAl can import raw data in CSV format (Comma Separated Values, the typical format of trace data), and store it in different backends according to the user’s preference. In the current prototype two backends are supported: SQLite and Hadoop File System (HDFS), the latter being particularly well suited for handling large amount of data using the Hadoop framework. Other backends can easily be supported, since BiDAl is based on a modular architecture that will be described in the next section. BiDAl uses a subset of the SQL language to handle the data (e.g., to create new tables or to apply simple filters to existing data). SQL queries are automatically translated into the query language supported by the underlying storage system (RSQLite or RHadoop).
BiDAl also has the ability to perform statistical data analysis using both R [@r] and Hadoop MapReduce [@hadoop; @mapreduce] commands. R commands are typically applied to the SQLite storage, while MapReduce to the Hadoop storage. However, the system allows mixed execution of both types of commands regardless of the storage used, being able to switch between backends (by exporting data) transparently to the user. For instance, after a MapReduce operation, it is possible to analyze the outcome using R; in this case, the software automatically exports the result obtained from the MapReduce step, and imports it to the SQLite storage where the analysis can continue using R commands. This is particularly useful for handling large datasets, since the volume of data can be reduced by applying a first processing step with Hadoop/MapReduce, and then using R to complete the analysis on the resulting (smaller) dataset.
Design
------
![\[uml\]UML diagram of BiDAl classes.](pics/uml.png){width="70.00000%"}
BiDAl is a modular application designed for extensibility and ease of use. It is written in Java, to facilitate portability across different Operating Systems, and uses a Graphical User Interface (GUI) based on the standard Model View Controller (MVC) architectural pattern. The View provides a Swing GUI, the Model manages different types of storage backends, and the Controller handles the interaction between the two. Figure \[uml\] outlines the architecture using the UML class diagram.
The Controller class connects the GUI with the other components of the software. The Controller implements the Singleton pattern, with the one instance accessible from any part of the code. The interface to the different storage backends is given by the GenericStorage class, that has to be further specialized by any concrete backend developed. In our case, the two existing concrete storage backends are represented by the SqliteStorage class to support SQLite, and the HadoopStorage class, to support HDFS. Neither the Controller nor the GUI elements communicate directly with the concrete storage backends, but only with the abstract class GenericStorage. This simplifies the implementation of new backends without the need to change the Controller or GUI implementations.
The user can inspect and modify the data storage using a subset of SQL; the SqliteStorage and HadoopStorage classes use the open source SQL parser Akiban to convert the queries inserted by users into SQL trees that are further mapped to the native language (RSQLite or RHadoop) using the Visitor pattern. The HadoopStorage uses also a Bashexecuter that allows to load files on the HDFS using bash shell commands. A new storage class can be implemented by providing a suitable specialization of the GenericStorage class, including the mapping of the SQL tree to specific commands understood by the backend. Although the SQL parser supports the full SQL language, the developer must define a mapping of the SQL tree into the language supported by the underlying storage; this often limits the number of SQL statements that can be supported due to the difficulty of realizing such a mapping.
Functionality
-------------
The typical BiDAl workflow consists of three steps: instantiation of a storage backend (or opening an existing one), data selection and aggregation and data analysis. For storage creation, BiDAl is designed to import CSV files into an SQLite database or to a HDFS file system, depending on the type selected. Except for the CSV format, no other restrictions on the data type exist, so the platform can be easily used for data from various sources, as long as they can be viewed as CSV tables. Even though the storages currently implemented are based on the the concept of tables (stored in a relational database by SQLite and CSV files by Hadoop), in the future, other storage types can be supported by BiDAl. Indeed, Hadoop supports HBase, a non-relational database that works with $<$key, value$>$ pairs. Since Hadoop is already supported by BiDAl, a new storage that works on this type of non-relational databases can be easily added.
![\[gui\]Screenshot of the BiDAl analysis console displaying R commands.](pics/gui.png){width="95.00000%"}
Selection and aggregation can be performed using queries expressed using a subset of SQL. At the moment, the supported statements are SELECT, FROM, WHERE and GROUP BY. For the SQLite storage, queries are executed through the RSQLite library of the R package (R is used quite extensively inside BiDAl, and executing SQLite queries through R simplified the internal structure of BiDAl as we could reuse some internal software components). For the Hadoop backend, GROUP BY queries are mapped to MapReduce operations. The Map function implements the GROUP BY part of the query, while the Reduce function deals with the WHERE and SELECT clauses. We used RHadoop as a wrapper so that we can access the Hadoop framework through R commands. This allows the implementation of Map and Reduce functions in R rather than Java code.
Data analysis can be performed by selecting different commands in the specific language of the storage and applying them to the selected dataset. There is a common set of operations provided by every storage. However it is possible to concatenate operations on different storage backends since BiDAl can automatically export data from one backend and import it on another. Therefore it is possible to use a MapReduce function on an SQLite table, or execute a R command on a HDFS store. This requires that the same data is duplicated into different storage types so, depending on the size of the dataset, additional storage space will be consumed. However, this operation does not generate consistency issues, since log data does not change once it is recorded.
#### Using R within BiDAl
BiDAl provides a list of pre-defined operations, implemented in R, that can be selected by the user from a graphical interface (see Figure \[gui\] for a screenshot and Table \[r\] for a full list of available commands). When an operation is selected, an input box appears asking the user to provide the parameters needed by that specific operation. Additionally, a text box (bottom left of Figure \[gui\]) allows the user to modify on the fly the R commands to be executed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
**[R command]{} & **[Description]{}\
get\_column& Selects a column.\
apply\_1Col& Applies the desired function to each element of a column.\
aggregate& Takes as input a column to group by; among all rows selects the ones that satisfies the specified condition; the result obtained is specified from the function given to the third parameter.\
difference\_between\_ rows& Calculates the differences between consecutive rows.\
filter& Filters the data after the specified condition.\
exponential\_distribution& Plots the fit of the exponential distribution to the data.\
lognormal\_distribution& Plots the fit of the lognormal distribution to the data.\
polynomial\_regression& Plots the fit of the n-grade polynomial regression to the data in the specified column.\
ecdf& Plots the cumulative distribution function of the data in the specified column.\
spline& Divides the data in the specified column in n intervals and for each range plots spline functions. Also allows to show a part of the plot or all of it.\
****
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
: List of some R commands implemented by BiDAl.[]{data-label="r"}
All operations are defined in an external text file, according to the following BNF grammar:
<file> ::= <command name> <newline> <number of parameters> <newline>
<list of parameters> <newline> <command code>
<list of parameters> ::= <parameter description> <newline>
<list of parameters> | <empty>
<command code> ::= <text> | <command code> <parameter>
<command code> | <empty>
<parameter> ::= '$PAR' <number of the parameter> '$'
New operations can therefore be added quite easily by simply adding them to the file.
#### Using Hadoop/MapReduce with BiDAl
BiDAl provides also a list of Hadoop/MapReduce commands that allow to distribute computation across several machines. Usually, the Mapper and Reducer functions are implemented in Java, generating files that need to be compiled and then executed. However, BiDAl abstracts from this approach by using the RHadoop library which handles MapReduce job submission and permits to interact with Hadoop’s file system HDFS using R functions. Once the dataset of interest has been chosen, the user can execute the Map and Reduce functions already implemented in RHadoop or create new ones. Again, the MapReduce functions are saved in an external text files, using the same format described above, so the creation of new commands does not require any modification of BiDAl. At the moment, one Map function is implemented in BiDAl, which groups the data by the values of a column. The Reduce function counts the elements of each group. Other functions can be added by the user, similar to R commands.
Case study {#testcase}
==========
The development of BiDAl was initially motivated by the need to process large data traces of compute clusters, such as those publicly released by Google [@googleData]. The ultimate goal was to extract workload parameters from the traces in order to instantiate a simulation model of the compute cluster capable of reproducing the most important features observed in the real data. The simulation model, then, can be used to perform “what-if analyses” by exploring different scenarios where the workload parameters are different, or several types of faults are injected into the system. In this section we first describe the use of BiDAl for analyzing the Google traces, and then present the structure of the simulation model instantiated with the parameters obtained from the analysis phase.
Workload Characterization of the Google Cluster {#workload}
-----------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------- -- --
**[R command]{} & **[Parameter type]{}& **[Parameter value]{}\
get\_column& column number&2\
filter&condition& t\[\[1\]\]$<$11000.\
log\_histogram&column number, log step, log axis& 1, 0.06, xy\
******
---------------------------------------------------------------- -- --
: Commands used to generate Figure \[task\].[]{data-label="ex"}
[0.49]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.49]{} {width="\textwidth"}
To build a good simulation model of the Google cluster, we needed to extract some information from the traces. The data consist of a large amount of CSV files containing records about job and task events, resources used by tasks, task constraints, etc. There are more than 2000 files describing the workload and machine attributes for over 12000 cluster nodes, reaching a total *compressed size* of about 40 GB. In total, over 1.3 billion records are available. We used BiDAl to extract the arrival time distribution of each job, the distribution of the number of tasks per job, and the distributions of execution times of different types of tasks (e.g., jobs that successfully completed execution, jobs that are killed by the users, and so on). These distributions are used by the Job Arrival entity of the simulation model to generate jobs into the system. Additionally, we analyzed the distribution of machines downtime and of the time instants when servers are added / removed from the pool.
Some of the results obtained with BiDAl are shown in the following (we are showing the actual plots that are produced by our software). Figure \[ram\] shows the the amount of RAM requested by tasks, while Figure \[task\] shows the distribution of number of tasks per job.
To generate the graph in Figure \[task\], we first extracted the relevant information from the trace files. Job and task IDs were required, therefore we generated a new table, called *job\_task\_id*, from the *task\_events.csv* files released by Google [@googleData]. The query generation is automated by BiDAl which allows for simple selection of columns using the GUI. Since the DISTINCT clause is not yet implemented in BiDAl, we added it manually in the generated query. The final query used was:
where V3 is the *job\_id* column while V4 represents the *task\_id*.On the resulting *job\_task\_id table*, we execute another query to estimate how many tasks each job has, generating a new table called *tasks\_per\_job*:
Three R commands were used on the *tasks\_per\_job* table to generate the graph. The first extracts the second column (job id), the second filters out some uninteresting data and the third plots the result. The BiDAl commands used are shown in Table \[ex\].
The analysis was performed on a computer with 16 GB of RAM, a 2.7 GHz i7 quad core processor and a hard drive with simultaneous read/write speed of 60 MB/s. For the example above, importing the data was the most time consuming step, requiring 11 minutes to load 17 GB of data into the SQLite storage (which may be influenced by the disk speed). However, this step is required only once. The first SQL query took about 4 minutes to complete, while the second query and the R commands were almost instantaneous.
In Figure \[exp\] we tried to fit the time between consecutive machine update events (i.e., events that indicate that a machine has changed its list of resources) with an exponential distribution; the four standard plots for the goodness of fit show that the observed data is in good agreement with the fitted distribution.
![\[exp\]Machine update events, fitted with an exponential distribution. The left panels show the density and cumulative distribution functions, with the lines representing the exponential fitting and the bars/circles showing real data. The right panels show goodness of fit in Q-Q and P-P plots (straight lines show perfect fit).](pics/exp.png){width="87.00000%"}
Cumulative distribution functions (CDFs) have also been obtained from the data and fitted with sequences of splines, in those cases where the density functions were too noisy to be fitted with a known distribution. For instance, Figure \[cpuCdf\] shows the distribution of CPU required by tasks while Figure \[downtimeCdf\] shows machine downtime, both generated with BiDAl. Several other distributions were generated, similar to CPU requirements, to enable simulation of the Google cluster: RAM required by tasks; Tasks priority; Duration of tasks that end normally; Duration of killed tasks; Tasks per job; Job inter-arrival time; Machine failure inter-arrival time; Machine CPU and RAM.
Cluster Simulator
-----------------
We built a discrete-event simulation model of the Google compute cluster corresponding to that from which the traces were obtained, using C++ and Omnet++. According to the information available, the Google cluster is basically a large batch system where computational tasks of different types are submitted and executed on a large server pool. Each job may describe constraints for its execution (e.g., a minimum amount of available RAM on the execution host); a scheduler is responsible for extracting jobs from the waiting queue, and dispatching them to a suitable execution host. As can be expected on a large infrastructure, jobs may fail and be resubmitted; moreover, execution hosts may fail and be temporarily removed from the pool, or new hosts can be added. The Google trace contains a list of timestamped events such as job arrival, job completion, activation of a new host and so on; additional (anonymized) information on job requirements is also provided.
[0.45]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.45]{} {width="\textwidth"}
![\[sim\]Architecture of simulation model.](pics/sim.png){width="70.00000%"}
The simulation model, shown in Figure \[sim\], consists of several active and passive interacting entities. The passive entities (i.e., those that do exchange any message with other entities) are Jobs and Tasks. A task represents a process in execution, or ready to be executed; each task has an unique ID and the amount of resources required; a Job is a set of (likely dependent) tasks. Jobs can terminate either because all their tasks complete execution, or because they are aborted by the submitting user.
The active entities in the simulation are those that send and receive messages: Machine, Machine Arrival, Job Arrival, Scheduler and Network. The Machine entity represents an execution node in the compute cluster. Machine Arrival and Job Arrival generate events related to new execution nodes being added to the cluster, and new jobs being submitted, respectively. These arrival processes (as they are called in queueing theory) can be driven by the real trace logs, or by synthetic data generated from user-defined probability distributions that can be identified using BiDAl. The Scheduler implements a simple job scheduling mechanism. Every time a job is created by the JobArrival entity, the scheduler inserts its tasks in the waiting queue. For each task, the scheduler examines which execution nodes (if any) match the task constraints; the task is eventually sent to a suitable execution node. Note that the scheduling policies implemented by the Google cluster allow a task with higher priority to evict an already running task with lower priority; this eviction priority mechanism is also implemented in our simulator. Finally, the Network entity is responsible for simulating the message exchanges between the other active entities.
Trace-Driven Simulation of the Google Cluster
---------------------------------------------
We used the parameters extracted from the traces to instantiate and run the simulation model. From the the traces, it appeared that the average memory usage of the Google machines is more or less constant at 50%. According to Google, the remaining memory on each server is reserved to internal processes. Therefore, in the simulation we also set the maximum available memory on each server at half the actual amount of installed RAM.
The purpose of the simulation run was to validate the model by comparing the real traces with simulator results. Four metrics were considered: number of running tasks (Figure \[running\]), completed tasks (Figure \[completed\]), waiting tasks (ready queue size, Figure \[waiting\]) and evicted tasks (Figure \[evicted\]). All plots show the time series extracted from the trace data (green lines) and those produced by our simulator (red lines), with the additional application of exponential smoothing to reduce transient fluctuations. The figures show a very good agreement between the simulation results and the actual data from the traces.
Related work {#refs}
============
[0.49]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.49]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.49]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.49]{} {width="\textwidth"}
With the public availability of the two Google cluster traces [@googleData], numerous analyses of different aspects of the data have been reported. These provide general statistics about the workload and node state for such clusters [@Liu2012; @Reiss2012; @Reiss2012a] and identify high levels of heterogeneity and dynamicity of the system, especially in comparison to grid workloads [@Di2012]. However, no unified tool for studying the different traces were introduced. BiDAl is one of the first such tools facilitating Big Data analysis of trace data, which underlines similar properties of the public Google traces as the previous studies. Other traces have been analyzed in the past [@Kavulya2010; @Chen2011; @Chen2012], but again without a dedicated tool available for further study.
BiDAl can be very useful in generating synthetic trace data. In general synthesising traces involves two phases: characterising the process by analyzing historical data and generation of new data. The aforementioned Google traces and log data from other sources have been successfully used for workload characterisation. In terms of resource usage, classes of jobs and their prevalence can be used to characterize workloads and generate new ones [@Mishra2010; @Wang2011], or real usage patterns can be replaced by the average utilization [@Zhang2011]. Placement constraints have also been synthesized using clustering for characterisation [@Sharma2011]. Our tool enables workload and cloud structure characterisation through fitting of distributions that can be further used for trace synthesis. The analysis is not restricted to one particular aspect, but the flexibility of our tool allows the the user to decide what phenomenon to characterize and then simulate.
Recently, the Failure Trace Archive (FTA) has published a toolkit for analysis of failure trace data [@Javadi2013]. This toolkit is implemented in Matlab and enables analysis of traces from the FTA repository, which consists of about 20 public traces. It is, to our knowledge, the only other tool for large scale trace data analysis. However, the analysis is only possible if traces are stored in the FTA format in a relational database, and is only available for traces containing failure information. BiDAl on the other hand provides two different storage options, including HDFS, with transfer among them transparent to the user, and is available for any trace data, regardless of what process it describes. Additionally, usage of FTA on new data requires publication of the data in their repository, while BiDAl can be used also for sensitive data that cannot be made public.
Although public tools for analysis of general trace data are scarce, several large corporations have reported building in-house applications for analysis of logs. These are, in general, used for live monitoring of the system, and analyze in real time large amounts of data to provide visualisation that helps operators make administrative decisions. While Facebook use Scuba [@Abraham2013], mentioned before, Microsoft have developed the Autopilot system [@Isard2007], which helps administer their clusters. This has a component (Cockpit) that analyzes logs and provides real time statistics to operators. An example from Google is CPI2 [@Hagmann2013] which monitors Cycles per Instruction for running tasks to determine job performance interference. This helps in deciding task migration or throttling to maintain high performance of production jobs. All these tools are, however, not open, apply only to data of the corresponding company and sometimes require very large computational resources (e.g. Scuba). Our aim in this paper is to provide an open research tool that can be used also by smaller research groups that have more limited resources.
Conclusions
===========
In this paper we presented BiDAl, a framework that facilitates use of Big Data tools and techniques for analyzing large cluster traces. BiDAl is based on a modular architecture, and currently supports two storage backends based on SQlite and Hadoop; other backends can be easily added. BiDAl uses a subset of SQL as a common query language that is automatically translated to the appropriate commands supported by each backend. Additionally, data analysis using R and Hadoop MapReduce is possible.
We have described a usage example of BiDAl that involved the analysis of Google trace data to derive parameters to be used in a simulation model of the Google cluster. Distributions of relevant quantities were easily computed using our tool, showing how this facilitates Big Data analysis even to users less familiar with R or Hadoop. Using the computed distributions, the simulator produces results that are in good agreement with the observed data. Another possible usage of the platform is for application of machine learning tools for predicting abnormal behavior from log data. At the moment, BiDAl can be used for pre-processing and initial data exploration; however, in the future we plan to add new commands to perform this type of analysis directly. Both usage examples could provide new steps towards achieving self-\* properties for large scale computing infrastructures in the spirit of Autonomic Computing. In its current implementation, BiDAl is useful for batch analysis of historical log data, which is important for modeling and initial training of machine learning algorithms. However, live log data analysis is also of interest, so we are investigating the addition of an interface to streaming data sources to our platform. Future work also includes implementation of other storage systems, especially to include non-relational models. Improvement of the GUI and general user experience will also be pursued.
[10]{}
Salfner, F., Lenk, M., Malek, M.: . ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) **42**(3) (2010) 1–68
Thusoo, A., Shao, Z., Anthony, S., Borthakur, D., Jain, N., [Sen Sarma]{}, J., Murthy, R., Liu, H.: . Proceedings of the 2010 international conference on Management of data - SIGMOD ’10 (2010) 1013
Abraham, L., Allen, J., Barykin, O.: . Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment **6**(11) (2013) 1057–1067
Chen, Y., Alspaugh, S., Katz, R.H.: . Technical Report, University of California Berkeley **UCB/EECS-2** (2012)
Liu, Z., Cho, S.: . In: 8th International Workshop on Scheduling and Resource Management for Parallel and Distributed Systems (SRMPDS). (2012)
Reiss, C., Tumanov, A., Ganger, G.R., Katz, R.H., Kozuch, M.A.: . In: ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing (SoCC). (2012)
Javadi, B., Kondo, D., Iosup, A., Epema, D.: . Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing **73**(8) (2013)
Balliu, A., Olivetti, D., Babaoglu, O., Marzolla, M., Sîrbu, A.: Bidal source code (2014) Download from <http://cs.unibo.it/~sirbu/bidal.zip>.
Wilkes, J.: More [Google]{} cluster data. Google research blog (November 2011) [Posted at [http://googleresearch.blogspot.com/2011/11/more-google-cluster-data.htm%
l](http://googleresearch.blogspot.com/2011/11/more-google-cluster-data.htm%
l).]{}
: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. (2008) [ISBN]{} 3-900051-07-0.
Shvachko, K., Kuang, H., Radia, S., Chansler, R.: The hadoop distributed file system. In: Mass Storage Systems and Technologies (MSST), 2010 IEEE 26th Symposium on. (May 2010) 1–10
Dean, J., Ghemawat, S.: Mapreduce: A flexible data processing tool. Communications of the ACM **53**(1) (January 2010) 72–77
Reiss, C., Tumanov, A., Ganger, G.R., Katz, R.H., Kozuch, M.A.: . Carnegie Mellon University Technical Reports **ISTC-CC-TR**(12-101) (2012)
Di, S., Kondo, D., Cirne, W.: . In: International Conference on Cluster Computing (IEEE CLUSTER). (2012) 230–238
Kavulya, S., Tan, J., Gandhi, R., Narasimhan, P.: . In: 10th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Cluster, Cloud and Grid Computing. Number December (2010)
Chen, Y., Ganapathi, A., Griffith, R., Katz, R.: . 2011 IEEE 19th Annual International Symposium on Modelling, Analysis, and Simulation of Computer and Telecommunication Systems (July 2011) 390–399
Mishra, A.K., Hellerstein, J.L., Cirne, W., Das, C.R.: . Sigmetrics performance evaluation review **37**(4) (2010) 34–41
Wang, G., Butt, A.R., Monti, H., Gupta, K.: . In: 19th IEEE Annual International Symposium on Modelling, Analysis, and Simulation of Computer and Telecommunication Systems (MASCOTS). (2011) 400–408
Zhang, Q., Hellerstein, J.L., Boutaba, R.: . In: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Large Scale Distributed Systems and Middleware. (2011)
Sharma, B., Chudnovsky, V., Hellerstein, J.L., Rifaat, R., Das, C.R.: . In: 2nd ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing (SoCC). (2011) 3:1–3:14
Isard, M.: . ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review **41**(2) (2007) 60–67
Zhang, X., Tune, E., Hagmann, R., Jnagal, R., Gokhale, V., Wilkes, J.: . In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM European Conference on Computer Systems, ACM (2013) 379–391
[^1]: This is an author-generated version of a paper published and copyrighted by Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI). The copyright holder grants the authors the right to republish this work. Please cite as: Alkida Balliu, Dennis Olivetti, Ozalp Babaoglu, Moreno Marzolla, Alina Sîrbu, BiDAl: Big Data Analyzer for Cluster Traces, in E. Plödereder, L. Grunske, E. Schneider, D. Ull (editors), proc. *INFORMATIK 2014 Workshop on System Software Support for Big Data (BigSys 2014)*, September 25–26 2014, Stuttgart, Germany, Lecture Notes in Informatics (LNI) – Proceedings, Series of the Gesellschaft für Informatik (GI), Volume P-232, pp. 1781–1795, ISBN 978-3-88579-626-8, ISSN 1617-5468
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- János Kollár
title: |
Neighborhoods of subvarieties in\
homogeneous spaces
---
Let $X$ be an algebraic variety over ${{\mathbb C}}$ and $D\subset X$ a Euclidean open subset. It is interesting to find connections between the function theory or topology of $D$ and $X$. There is not much to say if $D$ is affine or Stein. By contrast, strong results are known if $D$ contains a positive dimensional, compact subvariety $Z$ with ample normal bundle:
- The field of meromorphic functions ${\mathcal Mer}(D)$ is a finite extension of the field of rational functions ${\mathcal Rat}(X)$. The proof, by [@MR0241433; @MR0232780], relies on cohomology vanishing for symmetric powers of the normal bundle of $Z$.
- The image of the natural map $\pi_1(D)\to \pi_1(X)$ has finite index in $\pi_1(X)$. More generally, for every Zariski open subset $X^0\subset X$, the image of the map $\pi_1(D\cap X^0)\to \pi_1(X^0)$ has finite index in $\pi_1(X^0)$. The proof, by [@nap-ram], uses $L^2$ $\bar\partial$-methods.
The isomorphism of these function fields and the surjectivity of the maps between the fundamental groups are subtler questions. ${\mathcal Mer}(D)={\mathcal Rat}(X)$ was proved for ${{\mathbb P}}^n$ [@MR0241433; @MR0251043] and for Grassmannians [@MR650388]. The surjectivity of the maps between the fundamental groups was established for neighborhoods of certain high degree rational curves in [@MR1786496; @MR2011744].
It was also observed by [@MR0241433] that if ${\mathcal Mer}(D)={\mathcal Rat}(X)$ for every $Z$ and $D$ then $X$ is simply connected, but the close connection between the two types of theorems was not fully appreciated.
I was lead to consider these topics while trying to answer some problems about non-classical flag domains raised by Griffiths and Toledo during the conference [*Hodge Theory and Classical Algebraic Geometry;*]{} see Question \[grt.ques\].
It turns out that the answer needs very few properties of non-classical flag domains. The natural setting is to study an arbitrary, simply connected, quasi projective, homogeneous space $X$, a proper subvariety $Z\subset X$ and a Euclidean open neighborhood $D\supset Z$. Theorem \[main.thm\] gives a complete description of those pairs $Z\subset X$ for which the holomorphic/meromorphic function theory of $D$ is determined by the regular/rational function theory of $X$. The precise connection is established through an understanding of the surjectivity of $\pi_1(D\cap X^0)\to \pi_1(X^0)$.
We allow $Z$ to be singular and with non-ample normal sheaf. A slight difference is that, while [@MR0241433; @MR0232780; @MR0251043] studied the formal completion of $X$ along $Z$, we work with actual open neighborhoods. In the ample normal bundle case the two versions are equivalent, but I am not sure that this also holds in general; cf. [@MR0206980].
The main tool is the study of chains made up of translates of $Z$ in $X$ and in $D$. In the projective case such techniques form the basis of the study of rationally connected varieties; see [@rc-book] for a detailed treatment or [@ar-ko] for more introductory lectures. For non-proper homogeneous spaces these ideas were used in [@MR1369412].
\[nondeg.defn\] Let $X=G/H$ be a simply connected, quasi projective, homogeneous space. The left action of $g\in G$ on $X$ is denoted by $\tau_g$; we call it a [*translation.*]{}
An irreducible subvariety $Z\subset X$ will be called [*degenerate*]{} if there is a subgroup $H\subset K\subset G$ such that $Z$ is contained in a fiber of the natural projection $p_K:G/H\to G/K$; otherwise we call $Z$ [*nondegenerate.*]{} (If $X$ is not simply connected, these notions should be modified; see Example \[H.disconn.exmp\].)
For example, if $X$ is a projective homogeneous space of Picard number 1 then every positive dimensional subvariety is nondegenerate. More generally, if the $X_i$ are projective homogeneous spaces of Picard number 1 then $Z\subset \prod X_i$ is nondegenerate iff none of the coordinate projections $Z\to X_i$ is constant.
Our main theorem is the following.
\[main.thm\] Let $G$ be a connected algebraic group over ${{\mathbb C}}$, $X=G/H$ a quasi projective, simply connected, homogeneous space and $Z\subset X$ a compact, irreducible subvariety. Let $D\subset X$ denote a sufficiently small Euclidean open neighborhood of $Z$. The following are equivalent.
(Finiteness conditions)
1. $H^0(D, {{\mathcal O}}_D)={{\mathbb C}}$.
2. $H^0(D, L)$ is finite dimensional for every line bundle $L$ on $D$.
3. $\dim H^0(D, L^m)=O\bigl(m^{\dim D}\bigr)$ for every line bundle $L$ on $D$.
4. $H^0(D, E)$ is finite dimensional for every coherent, torsion free sheaf $E$.
(Isomorphism conditions)
5. $H^0(D, L|_D)\cong H^0(X, L)$ for every line bundle $L$ on $X$.
6. $ H^0(D, F|_D)\cong H^0(X, F)$ for every coherent, reflexive sheaf $F$ on $X$.
7. ${\mathcal Mer}(D)={\mathcal Rat}(X)$.
8. The conditions [(1–7)]{} hold for every finite, étale cover $\tilde D\to D$.
(Fundamental group conditions on Zariski open subsets $X^0\subset X$)
9. $\pi_1\bigl(D\cap X^0\bigr)\to \pi_1\bigl(X^0\bigr)$ is surjective for every $X^0$.
10. $\pi_1\bigl(u_D^{-1}(X^0)\bigr)\to \pi_1\bigl(X^0\bigr)$ is surjective for every $X^0$ and every finite, étale cover $u_D:\tilde D\to D$.
11. $\pi_1\bigl(\tau_g(Z)\cap X^0\bigr)\to \pi_1\bigl(X^0\bigr)$ is surjective for every $X^0$ and general $g\in G$.
12. $\pi_1\bigl((\tau_g\circ u_Z)^{-1} (X^0)\bigr)\to \pi_1\bigl(X^0\bigr) $ is surjective for every $X^0$, every finite cover $u_Z:\tilde Z\to Z$ and general $g\in G$.
(Geometric characterizations of $Z$)
13. $Z\cap B\neq \emptyset$ for every nonzero divisor $B\subset X$.
14. For every $x_1, x_2\in X$ there is a connected subvariety $Z(x_1, x_2)\subset X$ containing them, whose irreducible components are translates of $Z$.
15. Same as [(14)]{} with at most $ 2\dim X$ irreducible components.
16. $Z$ is nondegenerate in $X$.
We will show that (\[main.thm\].13–16) $\Rightarrow$ (\[main.thm\].1–12) for every $D$. The precise conditions for the other implications vary. In all cases of (\[main.thm\].1–7), the space of global sections gets bigger as $D$ gets smaller. For (\[main.thm\].9–10) the relevant assumption is that $D$ retracts to $Z$, or that it is contained in a neighborhood that retracts to $Z$.
Many parts of Theorem \[main.thm\] work even if $X$ is not simply connected, but the deepest statements, (\[main.thm\].5–12) do not. In one of the most interesting cases, when $Z$ is a smooth, rational curve, there are simply connected neighborhoods $D\supset Z$. Thus $D\into X$ lifts to the universal cover $D\into \tilde X$, hence the function theory of $D$ is determined by $\tilde X$; the embedding $D\into X$ is just an accident.
The finite dimensionality statements (\[main.thm\].1–4) fit in the general framework of the papers [@MR0241433; @MR0232780; @MR0251043].
The isomorphism statements (\[main.thm\].5–7) are more subtle. They were known for ${{\mathbb P}}^n$ [@MR0241433; @MR0251043] and for Grassmannians [@MR650388]. In the terminology of [@MR0241433], property (\[main.thm\].7) is called the G3 condition. It has been investigated in many other cases, see [@MR0332788; @MR556311; @MR2555947; @MR2876923].
Condition (\[main.thm\].8) mixes together some obvious claims with some quite counter intuitive ones. If $v:D'\to D$ is a finite (possibly ramified) cover and $E'$ is a coherent, torsion free sheaf on $D'$ then $v_*E'$ is also a coherent, torsion free sheaf and $H^0(D', E')= H^0(D, v_*E')$. Thus (\[main.thm\].2–4) hold for $D'$ as well. By contrast, one would expect to find more sections and meromorphic functions on $\tilde D$. In particular, (\[main.thm\].8) implies that a nontrivial finite étale cover $\tilde D\to D$ is never embeddable into any algebraic variety. A weaker version of the Lefschetz–type properties (\[main.thm\].9–12), asserting finite index image instead of surjectivity, is roughly equivalent to the finiteness (\[main.thm\].2); see [@nap-ram]. The stronger variants are studied in the papers [@MR1786496; @MR2011744] when $Z$ is a rational curve. In (\[main.thm\].11–12) the adjective [*general*]{} means that the claim holds for all $g$ in a nonempty Zariski open subset $U(X^0)\subset G$ which depends on $X^0$. Earlier results gave (\[main.thm\].11) for sufficiently high degree curves only.
The stronger forms (\[main.thm\].10) and (\[main.thm\].12) may seem surprising at first since by taking étale covers, the groups $\pi_1\bigl( u_D^{-1} (X^0)\bigr)$ are getting smaller. However, $X$ itself is simply connected, thus all the fundamental group of $X^0$ comes from loops around $X\setminus X^0$, and such loops are preserved by étale covers of $D$.
Presumably (\[main.thm\].15) also holds with at most $ \dim X$ irreducible components or maybe with some even smaller linear function of $\dim X$.
If $X$ is projective, then the various projections $G/K\to G/H$ correspond to the faces of the cone of curves ${\overline{NE}({X})}$. Thus a curve $C\subset X$ is nondegenerate iff its homology class $[C]\in {\overline{NE}({X})}$ is an interior point.
Many of the conditions in Theorem \[main.thm\] are equivalent to each other under much more general conditions.
One key assumption for an arbitrary pair $Z\subset X$ is that the deformation theory of $Z$ in $X$ should be as rich as for homogeneous spaces. Under such conditions, the properties within any of the 4 groups tend to be equivalent to each other. However, I could not write down neat, general versions in all cases.
A rather subtle point is the role of the simple connectedness of $X$. While this is definitely needed, it seems more important to know that the stabilizer subgroup $H$ is connected.
The equivalence of the 4 groups to each other is more complicated and it depends on further properties. Even when $Z$ is a smooth rational curve with ample normal bundle, the conditions (\[main.thm\].5–12) are much stronger than (\[main.thm\].1–4). The latter case has been studied in the papers [@MR1369412; @MR1786496; @MR2011744; @MR2019976] and most of the arguments of this note have their origins in one of them.
[ ]{}
Assume that $Z\subset X$ is degenerate. Thus there is a subgroup $H\subset K\subset G$ such that $Z$ is contained in one of the fibers of $p_K:G/H\to G/K$.
Let $U\subset G/K$ be a small Stein neighborhood of the point $p_K(C)$. Then $p_K^{-1}(U)\subset X$ is an open neighborhood of $C$ with many holomorphic functions and (\[main.thm\].1–8) all fail for every neighborhood contained in $p_K^{-1}(U)$.
Similarly, if $U$ is contractible and $U\subset Y^0\subset G/K$ is Zariski open such that $\pi_1(Y^0)$ is infinite then (\[main.thm\].9–12) fail for every Zariski open subset of $p_K^{-1}(Y^0)$.
The preimage of a divisor $B_K\subset G/K$ shows that (\[main.thm\].13) fails and translates of $Z$ never connect points in different fibers of $p_K$.
Open problems {#open-problems .unnumbered}
-------------
[ ]{}
In connection with Theorem \[main.thm\] an interesting open problem is to understand which (non-proper) homogeneous spaces $X=G/H$ contain a proper, nondegenerate subvariety. Consider the following conditions.
- There is a projective compactification $\bar X\supset X$ such that $\bar X\setminus X$ has codimension $\geq 2$.
- $X$ contains a proper, nondegenerate subvariety.
- There is no subgroup $H\subset K\subsetneq G$ such that $G/K$ is quasi affine.
It is clear that each one implies the next. Based on [@MR1369412 Sec.6], one can ask the following.
Are the above 3 conditions equivalent for a homogeneous space?
If $X$ contains a proper, nondegenerate subvariety, does it contain a proper, nondegenerate, smooth, rational curve?
Applications to non-classical flag domains {#applications-to-non-classical-flag-domains .unnumbered}
------------------------------------------
[ ]{}
Our results can be used to study global sections of coherent sheaves over certain homogeneous complex manifolds. While traditionally most attention was devoted to compact homogeneous spaces and to Hermitian symmetric domains, other examples have also been studied [@MR0251246; @MR2188135]. The recent paper [@grt] studies the geometry of [*non-classical flag domains.*]{} Most period domains of Hodge structures are of this type. For our purposes the precise definition is not important, we need only two of their properties.
- A flag domain is an open subset of a projective homogeneous space.
- A non-classical flag domain contains a compact rational curve with ample normal bundle.
The first property is by definition while the second is one of the main results of [@grt]. They prove that a non-classical flag domain is rationally chain connected; that is, any two points are connected by a chain of compact rational curves contained in it. The existence of an irreducible rational curve with ample normal bundle follows from this by a standard smoothing argument [@rc-book II.7.6.1].
As a simple example, ${\mathrm{SU}}(n,1)\subset {\mathrm{GL}}(n+1)$ acts on ${{\mathbb P}}^n$ with two open orbits. One of them is the open unit ball in ${{\mathbb C}}^n$; an Hermitian symmetric domain. The other is the complement of the closed unit ball; it is a non-classical flag domain. We see right away that it contains many lines and in fact there is a conic through any two of its points.
The following questions were raised by Griffiths and Toledo.
\[grt.ques\] Let $X$ be a projective, homogeneous variety and $D\subset X$ a non-classical flag domain. Let $L_X$ be an (algebraic) line bundle on $X$ and $L_D$ an (analytic) line bundle on $D$.
1. Is $H^0(D, L_D)$ finite dimensional?
2. Is the restriction map $H^0(X,L_X)\to H^0(D,L_X|_D) $ an isomorphism?
3. Is ${\mathcal Mer}(D)={\mathcal Rat}(X)$?
Theorem \[main.thm\] answers these questions affirmatively.
We note that, by contrast, the two properties marked by $\circ$ are not sufficient to understand higher cohomology groups, not even $H^1(D, {{\mathcal O}}_D)$.
This paper grew out of my attempt to answer the above questions of P. Griffiths and D. Toledo. I also thank them for further helpful discussions and comments. Partial financial support was provided by the NSF under grant number DMS-07-58275.
Chains of subvarieties
======================
\[chains.say\] Let $X=G/H$ be a quasi projective, homogeneous space, $Z$ an irreducible variety and $u:Z\to X$ a morphism. For now we are interested in the case when $u:Z\into X$ is a subvariety, but in Section \[leff.sec\] we use the general setting.
A [*$Z$-chain*]{} on length $r$ in (or over) $X$ consists of
1. points $a_i, b_i\in Z$ for $i=1,\dots, r$ and
2. translations $\tau_i$ for $i=1,\dots, r$ such that
3. $\tau_i\bigl(u(b_i)\bigr)=\tau_{i+1}\bigl(u(a_{i+1})\bigr)$ for $i=1,\dots, r-1$.
The triple $(a_i, b_i, \tau_i)$ is a [*link*]{} of the chain. We also write it as $$\bigl(\tau_i\circ u: (Z, a_i, b_i)\to X\bigr).$$ We say that the chain [*starts*]{} at $\tau_1\bigl(u(a_{1})\bigr)\in X$ and [*ends*]{} at $\tau_r\bigl(u(b_r)\bigr)\in X$.
The points $a_i, b_i$ determine a connected, reducible variety $Z(a_1, b_1, \dots, a_r, b_r)$ obtained from $r$ disjoint copies $Z_1,\dots, Z_r$ of $Z$ by identifying $b_i\in Z_i$ with $a_{i+1}\in Z_{i+1}$ for $i=1,\dots, r-1$. The morphisms $\tau_i\circ u$ then define a morphism $$(\tau_1\circ u,\dots, \tau_r\circ u): Z(a_1, b_1, \dots, a_r, b_r)\to X.$$ Its image is a connected subvariety of $X$ that contains the starting and end points of the chain and whose irreducible components are translates of $u(Z)\subset X$. (For most purposes one can identify a chain with its image in $X$, but this would be slightly inconvenient when considering deformations of a trivial chain where $\tau_1=\cdots=\tau_r$. The difference becomes crucial only when we consider properties (\[main.thm\].10–12).)
The set of all chains of length $r$ is naturally an algebraic subvariety of $Z^{2r}\times G^r$. It is denoted by ${\operatorname{Chain}}(Z,r)$. We write ${\operatorname{Chain}}(Z,r,x)\subset {\operatorname{Chain}}(Z,r)$ to denote the subvariety of all chains starting at $x\in X$. Up to isomorphism ${\operatorname{Chain}}(Z,r,x)$ is independent of $x$.
The starting point (resp. the end point) gives a morphism $$\alpha, \beta: {\operatorname{Chain}}(Z,r)\to X.$$ Thus $\beta({\operatorname{Chain}}(Z,r,x)\bigr)\subset X$ is the set of points that can be connected to $x$ by a $Z$-chain of length $\leq r$.
Note that $\beta({\operatorname{Chain}}(Z,r,x)\bigr)\subset X$ is constructible; let $W_r(x)$ denote its closure. If there is a translate $\tau\bigl(u(Z)\bigr)$ that is not contained in $W_r(x)$ but whose intersection with $W_r(x)$ is nonempty, then, by translating $\tau\bigl(u(Z)\bigr)$ to nearby points we see that $\dim W_{r+1}(x)>\dim W_r(x)$; see [@rc-book 4.13].
Thus the sequence $W_1(x)\subset W_2(x)\subset \cdots$ stabilizes after at most $\dim X$ steps with an irreducible subvariety $W(x)$. Furthermore, if $x'\in W(x)$ then $W(x')\subset W(x)$ hence in fact $W(x')= W(x)$. Since $x$ and $x'$ can both be connected by a $Z$-chain of length $\leq \dim W(x)$ to points in a dense open subset of $W(x')= W(x)$, we see that $x$ and $x'$ are connected to each other by a $Z$-chain of length $\leq 2 \dim W(x)$.
Note also that if a $Z$-chain connects $x$ to $\tau_1(x)$ and another one connects $x$ to $\tau_2(x)$ then translating the second chain and concatenating gives a $Z$-chain that connects $x$ to $\tau_1\bigl(\tau_2(x)\bigr)$.
We can summarize these considerations as follows.
\[Z.chain.prop\] Let $X=G/H$ be a quasi projective, homogeneous space, $Z$ an irreducible variety and $u:Z\to X$ a morphism.
Then there is a subgroup $H\subset K\subset G$ such that two points $x_1, x_2\in X$ are connected by a $Z$-chain iff they are contained in the same fiber of the natural projection $p_K:G/H\to G/K$.
Furthermore, in this case $x_1, x_2\in X$ can be connected by a $Z$-chain of length $\leq 2(\dim K-\dim H)$.
Let $X$ be any homogeneous space under a group $G$ and $Z\subset X$ a compact, irreducible, nondegenerate subvariety. Thus the morphism $p_K:G/H\to G/K$ above is constant and Proposition \[Z.chain.prop\] implies both (\[main.thm\].14–15).
In order to see (\[main.thm\].13) let $B\subset X$ be a nonzero divisor. By (\[main.thm\].14) a suitable translate of $Z$ intersects $B$ but is not contained in it, so $\tau_g^*{{\mathcal O}}_X(B)|_Z$ has a nonconstant section. In particular, $\tau_g^*{{\mathcal O}}_X(B)|_Z$ is not in ${\operatorname{Pic}}^{\circ}(Z)$. Thus ${{\mathcal O}}_X(B)|_Z$ is also not in ${\operatorname{Pic}}^{\circ}(Z)$, hence it is not trivial. Therefore $Z\cap B\neq \emptyset$.
Let $X=G/H$ be a quasi projective homogeneous space and $Z\subset X$ a degenerate subvariety. Let $W\subset X$ be the fiber of $p_K:G/H\to G/K$ as in Proposition \[Z.chain.prop\] that contains $Z$. Then $I_W/I^2_W$ is a trivial bundle of rank $={\operatorname{codim}}_XW$, hence $$\oplus_i {{\mathcal O}}_Z\cong \bigl(I_W/I^2_W\bigr)|_Z\into
I_Z/I_Z^2$$ is a trivial subsheaf of rank $={\operatorname{codim}}_XW$. In particular, the normal sheaf of $Z\subset X$ is not ample in any sense.
Thus if $Z\subset X$ is a smooth (or local complete intersection) subvariety with ample normal bundle then $Z$ is nondegenerate.
The converse does not hold. For instance, a line in a quadric hypersurface of dimension $\geq 3$ is nondegenerate but its normal bundle has a trivial summand. More generally, if $X$ is a projective homogeneous space with Picard number 1 then a line (that is, a minimal degree rational curve) in $X$ has ample normal bundle iff $X={{\mathbb P}}^n$.
Proof of the finiteness conditions
==================================
\[chains.D.say\] Using the notation of Paragraph \[chains.say\], note that forgetting the last component of a chain gives a natural morphism ${\operatorname{Chain}}(Z,r+1,x)\to {\operatorname{Chain}}(Z,r,x)$ whose fibers are isomorphic to ${\operatorname{Chain}}(Z,1,x)$.
Furthermore, ${\operatorname{Chain}}(Z,1,x)\subset Z^2\times G$ and the fibers of the projection to $Z^2$ are translates of $H$. Thus if $H$ is connected then ${\operatorname{Chain}}(Z,1,x)$ is irreducible and so are the other varieties ${\operatorname{Chain}}(Z,r,x)$.
Let ${\operatorname{Chain}}^0(Z,n,x)\subset {\operatorname{Chain}}(Z,r,x)$ denote those chains for which $a_i, b_i\in Z$ (as in (\[chains.say\].1)) are smooth points. This is a Zariski open condition.
For an open subset $D\subset X$, let ${\operatorname{Chain}}^0(Z,D,r,x)\subset {\operatorname{Chain}}^0(Z,r,x)$ denote those chains whose image is contained in $D$. Clearly ${\operatorname{Chain}}^0(Z,D,r,x)\subset {\operatorname{Chain}}(Z,r,x)$ is open and nonempty if $x\in Z\subset D$ is a smooth point since it contains the constant chain where $a_i=b_i=x$ and $\tau_i=1$ for every $i$.
If $Z\subset X$ is nondegenerate then $\beta:{\operatorname{Chain}}^0(Z,r,x)\to X$ is dominant for $r\geq 2\dim X$ and a dominant morphism is generically smooth. Thus $\beta$ is also smooth at some point of ${\operatorname{Chain}}^0(Z,D,r,x)$. We have thus established the following.
\[cainms.in.D.lem\] Let $X=G/H$ be a quasi projective, homogeneous space with connected stabilizer $H$ and $Z\subset X$ a compact, irreducible, nondegenerate subvariety. Let $Z\subset D$ be an open neighborhood.
Then $\beta\bigl({\operatorname{Chain}}^0(Z,D,r,x)\bigr)$ contains a nonempty Euclidean open subset $U_r\subset D$ for $r\geq 2\dim X$.
The following example shows that connectedness of $H$ is quite important here.
\[H.disconn.exmp\] Let $X=S^2{{\mathbb P}}^2\setminus (\mbox{diagonal})$ with the diagonal ${\mathrm{GL}}_3$-action. Its universal cover is $\tilde X={{\mathbb P}}^2\times {{\mathbb P}}^2\setminus (\mbox{diagonal})$.
Let $C_1\subset \tilde X$ be a line contained in some ${{\mathbb P}}^2\times \{\mbox{point}\}$ and $C\subset X$ its image. The preimage of $C$ in $\tilde X$ is a disjoint union of a horizontal and of a vertical line. Thus $C$-chains (of length 4) connect any 2 points $X$, yet $C$ has an open neighborhood of the form $D\cong {{\mathbb P}}^1\times (\mbox{unit disc})$. Chains of compact curves in $D$ do not connect two general points.
In general, let $X$ be a homogeneous space and $\pi:\tilde X\to X$ its universal cover. If one (equivalently every) irreducible component of $\pi^{-1}(Z)$ is nondegenerate, then $Z$ has the good properties one expects based on the simply connected case, but not otherwise.
We use $Z$-chains in $D$ to prove that (\[main.thm\].16) $\Rightarrow$ (\[main.thm\].1–4). The following lemma, modeled on [@Nadel91 Thm.2], shows that a section that vanishes to high enough order at one point of a $Z$-chain will vanish at all points. If $Z$ is smooth, then one needs the semipositivity of the normal bundle $N_{Z,X}$; equivalently, the seminegativity of $I_Z/I_Z^2$ where $I_Z\subset {{\mathcal O}}_X$ is the ideal sheaf of $Z$. If $Z$ is singular, the seminegativity of $I_Z/I_Z^2$ alone does not seem to be enough, one needs control of the quotients $I_Z^{(m)}/I_Z^{(m+1)}$ of the symbolic powers; see Paragraphs \[symb.powers.defn\]–\[pos.nbhds.lem\] for details.
\[nadel.lem\] Let $D$ be a normal complex space, $Z_1,\dots, Z_n\subset D$ compact subvarieties, $L$ a line bundle on $D$ and $s\in H^0(D,L)$ a section. Assume the following.
1. For $j=1,\dots n$ there are smooth points $p_{j}\in Z_{j}$ such that $p_{j}\in Z_{j-1}$ for $j\geq 2$.
2. For $j=1,\dots n$ there is a family of irreducible curves $\{C_j(\lambda)\}$ passing through $p_j$ and covering a dense subset of $Z_j$ such that $\deg_{C_j(\lambda)}L\leq d_j$ for some $d_j\in {{\mathbb N}}$.
3. $I_{Z_j}^{(i)}/I_{Z_j}^{(i+1)}$ are subsheaves of a trivial sheaf $\oplus_m {{\mathcal O}}_{Z_j}$ for $i\geq 1$.
4. $s$ vanishes at $p_1$ to order $c+\sum_{j=1}^n d_j$.
Then $s$ vanishes along $Z_r$ to order $c+\sum_{j=r+1}^n d_j$ for every $r$.
Proof. We start with the case $i=1$ and write $Z:=Z_1$. Choose $q$ such that $$s\in H^0\bigl(D, I_Z^{(q)}\otimes L\bigr)\setminus
H^0\bigl(D, I_Z^{(q+1)}\otimes L\bigr).$$ Thus we get a nonzero section $$\bar s\in H^0\bigl(Z, \bigl(I_Z^{(q)}/I_Z^{(q+1)}\bigr)\otimes L\bigr),$$ which vanishes at $p=p_1$ to order $c+d_1-q$. Using assumption (3), we get at least 1 nonzero section $$\tilde s\in H^0\bigl(Z, {{\mathcal O}}_Z\otimes L\bigr)$$ that vanishes at $p=p_1$ to order $c+d_1-q$. Restricting this to the curves $C(\lambda)$ we see that $\tilde s$ is identically zero on $Z$, unless $q\geq c$.
Returning to the general case, we see that if $s$ vanishes at $p_1$ to order $c+\sum_{j=1}^n d_j$ then it vanishes along $Z_1$ to order $c+\sum_{j=2}^n d_j$, in particular, $s$ vanishes at $p_2$ to order $c+\sum_{j=2}^n d_j$. Repeating the argument for the shorter chain $Z_2+\cdots+Z_n$ completes the proof.
Let $X=G/H$ be a quasi projective, homogeneous space with connected stabilizer $H$, $Z\subset X$ a compact, irreducible, nondegenerate subvariety and $D\supset Z$ an open neighborhood. Pick a smooth point $x\in Z$.
Let $L$ be a line bundle on $D$ and $H$ a very ample line bundle on $Z$. Then $Z$ is covered by a family of irreducible curves $\{C(\lambda)\}$ passing through $x$ obtained as intersections of $\dim Z-1$ members of $|H|$. Set $d(L):=(L|_Z\cdot H^{\dim Z-1}\bigr)$.
We check in Lemma \[pos.nbhds.lem\] that $Z$ satisfies the crucial condition (\[nadel.lem\].3).
By Lemma \[cainms.in.D.lem\], for $r\geq 2\dim X$ there is an open subset $U_r\subset D$ whose points can be connected to $x$ by a $Z$-chain of length $r$ satisfying the assumptions (\[nadel.lem\].1–3).
Thus if a section $s\in H^0(D,L)$ vanishes at $x$ to order $1+rd(L)$ then it vanishes at every point of $U_r$. Since $U_r$ is open, this implies that $s$ is identically zero. This shows that $$\dim H^0(D,L)\leq \binom{\dim X+ 2\dim(X)d(L)}{\dim X},$$ which proves (\[main.thm\].2). Since $d(L^m)=md(L)$, we also have (\[main.thm\].3).
Since $H^0(D, {{\mathcal O}}_D)$ is a ${{\mathbb C}}$-algebra without zero divisors, $H^0(D, {{\mathcal O}}_D)={{\mathbb C}}$ is equivalent to $\dim H^0(D, {{\mathcal O}}_D)<\infty$.
Finally consider (\[main.thm\].4). We use induction on ${\operatorname{rank}}E$. If ${\operatorname{rank}}E=1$ then its double dual $E^{**}$ is a line bundle and $H^0(D,E)\subset H^0\bigl(D,E^{**}\bigr)$ shows that $H^0(D,E)$ is finite dimensional. In the higher rank case, we are done if $H^0(D,E)=0$. Otherwise there is a nontrivial map ${{\mathcal O}}_D\to E$ and thus a rank 1 subsheaf $E_1\subset E$ such that $E/E_1$ is again torsion free. Thus $h^0(D,E)\leq h^0(D,E_1)+h^0(D,E/E_1)$ and we are done by induction.
\[symb.powers.defn\] Let $X$ be a variety and $Z\subset X$ an irreducible, reduced subvariety with ideal sheaf $I_Z$. Let $T_m\subset {{\mathcal O}}_X/I_Z^m$ denote the largest subsheaf whose sections are supported on a smaller dimensional subset of $Z$. Let $I_Z^{(m)}\subset {{\mathcal O}}_X$ denote the preimage of $T_m$. It is called the $m$-th [*symbolic power*]{} of $I_Z$.
If $X$ is smooth and $Z$ is also smooth (or a local complete intersection) then $I_Z^{(m)}=I_Z^m$.
The main advantage of symbolic powers is that the quotients $I_Z^{(m)}/I_Z^{(m+1)}$ are torsion free sheaves on $Z$. There are also obvious maps $I_Z^m/I_Z^{m+1}\to I_Z^{(m)}/I_Z^{(m+1)}$ that are isomorphisms on a dense open subset.
\[pos.nbhds.lem\] Let $X$ be a homogeneous space and $Z\subset X$ a reduced subscheme. Then $I_Z^{(m)}/I_Z^{(m+1)}$ can be written as a subsheaf of $\oplus_i {{\mathcal O}}_Z$.
Proof. Let us start with the $m=1$ case. This is well known but going through it will show the path to the general case. Every tangent vector field $v\in H^0(X, T_X)\supset \operatorname{Lie}(G)$ gives a differentiation $d_v:{{\mathcal O}}_X\to {{\mathcal O}}_X$ which is not ${{\mathcal O}}_X$-linear. However, if $\phi\in {{\mathcal O}}_X$ and $s\in I_Z$ are local sections then $d_v(\phi\cdot s)=d_v(\phi)\cdot s + \phi\cdot d_v(s)$ shows that differentiation composed with restriction to $Z$ gives an ${{\mathcal O}}_X$-linear map $d_v: I_Z\to {{\mathcal O}}_Z$. Applying this for a basis of $ H^0(X, T_X)$ gives $I_Z/I_Z^{2}\to \oplus_i {{\mathcal O}}_Z$ whose kernel is supported at ${\operatorname{Sing}}Z$. By definition, $I_Z/I_Z^{(2)}$ has no sections supported on a nowhere dense subset. Thus we get an injection $I_Z/I_Z^{(2)}\into \oplus_i {{\mathcal O}}_Z$.
If $Z$ is smooth then $I_Z^{(m)}=I_Z^{m}$, thus we get the required $$I_Z^{(m)}/I_Z^{(m+1)}=S^m\bigl(I_Z/I_Z^{2}\bigr)
\into S^m\bigl(\oplus_i {{\mathcal O}}_Z\bigr).$$ However, in general we only have a map $$S^m\bigl(I_Z/I_Z^{2}\bigr)\to I_Z^{(m)}/I_Z^{(m+1)}$$ which is an isomorphism over the smooth locus. Thus $I_Z^{(m)}/I_Z^{(m+1)} $ is more positive than $S^m\bigl(I_Z/I_Z^{2}\bigr) $.
For $I_Z^{(m)}$ we work with $m$-th order differential operators $D=d_{v_1}\cdots d_{v_m}$. These give well defined maps of sheaves $D: I_Z^{(m)}\to {{\mathcal O}}_Z$. ${{\mathcal O}}_X$-linearity can be checked over the open set $X\setminus {\operatorname{Sing}}Z$.
To simplify notation, set $M:=\{1,\dots, m\}$ and for $J=\{j_1<\cdots<j_r\}\subset M$ write $D_J:=d_{v_{j_1}}\cdots d_{v_{j_r}}$. Leibnitz-rule then says that $$D(\phi\cdot s)={\textstyle{\sum}}_{J\subset M}\
D_J(\phi)\cdot D_{M\setminus J}(s).$$ If $|M\setminus J|<m$ and $s\in I_Z^{(m)}$ then $D_{M\setminus J}(s)|_Z$ vanishes on the open set $Z\setminus {\operatorname{Sing}}Z$, hence everywhere. The only term left is $D_{\emptyset}(\phi)\cdot D_{M}(s)=\phi\cdot D_{M}(s)$. Thus we get an ${{\mathcal O}}_X$-linear map $$d_{v_1}\cdots d_{v_m}: I_Z^{(m)}\to {{\mathcal O}}_Z.$$ By letting ${v_1},\dots, {v_m}$ run through a basis of $ H^0(X, T_X)^{m}$, we get the required injection $I_Z^{(m)}/I_Z^{(m+1)}\into \oplus_i {{\mathcal O}}_Z$.
Meromorphic and holomorphic sections
====================================
Here we show that property (\[main.thm\].7) and (\[main.thm\].13) imply (\[main.thm\].5–6) in general.
Let $X$ be a normal, quasi projective variety, and $D\subset X$ an open subset such that ${\mathcal Mer}(D)={\mathcal Rat}(X)$. The following are equivalent.
1. $X\setminus D$ does not contain any nonzero, effective divisors.
2. Let $L$ be an ample line bundle on $X$. Then, for every $m\in {{\mathbb N}}$, the restriction map $H^0(X,L^m)\to H^0(D,L^m|_D) $ is an isomorphism.
3. For every reflexive, coherent sheaf $F$ on $X$, the restriction map $H^0(X,F)\to H^0(D,F|_D) $ is an isomorphism.
Proof. Assume (1) and let $L$ be an ample line bundle on $X$ with at least one global section $s_X\neq 0$. Let $s_D$ be a global section of $L|_D$. Then $s_D/s_X$ is a meromorphic function on $D$, hence, by assumption, it extends to a rational function $r_X$ on $X$. Thus $r_Xs_X$ is a rational section of $L$ such that $(r_Xs_X)|_D=s_D$. Since $s_D$ is holomorphic, the polar set of $r_Xs_X$ must be disjoint from $D$. However, $D$ meets every divisor, so $r_Xs_X$ has to be a regular section of $L$.
Next we show (2) $\Rightarrow$ (3). Let $L$ be an ample line bundle on $X$. Then $F^*\otimes L^m$ is generated by global sections for $m\gg 1$. Thus we have an injection $j:F\into \oplus_i L^m$ of $F$ into a direct sum of many copies of $L^m$.
Since $H^0(D,F|_D)\subset\oplus_i H^0(D,L^m|_D)$, every global section $s_D$ of $F|_D $ is the restriction of a global section $s_X$ of $\oplus_i L^m$. We have two subsheaves $$F\subset \langle F, s_X\rangle \subset \oplus_i L^m$$ and they agree on $D$. Thus the support of the quotient $\langle F, s_X\rangle /F$ is disjoint from $D$. Since $D$ meets every divisor, the support of $\langle F_X, s_X\rangle /F_X$ has codimension $\geq 2$. Since $F$ is reflexive, this forces $\langle F_X, s_X\rangle =F$, hence $s_X\in H^0(X,F)$.
The converse (3) $\Rightarrow$ (2) is clear.
Finally we show (2) $\Rightarrow$ (1). Assuming the contrary, there is an effective divisor $B\subset X$ that is disjoint from $D$. Choose $m$ such that $L^m(B)$ is generated by global sections. Then $$H^0\bigl(X, L^m\bigr)\subsetneq H^0\bigl(X, L^m(B)\bigr)\into
H^0\bigl(D, L^m(B)|_D\bigr)=
H^0\bigl(D, L^m|_D\bigr)$$ contradicts (2).
Lefschetz property and meromorphic functions
============================================
Here we show that the Lefschetz–type property (\[main.thm\].9) and (\[main.thm\].3) imply (\[main.thm\].7) in general. Although we do not use it, it is worth noting that [@nap-ram] proves that (\[main.thm\].2) implies that the map in (\[main.thm\].9) has finite index image for every $X^0$.
First we show, using (\[main.thm\].3) that ${\mathcal Mer}(D)$ is an algebraic extension of ${\mathcal Rat}(X)$. Then we establish that having a meromorphic function on $D$ that is algebraic over ${\mathcal Rat}(X)$ is equivalent to a failure of (\[main.thm\].9).
[@MR0241433; @MR0232780] \[merom.thm\] Let $X$ be a normal, quasi projective variety of dimension $n$ and $D\subset X$ a Euclidean open subset. Assume that $h^0(D, L^m)=O\bigl(m^n\bigr)$ for every line bundle $L$ on $D$. Then ${\mathcal Mer}(D)$ is an algebraic extension of ${\mathcal Rat}(X)$.
Proof. Let $f_1,\dots, f_n$ be algebraically independent rational functions on $X$ and $\phi$ a meromorphic function on $D$. Let $B_1,\dots, B_n$ and $B_0$ be their divisors of poles. Consider the line bundle $$L:={{\mathcal O}}_D\bigl(B_1|_D+\cdots+ B_n|_D+B_0\bigr).$$ We can view $f_1|_D, \dots, f_n|_D$ and $\phi$ as sections of $L$. Thus the monomials $$\bigl\{\phi^{a_0}\cdot \textstyle{\prod}_i \bigl(f_i|_D\bigr)^{a_i} :
{\textstyle{\sum}}_{i=0}^n a_i=m\bigr\}$$ are all sections of $L^m$. The number of these monomials grows like $m^{n+1}$ while, by assumption, the dimension of $H^0(D,L^m_D) $ grows like $m^{n}$. Thus, for $m\gg 1$, the function $\phi$ satisfies a nontrivial identity $${\textstyle{\sum}}_{i=0}^m\ h_i\cdot \phi^i=0{\quad\mbox{where}\quad} h_i\in {\mathcal Rat}(X).\qed
$$
\[3.degs.same.prop\] Let $X$ be a normal, quasi projective variety and $D\subset X$ a Euclidean open subset. For every $d\in {{\mathbb N}}$ the following are equivalent.
1. There is a $\phi\in {\mathcal Mer}(D)$ such that $\deg \bigl[{\mathcal Rat}(X)(\phi):{\mathcal Rat}(X)\bigr]=d$.
2. There is an irreducible (possibly ramified) cover $\pi:\tilde X\to X$ of degree $d$ such that the injection $j:D\into X$ lifts to an injection $\tilde j:D\into \tilde X$.
3. There is a Zariski open subset $X^0\subset X$ such that $${\operatorname{im}}\bigl[\pi_1\bigl(D\cap X^0\bigr)\to \pi_1\bigl(X^0\bigr)\bigr]
\subset \pi_1\bigl(X^0\bigr)
{\quad\mbox{has index $d$.}\quad}$$
Proof. Let $\phi$ be a meromorphic function on $D$ that has degree $d$ over $ {\mathcal Rat}(X)$. Let $${\textstyle{\sum}}_{i=0}^d\ h_i\cdot \phi^i =0,
\eqno{(\ref{3.degs.same.prop}.4)}$$ be the minimal polynomial of $\phi$ where the $h_i$ are rational functions on $X$.
Let $\pi:\tilde X\to X$ be the normalization of $X$ in the field ${\mathcal Rat}(X)(\phi) $.
The key observation is that we can think of $\phi$ in two new ways: either as a rational function $\tilde \phi$ on $\tilde X$ or as a multi-valued algebraic function $\phi_X$ on $X$ whose restriction to $D$ contains a single-valued branch that agrees with $\phi$.
Since (\[3.degs.same.prop\].4) is irreducible over ${\mathcal Rat}(X)$, its discriminant is not identically zero, thus there is a dense, Zariski open subset $X^0\subset X$ such that $\pi$ is étale over $X^0$ and $\tilde \phi$ takes up different values at different points of $\pi^{-1}(x)$ for all $x\in X^0$. Thus the single valued branch $\phi$ of $\phi_X$ determines a lifting of the injection $$j^0:D\cap X^0\into X {\quad\mbox{to }\quad}\tilde j^0: D\cap X^0\into \tilde X.$$ This shows (3).
Since $\pi$ is finite, in suitable local coordinates we can view $\tilde j^0 $ as a bounded holomorphic function. Thus $\tilde j^0 $ extends to a lifting $\tilde j: D\into \tilde X$, hence (3) $\Rightarrow$ (2).
Conversely, it is clear that (2) $\Rightarrow$ (3). Furthermore, if (2) holds and $\psi$ is a rational function on $\tilde X$ that generates ${\mathcal Rat}(\tilde X)/{\mathcal Rat}(X)$ then $\psi\circ \tilde j$ is a meromorphic function on $D$ such that ${\mathcal Rat}(X)(\psi\circ \tilde j)={\mathcal Rat}(\tilde X)$, hence $\deg \bigl[{\mathcal Rat}(X)(\psi\circ \tilde j):{\mathcal Rat}(X)\bigr]=d$.
\[covers.of.D.say\] With the notation and assumptions of Proposition \[merom.thm\], let $v:\bar D\to D$ be a finite, possibly ramified, cover. Since ${\mathcal Mer}(\bar D)$ is an algebraic extension of ${\mathcal Mer}( D)$, (\[main.thm\].7) implies that ${\mathcal Mer}(\bar D)$ is an algebraic extension of ${\mathcal Rat}(X)$.
The assumption (\[main.thm\].10) says that $\pi_1\bigl(D\cap X^0\bigr)\to \pi_1\bigl(X^0\bigr)$ is surjective for every $X^0$, thus ${\mathcal Mer}(\bar D)={\mathcal Rat}(X)$ by Proposition \[3.degs.same.prop\].
Lefschetz–type properties {#leff.sec}
=========================
It is clear that (\[main.thm\].10) $\Rightarrow$ (\[main.thm\].9) and (\[main.thm\].12) $\Rightarrow$ (\[main.thm\].11).
Let $u_D:\tilde D\to D$ be a finite, étale cover. Those $g\in G$ for which $\tau_g(Z)\subset D$ form a Euclidean open subset of $G$, thus there are general translations (in the sense of (\[main.thm\].11–12)) such that $\tau_g(Z)\subset D$. There is a finite (étale) cover $u_z:\tilde Z\to Z$ such that $\tau_g\circ u_Z$ factors through $u_D$. This shows that (\[main.thm\].12) $\Rightarrow$ (\[main.thm\].10).
It remains to show that if $Z$ is nondegenerate then (\[main.thm\].12) holds. Thus let $u_Z:\tilde Z\to Z$ be a finite cover and $X^0\subset X$ a Zariski open subset. For this we use $\tilde Z$-chains in general position.
\[gen.pos.trans.say\] Let $m: G\times \tilde Z\to X$ be the $G$-action composed with $u_Z$. Every map between algebraic varieties is a locally topologically trivial fiber bundle over a Zariski open subset, cf. [@gm-book p.43]. Thus there is a Zariski open subset $G^0\subset G$ such that the first projection $\pi_G: G\times \tilde Z\to G$ restricts to a topologically trivial fiber bundle on $m^{-1}(X^0)$. We denote its fibers by $\tilde Z^0_g:=(\tau_g\circ u_Z)^{-1} (X^0)$. Marking a pair of smooth points has no significant effect topologically, thus the triples $\bigl(a, b, \tilde Z^0_g\bigr)$, where $a\neq b$ are smooth points of $\tilde Z^0_g $, are fibers of a topologically trivial fiber bundle over a Zariski open subset of $G^0\times \tilde Z^2$.
We say that $(a, b ,\tau_g)\in {\operatorname{Chain}}(\tilde Z,1,x)$ is in [*general position*]{} with respect to $X^0$ if $g\in G^0$, $a\neq b$ are smooth points of $Z$ and they are both mapped to $X^0$.
The set of all general position maps forms a Zariski open subset ${\operatorname{Chain}}^*(\tilde Z,1,x)\subset {\operatorname{Chain}}(\tilde Z,1,x)$ which is nonempty for general $x\in X$.
For us a key point is that the image of the induced map $$\Gamma(X^0,x)
:={\operatorname{im}}\bigl[\pi_1\bigl(\tilde Z^0_g, a\bigr)\to \pi_1\bigl( X^0, x\bigr)\bigr]
\subset \pi_1\bigl( X^0, x\bigr)
\eqno{(\ref{gen.pos.trans.say}.1)}$$ is independent of $(a, b, \tau_g)\in {\operatorname{Chain}}^*(\tilde Z,1,x)$ whenever the latter is nonempty.
We say that a $\tilde Z$-chain as in (\[chains.say\].1–3) is in [*general position*]{} with respect to $X^0$ if every link $(a_i, b_i, \tau_{g_i})$ is in general position.
As before, $\tilde Z$-chains in general position with respect to $X^0$ form a Zariski open subset ${\operatorname{Chain}}^*(\tilde Z,r,x)\subset {\operatorname{Chain}}(\tilde Z,r,x)$ which is nonempty for general $x\in X$.
Corresponding to $\Gamma(X^0,x)\subset \pi_1\bigl(X^0,x\bigr)$ as in (\[gen.pos.trans.say\].1) there is an étale cover $$\pi_X^0: \bigl(\tilde X^0, \tilde x\bigr)\to \bigl(X^0,x\bigr)
\eqno{(\ref{gen.pos.trans.say}.2)}$$ such that every general position map $\tau_g\circ u_Z: \bigl(\tilde Z^0_g,a\bigr)\to \bigl(X^0,x\bigr)$ lifts to $$\widetilde{\tau_g\circ u_Z}: \bigl(\tilde Z^0_g,a\bigr)\to
\bigl(\tilde X^0,\tilde x\bigr).
\eqno{(\ref{gen.pos.trans.say}.3)}$$ (We do not yet know that $\Gamma(X^0,x)$ has finite index, so $\tilde X^0\to X^0 $ could be an infinite degree cover.) Note further that (\[gen.pos.trans.say\].1) implies the following.
[*Claim*]{} \[gen.pos.trans.say\].4. Let $\tilde x'\in \tilde X^0$ be any preimage of a point $x'\in X^0$. Assume that $$\tau'\circ u_Z: \bigl(\tilde Z^0_g,a'\bigr)\to \bigl(X^0,x'\bigr)
{\quad\mbox{lifts to}\quad}
\widetilde{\tau'\circ u_Z}: \bigl(\tilde Z^0_g,a'\bigr)\to
\bigl(\tilde X^0,\tilde x'\bigr)$$ for some $(a', b', \tau')\in {\operatorname{Chain}}^*(\tilde Z,1,x')$. Then the lift exists for every $(a, b, \tau)\in {\operatorname{Chain}}^*(\tilde Z,1,x')$.
\[key.lift.prop.1\] Every $\tilde Z$-chain in general position with respect to $X^0$ and starting at $x$ lifts to a $\tilde Z$-chain on $\tilde X^0 $ starting at $\tilde x$.
Proof. A $\tilde Z$-chain is given by the data $(a_i, b_i, \tau_i)$. By the choice of $\Gamma(X^0,x)$, $$\tau_1\circ u_Z: (\tilde Z^0_1, a_1)\to (X, x_1)
{\quad\mbox{lifts to}\quad}
\widetilde{\tau_1\circ u_Z}: (\tilde Z^0_1, a_1)\to (\tilde X^0, \tilde x_1).$$ If we let $\tilde x_2$ denote the image of $b_1$ then we can view the latter map as $$\widetilde{\tau_1\circ u_Z}: (\tilde Z^0_1, b_1)\to (\tilde X^0, \tilde x_2).$$ Both $$\tau_1\circ u_Z: ( \tilde Z^0_1, b_1)\to (X, x_2){\quad\mbox{and}\quad}
\tau_2\circ u_Z: ( \tilde Z^0_2, a_2)\to (X, x_2)$$ are in general position with respect to $X^0$, thus by (\[gen.pos.trans.say\].4), if one of them lifts to $(\tilde X^0, \tilde x_2)$ then so does the other. This gives us $$\widetilde{\tau_2\circ u_Z}: (\tilde Z^0_2, a_2)\to (\tilde X^0, \tilde x_2).$$ We can iterate the argument to lift the whole chain.
For $r=2\dim X$, we thus get a lift of the end point map $$\beta_r: {\operatorname{Chain}}^*(\tilde Z,r,x)\to X^0
{\quad\mbox{to}\quad}
\tilde \beta_r: {\operatorname{Chain}}^*(\tilde Z,r,x)\to \tilde X^0.$$ Since $\beta_r$ is dominant, the induced map $\pi_1\bigl({\operatorname{Chain}}^*(\tilde Z,r,x)\bigr)\to \pi_1\bigl(X^0\bigr)$ has finite index image; cf. [@shaf-book 2.10]. Thus $ \tilde X^0$ is a finite degree cover of $X^0$ and so it uniquely extends to a finite ramified cover $\pi_X:\tilde X\to X$ where $\tilde X$ is normal.
If $\tilde X= X$ then $\Gamma(X^0,x)=\pi_1\bigl( X^0, x\bigr)$, thus $\pi_1\bigl(\tilde Z^0_g, a\bigr)\to \pi_1\bigl( X^0, x\bigr)$ is surjective. This proves (\[main.thm\].12).
All that remains is to derive a contradiction if $\tilde X\neq X$. Since $X$ is simply connected, in this case $\tilde X\to X$ has a nonempty branch divisor $B\subset X$. We use the branch divisor to show that some chains do not lift, thereby arriving at a contradiction.
\[key.lift.prop.2\] If $\tilde X\neq X$ then there is a $\tilde Z$-chain in general position with respect to $X^0$ and starting at $x$ that does not lift to a $\tilde Z$-chain on $\tilde X^0 $ starting at $\tilde x$.
Proof. Set $d:=\deg \tilde X/ X$. Let $\tau_{r+1}\circ u_Z: \tilde Z\to X$ be a general translate whose image intersects the branch divisor $B$ generically transversally; that is, the scheme theoretic inverse image $(\tau_{r+1}\circ u_Z)^{-1}(B)\subset \tilde Z $ is a reduced divisor. Then the pull-back $$\tilde Z\times_X\tilde X\to \tilde Z$$ is a degree $d$ cover that ramifies over at least 1 smooth point of $\tilde Z$. The cover need not be connected or normal, but, due to the ramification, it can not be a union of $d$ trivial covers $\tilde Z\cong \tilde Z$.
Let $a\in \tilde Z$ be a general smooth point and $\tilde a_1,\dots, \tilde a_d$ its preimages. Thus, for at least one $\tilde a_i$, the identity map $( \tilde Z, a)\to (\tilde Z, a)$ can not be lifted to $( \tilde Z, a)\to\bigl( \tilde Z\times_X\tilde X, \tilde a_i\bigr)$. Thus if $x\in X$ is the image of $a$ and $\tilde x_1,\dots, \tilde x_d\in \tilde X$ its preimages, then for at least one $\tilde x_i$, the map $\tau_{r+1}\circ u_Z$ can not be lifted to $$\widetilde{\tau_{r+1}\circ u_Z}:( \tilde Z, a)\not\to
\bigl( \tilde X, \tilde a_i\bigr).$$ Consider now the dominant map $\tilde \beta_r: {\operatorname{Chain}}^*(\tilde Z,r,x)\to \tilde X^0$ and let $X^*\subset X^0$ be a Zariski open subset such that $\pi_X^{-1}(X^*)\subset {\operatorname{im}}\tilde \beta_r$. By choosing the above $\tau_{r+1}\circ u_Z: \tilde Z\to X$ generally, we may assume that there is a smooth point $a_{r+1}\in Z$ such that $x^*:=(\tau_{r+1}\circ u_Z)(a_{r+1})\in X^*$.
Thus, for every $\tilde x^*_i\in \pi_X^{-1}(x^*)$ there is a $\tilde Z$-chain of length $r$ whose lift to $\tilde X$ connects $\tilde x$ and $\tilde x^*_i$. We can add $\tau_{r+1}\circ u_Z: \bigl(\tilde Z, a_{r+1}, b_{r+1}\bigr)\to X$ as the last link of any of these chains. Thus we get $d$ different $\tilde Z$-chains of length $r+1$ and at least one of the can not be lifted to $\tilde X$.
This completes the proof of the last implication (\[main.thm\].16) $\Rightarrow$ (\[main.thm\].12).
\#1[0=]{} \#1[0=]{} \[2\][ [\#2](http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=#1) ]{} \[2\][\#2]{}
[FHW06]{}
Carolina Araujo and J[á]{}nos Koll[á]{}r, *Rational curves on varieties*, Higher dimensional varieties and rational points ([B]{}udapest, 2001), Bolyai Soc. Math. Stud., vol. 12, Springer, Berlin, 2003, pp. 13–68.
Lucian B[ă]{}descu, *On a connectedness theorem of [D]{}ebarre*, Interactions of classical and numerical algebraic geometry, Contemp. Math., vol. 496, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2009, pp. 11–20.
Fr[é]{}d[é]{}ric Bien, Armand Borel, and J[á]{}nos Koll[á]{}r, *Rationally connected homogeneous spaces*, Invent. Math. **124** (1996), no. 1-3, 103–127.
Ari Babakhanian and Heisuke Hironaka, *Formal functions over [G]{}rassmannians*, Illinois J. Math. **26** (1982), no. 2, 201–211.
Jorge Caravantes, *Bertini-type theorems for formal functions in [G]{}rassmannians*, Rev. Mat. Complut. **25** (2012), no. 1, 157–163.
Gerd Faltings, *A contribution to the theory of formal meromorphic functions*, Nagoya Math. J. **77** (1980), 99–106.
Gregor Fels, Alan Huckleberry, and Joseph A. Wolf, *Cycle spaces of flag domains*, Progress in Mathematics, vol. 245, Birkhäuser Boston Inc., Boston, MA, 2006, A complex geometric viewpoint.
Mark Goresky and Robert MacPherson, *Stratified [M]{}orse theory*, Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete (3), vol. 14, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1988.
Phillip A. Griffiths, *The extension problem in complex analysis. [II]{}. [E]{}mbeddings with positive normal bundle*, Amer. J. Math. **88** (1966), 366–446.
P. [Griffiths]{}, C. [Robles]{}, and D. [Toledo]{}, *[Quotients of non-classical flag domains are not algebraic]{}*, ArXiv e-prints (2013).
Robin Hartshorne, *Cohomological dimension of algebraic varieties*, Ann. of Math. (2) **88** (1968), 403–450.
Heisuke Hironaka, *On some formal imbeddings*, Illinois J. Math. **12** (1968), 587–602.
Heisuke Hironaka and Hideyuki Matsumura, *Formal functions and formal embeddings*, J. Math. Soc. Japan **20** (1968), 52–82.
J[á]{}nos Koll[á]{}r, *Shafarevich maps and automorphic forms*, M. B. Porter Lectures, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1995.
, *Rational curves on algebraic varieties*, Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete. 3. Folge., vol. 32, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1996.
, *Fundamental groups of rationally connected varieties*, Michigan Math. J. **48** (2000), 359–368, Dedicated to William Fulton on the occasion of his 60th birthday.
, *Rationally connected varieties and fundamental groups*, Higher dimensional varieties and rational points (Budapest, 2001), Bolyai Soc. Math. Stud., vol. 12, Springer, Berlin, 2003, pp. 69–92.
J[á]{}nos Koll[á]{}r and Endre Szab[ó]{}, *Rationally connected varieties over f[i]{}nite f[i]{}elds*, Duke Math. J. **120** (2003), no. 2, 251–267.
Alan Michael Nadel, *The boundedness of degree of [F]{}ano varieties with [P]{}icard number one*, J. Amer. Math. Soc. **4** (1991), no. 4, 681–692.
Terrence Napier and Mohan Ramachandran, *The [$L^2\ \overline
\partial$]{}-method, weak [L]{}efschetz theorems, and the topology of [K]{}ähler manifolds*, J. Amer. Math. Soc. **11** (1998), no. 2, 375–396.
Robert Speiser, *Cohomological dimension of non-complete hypersurfaces*, Invent. Math. **21** (1973), 143–150.
Joseph A. Wolf, *The action of a real semisimple group on a complex flag manifold. [I]{}. [O]{}rbit structure and holomorphic arc components*, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. **75** (1969), 1121–1237.
Princeton University, Princeton NJ 08544-1000
[email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Within the solid-on-solid (SOS) approximation, we carry out a calculation of the orientational dependence of the step stiffness on a square lattice with nearest and next-nearest neighbor interactions. At low temperature our result reduces to a simple, transparent expression. The effect of the strongest trio (three-site, non pairwise) interaction can easily be incorporated by modifying the interpretation of the two pairwise energies. The work is motivated by a calculation based on nearest neighbors that underestimates the stiffness by a factor of 4 in directions away from close-packed directions, and a subsequent estimate of the stiffness in the two high-symmetry directions alone that suggested that inclusion of next-nearest-neighbor attractions could fully explain the discrepancy. As in these earlier papers, the discussion focuses on Cu(001).'
author:
- 'T. J. Stasevich'
- 'T. L. Einstein'
- 'R. K. P. Zia'
- 'M. Giesen'
- 'H. Ibach'
- 'F. Szalma'
title: ' The Effects of Next-Nearest-Neighbor Interactions on the Orientation Dependence of Step Stiffness: Reconciling Theory with Experiment for Cu(001) '
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
At the nano-scale, steps play a crucial role in the dynamics of surfaces. Understanding step behavior is therefore essential before nano-structures can be self-assembled and controlled. In turn, step stiffness plays a central role in our understanding of how steps respond to fluctuations and driving forces. It is one of the three parameters of the step-continuum model,[@JW] which has proved a powerful way to describe step behavior on a coarse-grained level, without recourse to a myriad of microscopic energies and rates. As the inertial term, stiffness determines how a step responds to interactions with other steps, to atomistic mass-transport processes, and to external driving forces. Accordingly, a thorough understanding of stiffness and its consequences is crucial.
The step stiffness $\tilde{\beta}$ weights deviations from straightness in the step Hamiltonian. Thus, it varies inversely with the step diffusivity, which measures the degree of wandering of a step perpendicular to its mean direction. This diffusivity can be readily written down in terms of the energies $\varepsilon_k$ of kinks along steps with a mean orientation along close-packed directions ($\langle 110 \rangle$ for an fcc (001) surface): in this case, all kinks are thermally excited. Conversely, experimental measurements of the low-temperature diffusivity (via the scale factor of the spatial correlation function) can be used to deduce the kink energy. A more subtle question is how this stiffness depends on the azimuthal misorientation angle, conventionally called $\theta$ and measured from the close-packed direction. In contrast to $\theta=0$ steps, even for temperatures much below $\varepsilon_k$, there are always a non-vanishing number of kinks, the density of which are fixed by geometry (and so are proportional to $\tan \theta$). In a bond-counting model, the energetic portion of the step free energy per length (or, equivalently, the line tension, since the surface is maintained at constant \[zero\] charge[@IS]) $\beta(\theta)$ is cancelled by its second derivative with respect to $\theta$, so that the stiffness is due to the entropy contribution alone. Away from close-packed directions, this entropy can be determined by simple combinatoric factors at low temperature $T$.[@rottman; @avron; @Cahn]
Interest in this whole issue has been piqued by the recent finding by Dieluweit [*et al.*]{} [@dieluweit02] that the stiffness as predicted in the above fashion, assuming that only nearest-neighbor (NN) interactions $\epsilon_1$ are important, underestimates the values for Cu(001) derived from two independent types of experiments: direct measurement of the diffusivity on vicinal Cu surfaces with various tilts and examination of the shape of (single-layer) islands. The agreement of the two types of measurements assures that the underestimate is not an anomaly due to step-step interactions. In that work, the effect of next-nearest-neighbor (NNN) interactions $\epsilon_2$ was crudely estimated by examining a general formula obtained by Akutsu and Akutsu,[@AA] showing a correction of order $\exp(-\epsilon_2/k_BT)$, which was glibly deemed to be insignificant. In subsequent work the Twente group [@ZP1] considered steps in just the two principal directions and showed that if one included an attractive NNN interaction, one could evaluate the step free energies and obtain a ratio consistent with the experimental results in Ref. . This group later extended their calculations[@ZP2] to examine the stiffness.
To make contact with experiment, one typically first gauges the diffusivity along a close-packed direction and from it extracts the ratio of the elementary kink energy $\varepsilon_k$ to $T$. Arguably the least ambiguous way to relate $\varepsilon_k$ to bonds in a lattice gas model is to extract an atom from the edge and place it alongside the step well away from the new unit indentation, thereby creating four kinks.[@nelson] The removal of the step atom costs energy $3\epsilon_1\! +\! 2\epsilon_2$ while its replacement next to the step recoups $\epsilon_1\! +\! 2\epsilon_2$. Thus, whether or not there are NNN interactions, we identify $\varepsilon_k \! =\! -\scriptstyle{\frac{1}{2}}\textstyle\epsilon_1 \! =\! \scriptstyle{\frac{1}{2}}\textstyle|\epsilon_1|$ (since the formation of Cu islands implies $\epsilon_1 \! <\! 0$); thus, as necessary, $\varepsilon_k \! >\! 0$. Note that for clarity we reserve the character $\epsilon$ for lattice-gas energies,[@LG] which are deduced by fitting this model to energies which can be measured, such as $\varepsilon_k$.
The goal of this paper is to compute the step line tension $\beta$ and the stiffness $\tilde{\beta}$ as functions of azimuthal misorientation $\theta$, when NNN (in addition to NN) interactions contribute. Since it is difficult to generalize the low-temperature expansion of the Ising model,[@rottman; @avron] we instead study the SOS (solid-on-solid) model, which behaves very similarly at low temperatures and at azimuthal misorientations that are not too large, but can be analyzed exactly even with NNN interactions. This derivation is described in Section II, with most of the calculational details placed in the Appendix. In Section III we derive a simple expression for the stiffness in the low-temperature limit, presented in Eq. (\[eq:nnnstiffness\]). We also make contact with parameters relevant to Cu(001), for which this limit is appropriate. In Section IV we extend the formalism to encompass the presumably-strongest trio (3-atom, non-pairwise) interaction, showing that its effect can be taken into account by shifting the pair energies in the preceding work. The final section offers discussion and conclusions.
NNN SOS Model on a Square Lattice
=================================
Including NNN interactions in the low-temperature expansion of the square-lattice Ising model lifts the remarkable degeneracy of the model with just NN bonds. In that simple case, the energy of a path depends solely on the number of NN links, independent of the arrangement of kinks along it; thus, the energy of the ground state is proportional to the number of NN links of the shortest path between two points, and the entropy is related to the number of combinations of horizontal and vertical links that can connect the points.[@rottman; @Cahn] Including NNN interactions causes the step energy to become a function of both the length of the step and the number of its kinks, eliminating the simple path-counting result.[@Cahn] It can then become energetically favorable for the step to lengthen rather than add another kink. This causes the NN energy levels to split in a non-trivial way, making it possible for a longer step to have a lower energy than a shorter step. A related complication is that the expansion itself depends on the relative strength of the NNN-interaction: Instead of an expansion just in terms of $\exp(-|\epsilon_1|/k_BT)$, the expansion also is in terms of $\exp(\epsilon_2 /2k_BT)$. Hence, to take the NNN-expansion to the same order of magnitude as the NN-expansion, an unspecified number of terms is required, depending on the size of the ratio $\epsilon_2/\epsilon_1$.
Since the NNN Ising model cannot be solved exactly and we cannot generalize the low-$T$ expansion, we turn to an SOS model, which was used in earlier examinations of step problems, most notably in the seminal work of Burton, Cabrera, and Frank,[@BCF] and later used for steps of arbitrary orientation by Leamy, Gilmer, and Jackson.[@Leamy] It was also applied to an interface of arbitrary orientation in a square-lattice Ising model.[@Burk]
Although the SOS model can be treated exactly, the result is somewhat unwieldy. Fortunately, at low temperature—the appropriate regime for the experiments under consideration—the solution reduces to a simple expression.
Description of Model
--------------------
Consider a step edge of projected length $L$ separating an upper adatom-free region from a lower adatom-filled region (see Fig. \[fig:nnnbonds\]).
{width="8"}
[\[fig:nnnbonds\]]{}
The step edge is completely described by specifying its height $y_i$ at position $i$ ($0 \leq i \leq L$). The energy of the step edge depends on the number of broken bonds required to form it. Let $V$ and $H$ represent the vertical and horizontal NN bond strengths divided by $k_B T$, and let $U$ and $D$ represent up-diagonal and down-diagonal NNN bond strengths over $k_B T$. Then the step-edge energy $E \equiv E(\{\Delta_i\})$ depends only on $\Delta_i \equiv y_i-y_{i-1}$.
For clarity, we consider two examples. First, if $\Delta_i=3$ (as is the case between columns a and b in Fig. \[fig:nnnbonds\]), then between positions $i$ and $i+1$ there are $3$ broken $H$-links, $2$ broken $U$-links, and $4$ broken $D$-links. There are also $2$ broken $V$-links, but this number is independent of $\Delta_i$, since every step-edge configuration of projected length $L$ requires exactly $L$ broken $V$-links. Similarly, if $\Delta_i=-3$ (as is the case between columns c and d in Fig. \[fig:nnnbonds\]), then there would be the same number of broken $H$-links, but there would now be $4$ broken $U$-links and $2$ broken $D$-links (that is, the number of broken $U$ and $D$ links switch from the previous case). From these examples we see that, in general, there are $\left| \Delta_i \right|$ broken $H$-links, $\left| \Delta_i - 1 \right|$ broken $U$-links, and $\left| \Delta_i +1 \right|$ broken $D$-links. It therefore follows that the step-edge energy is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:interfaceEnergy}
\frac{E(\{\Delta_i\})}{k_B T} &=&
\sum_{i=1}^L \Big(V + H\left| \Delta_i \right| + U\left| \Delta_i\! - \! 1\right| \nonumber + D\left| \Delta_i \! + \! 1\right| \Big)\\
&\equiv&
\sum_{i=1}^L K(\Delta_i).\end{aligned}$$
Because we seek the orientation dependence of $\beta$ and $\tilde{\beta}$, we constrain the step to have an overall offset $Y \equiv y_L - y_0 \equiv L \tan \theta = \sum_{i=1}^L \Delta_i$. (This constraint is represented in Fig. \[fig:nnnbonds\] by the shaded gray area. Equivalently, we specify that the overall slope of the step is $m \equiv \tan \theta$.) The constrained partition function is therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:partfunction}
Z\left( Y\right) \equiv \sum_{\left\{ \Delta \right\} }\delta \left[
Y-\sum_{i=1}^L\Delta _i\right] e^{-E(\{\Delta_i\})/k_B T},\end{aligned}$$ where $\{\Delta\}$ is the set of all $\Delta_i$ each of which ranges over all integers. From $Z(Y)$ we can find the orientation dependence of the free energy $F(Y) = -k_B T \ln Z(Y)$, the [*projected*]{} free energy per length $f(m) = F(Y)/L$, and the line tension (or free energy per length) $\beta(\theta) = f(m)\cos \theta$ (since the step length is $L/ \cos \theta$); thence, we can find the stiffness $\tilde{\beta}(\theta) =\beta (\theta )+
\partial^2\beta (\theta )/\partial \theta ^2$.
For future reference, note that the process of extracting an atom from the step-edge and replacing it alongside the edge, discussed in the penultimate paragraph of the introduction, creates two pairs of $\Delta \! =\! +1$ and $\Delta \! =\! -1$, costing $4H$ according to Eq. (\[eq:interfaceEnergy\]) and removing a net of 2 NN bonds, so that $H \! =\! -\epsilon_1/2k_BT\! =\! \varepsilon_k/k_BT$. Similarly, we compare the energies of two NN atoms, abutting \[the lower side of\] a step edge ($\{\Delta_{i}\} \! =\! 0$) at $i_0$ and either parallel or perpendicular to the edge. In the first case, $\Delta_{i_0} \! =\! +1$ and $\Delta_{i_0+2} \! =\! -1$, with an added energy of $2H + 2(U\! +\!D)$ according to Eq. (\[eq:interfaceEnergy\]). In the perpendicular case $\Delta_{i_0} \! =\! +2$ and $\Delta_{i_0+1} \! =\! -2$, implying an added energy of $4H + 4(U\! +\!D)$. Counting bonds we see that the parallel configuration has one more $\epsilon_1$ bond and two more $\epsilon_2$ bonds than the perpendicular configuration. Invoking $H \! =\! -\epsilon_1/2k_BT$, we see that $U\! +\!D \! =\! -\epsilon_2/k_BT$; if $U\! =\!D$, then $D \! =\! -\epsilon_2/2k_BT$. The factor-of-2 difference between broken links in Eq. (\[eq:interfaceEnergy\]) and broken bonds was noted (for H links) already in the classic exposition by Leamy et al.[@Leamy] An alternate argument, presented over a decade ago,[@ZELD] for this factor of 2 is that the ragged edge is created by severing bonds along the selected path through an infinite square. This leads to the formation of two complementary irregular boundary layers (with opposite values of $\{\Delta_{i}\}$, so that the associated energy of each is half that of the broken bonds (at least when $U\! =\!D$).
Evaluation of the Free Energy
-----------------------------
As detailed in the first part of the Appendix, the sum in the Fourier transform of $Z(Y)$, which we denote by $W(\mu )$, factorizes. Thus, it can be written as $$W(\mu )=\exp \left[ -Lg(i\mu )/k_BT\right] ,$$ where $g(i\mu )$ is the reduced Gibbs free energy per column. To evaluate the inverse transform, we exploit the saddle point method and obtain (see Appendix for details)
$$Z(Y)\approx \exp \left[ -L\left( \rho _0\tan \theta +\frac{g(\rho _0)}{k_BT}%
\right) \right] , \label{eq:ZtoWapproximation}$$
where the saddle point ($\mu_0 =$ $-i\rho _0$) is defined implicitly by the stationarity condition $$-\frac{g^{\prime }(\rho _0)}{k_BT}=m\equiv \tan \theta .
\label{eq:saddlerho}$$ Here, prime (as in $g^{\prime }$) denotes a derivative with respect to $\rho $. This result can be regarded as applying a “torque” to the step to produce a rotation $\theta =\tan ^{-1}m$ from the minimum-energy, close-packed orientation.[@Leamy]
Taking the logarithm of Eq. (\[eq:ZtoWapproximation\]), we find the projected free energy per column $f(m)$ as a Legendre transform of the reduced Gibbs free energy per column $g(\rho _0)$: $$\frac{f(m)}{k_BT}\approx \rho _0m+\frac{g(\rho _0)}{k_BT}. \label{eq:ftog}$$ Note that this expression is valid only for $L\gg 1$; for finite-sized systems, corrections are required. As standard for Legendre transforms,[@KSK] we have $$\frac{\ddot{f}(m)}{k_BT}=-\frac{k_BT}{g^{\prime \prime }(\rho _0)},$$ where $\ddot{f}\equiv \partial^2 f/\partial m^2$. Using $\beta (\theta)a=f(m )\cos
\theta $ and $m=\tan \theta $, with $a$ the lattice constant of the square (i.e., the column spacing, which is $(1/\sqrt{2})$ the conventional fcc lattice constant), we can rewrite the stiffness as $$\tilde{\beta}(\theta)a=\ddot{f}(m)/\cos ^3\theta , \label{fstiff}$$ or, similar to results by Bartelt *et al*.,[@BEW] $$\frac{k_BT}{\tilde{\beta}(\theta )a}=-\frac{g^{\prime \prime }(\rho _0)}{k_BT}%
\cos ^3\theta . \label{eq:gtostiffrho}$$ Thus, we only need $g^{\prime \prime }(\rho )$ to find the stiffness as a function of $m$ or $\theta $.
Of course, $\rho _0$ in $g^{\prime \prime }$ must be eliminated in favor of $%
m$ via Eq. (\[eq:saddlerho\]). The details for the general case are somewhat involved. Here, we simplify to the physically relevant case of $U=D$ and, defining $S\equiv H+U+D=H+2D$, just quote the results: $$\frac{g^{\prime \prime }\left( \rho _0\right) }{k_BT}=-m\left[ \ \frac{%
2\sinh \rho _0}{C(S,\rho_0)}+\coth \rho _0\right] \ +m^2
\label{eq:ddgfinal}$$ where $C(S,\rho_0) \equiv \cosh S -\cosh \rho_0$ and $\rho _0(m)$ is found by inverting $$\hspace{-.3in}m=\frac{\sinh \rho _0\sinh S}{C(S,\rho_0)\left[ \sinh S-C(S,\rho_0) \left( 1-e^{-2D}\right) \right] }.
\label{eq:rhotom}$$ Some details can be found in the Appendix. Since Eq. (\[eq:rhotom\]) is a quartic equation for $\cosh \rho _0$ or $e^{\rho _0}$, the explicit expression for $\rho _0(m)$ is rather opaque. However, at low-temperatures, a simpler formula emerges, as shown in the next section.
Low-T Solution: Simple Expression
=================================
At low temperatures, we find that the appropriate root for $\rho _0$ diverges. Then we can write $\cosh \rho _0\approx \sinh \rho _0\approx
e^{\rho _0}/2$. Of course, $H\propto 1/T$ so that $\cosh S\approx e^S/2$. With these approximations, Eq. (\[eq:rhotom\]) becomes quadratic in $%
e^{\rho _0}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lowT}
m = \frac{ e^{\rho_0 + S} }{(e^S-e^{\rho_0})[e^S-(e^S-e^{\rho_0})(1-e^{-2 D})]}\end{aligned}$$ Likewise, the expression for $g^{\prime \prime}(\rho_0)$, Eq. (\[eq:ddgfinal\]), becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lowTddg}
\frac{g^{\prime \prime }\left( \rho_0 \right)}{k_B T}
&=&-m \left[\ \frac{2 e^{\rho_0}}{(e^S - e^{\rho_0})} + 1 \right]\ + m^2.\end{aligned}$$ Solving for $e^{\rho_0}$ in Eq. (\[eq:lowT\]) and inserting the solution into Eq. (\[eq:lowTddg\]) gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ddglowt}
\frac{g^{\prime \prime }\left( \rho_0\right)}{k_B T}
&=&-m \sqrt{(1 - m)^2 + 4 m e^{-2D}}.\end{aligned}$$ so that, from Eq. (\[eq:gtostiffrho\]), and recalling $D \! =\! -\epsilon_2/2k_BT$, we arrive at our [*main result*]{}, a simple, algebraic expression for $\tilde{\beta}$ as a function of $m$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:nnnstiffness}
\frac{k_B T}{\tilde{\beta}a} = \frac{m \sqrt{(1-m)^2 + 4me^{\epsilon_2/k_BT}}}
{( 1 + m^2 )^{3/2} }.\end{aligned}$$ We examine Eq. (\[eq:nnnstiffness\]) in several different limiting cases. When $\epsilon_2=0$, this reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:stiffd=0}
\frac{k_B T}{\tilde{\beta}a} = \frac{m + m^2 }{\left( 1 + m^2 \right)^{3/2} }.\end{aligned}$$ as found in a previous study involving only NN interactions.[@dieluweit02] Interestingly, at $\theta = 45^\circ$, Eq. (\[eq:nnnstiffness\]) shows a simple dependence on $\epsilon_2$, namely, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:m=1}
\frac{k_B T}{\tilde{\beta}a}=\frac{e^{\epsilon_2/2k_BT}}{\sqrt{2}}.\end{aligned}$$ Of course, this reduces to the venerable Ising result of $1/\sqrt{2}$ in the absence of NNN interactions ($\epsilon_2 \! =\! 0$).[@rottman; @Ising45; @Z00]
By considering just the lowest and second lowest energy configurations,[@ZP1; @ZP2] Zandvliet et al. obtained the result[@ZP2] (expressed with our sign convention for $\epsilon_2$) for the maximally misoriented case $m \! =\!1$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ZVP}
\frac{k_B T}{\tilde{\beta}a}=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{1 + e^{-\epsilon_2/2k_BT}},\end{aligned}$$
which has, for the attractive $\epsilon_2$ of primary concern here, some qualitative similarities to Eq. (\[eq:m=1\]) (including the value $1/\sqrt{2}$ for $\epsilon_2 \! =\! 0$) but is too small by a factor of 2 for $\epsilon_2/2k_BT \ll 0$; even the coefficient of the first-order term in an expansion in $\epsilon_2/2k_BT$ is half the correct value. For the opposite limit of repulsive $\epsilon_2$, Eq. (\[eq:ZVP\]) levels off (at $\sqrt{2}$), in qualitative disagreement with the actual exponential increase seen in Eq. (\[eq:m=1\]).
![ The range of validity of Eq. (\[eq:nnnstiffness\]) is examined by comparing it to exact numerical solutions of the SOS model at several temperatures. In the legend $T_c$ refers to the NN lattice-gas (Ising) model; for $|\epsilon_1|= 256$meV, $T_c = 1685$K.](nnnCompare.eps){width="9"}
[\[fig:nnnCompare\]]{}
![ Eq. (\[eq:nnnstiffness\]) is plotted for a variety of different values of $D = -\epsilon_2/2k_B T$, where $\epsilon_1$ and $\epsilon_2$ are NN- and NNN-interaction energies, respectively, in a lattice-gas picture. The solid curve denoted “Ising NN" corresponds to $\epsilon_2 \! =\! 0$. The dots labeled “Exp’t" are taken from Fig. 2 of Ref. and were derived from the equilibrium shape of islands on Cu(001) at 302K, with the line segments serving as guides for the eye. To minimize clutter, we omit similar data derived from correlation functions of vicinal surfaces at various temperatures. Note that for $\epsilon_2 \! =\! \epsilon_1/4$ a maximum has developed near $\tan \theta \! =\! 1/2$ that is not evident in the experimental data. ](nnnplot.eps){width="9"}
[\[fig:nnnplot\]]{}
Fig. \[fig:nnnCompare\] compares Eq. (\[eq:nnnstiffness\]) to corresponding exact solutions \[found by numerically solving Eqs. (\[eq:gtostiffrho\]), (\[eq:ddgfinal\]), and (\[eq:rhotom\])\] at several temperatures when $\epsilon_2 = \epsilon_1/10$. We see that Eq. (\[eq:nnnstiffness\]) overlaps the exact solution at temperatures as high as $T_c/6$. As the temperature increases, the stiffness becomes more isotropic, and Eq. (\[eq:nnnstiffness\]) begins to overestimate the stiffness near $\theta = 0^\circ$.
Finally, in Fig. \[fig:nnnplot\] (using the experimental value[@GI] $\varepsilon_k = 128$ meV $\Rightarrow \epsilon_1 = -256$ meV), we compare Eq. (\[eq:nnnstiffness\]) to the NN-Ising model at $T=320$K, as well as to the experimental results of Ref. . For strongly attractive (negative) $\epsilon_2$, $k_B T / \tilde{\beta}a$ decreases significantly. In fact, when $\epsilon_2/\epsilon_1$ is 1/6, so that $-\epsilon_2/2k_BT = (\epsilon_2/\epsilon_1)(\varepsilon_k/k_BT) \approx (1/6)4.64$, the model-predicted value of $k_B T/ \tilde{\beta}a$ has decreased to less than half its $\epsilon_2 \!=\! 0$ value (viz. by a factor of 0.46, vs. 0.63 if Eq. (\[eq:ZVP\]) is used), so about 3/2 the experimental ratio. If $\epsilon_2/\epsilon_1$ increases even further, $k_B T/ \tilde{\beta}a$ further decreases and develops positive curvature, causing an endpoint local minimum to appear at $\theta = 45^\circ$. We can determine when this occurs by expanding Eq. (\[eq:nnnstiffness\]) about $m=1$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:mexpand}
\frac{k_B T}{\tilde{\beta}a} =
%\frac{e^{\frac{\epsilon_2}{2k_BT}}}{\sqrt{2}} + \left( %\frac{e^{-\frac{\epsilon_2}{2k_BT}}}{8 \sqrt{2}} \! -\!\frac{3 %e^{\frac{\epsilon_2}{2k_BT}}}{4 \sqrt{2}} \right) (m\! -\!1)^2 \! +\! \ldots
\frac{e^{-D}}{\sqrt{2}} + \left( \frac{e^{D}}{8 \sqrt{2}} \! -\!\frac{3 e^{-D}}{4 \sqrt{2}} \right) (m\! -\!1)^2 \! +\! \ldots\end{aligned}$$ Setting the coefficient of $(m-1)^2$ to zero gives $-2D = \epsilon_2/k_BT = -\ln(6) \approx -1.8$, which corresponds to a value of $k_B T/\tilde{\beta}a=\sqrt{3}/6 \approx 0.29$, about 2/5 the value at $\epsilon_2 \! =\! 0$. For $T=320$K and $\varepsilon_k = 128$ meV, this corresponds to $\epsilon_2/\epsilon_1 \approx 0.2$. However, for the NNN interaction alone to account for the factor-of-4 discrepancy between model/theory and experiment reported by Dieluweit et al.[@dieluweit02], Fig. \[fig:nnnplot\] shows that $\epsilon_2/\epsilon_1 \approx 0.3$ would be required.
Effect of Trio Interactions
===========================
In addition to the NNN interaction, trio (3-atom, non-pairwise) interactions may well influence the stiffness. The strongest such interaction is most likely that associated with 3 atoms forming a right isosceles triangle, whose sides are at NN distance and hypotenuse at NNN separation. In a lattice gas model, there is a new term with $\epsilon_{RT}$ times the occupation numbers of the 3 sites.[@LG] Note that this trio interaction energy $\epsilon_{RT}$ is in addition to the contribution $2\epsilon_1 \! +\! \epsilon_2$ of the constituent pair interactions. If we count broken trios and weight each by $R$, we find an additional contribution to Eq. (\[eq:interfaceEnergy\]) of $R$ times $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:trio}
4|\Delta_i| +2\delta_{\Delta_i,0} +2 = 2|\Delta_i| + |\Delta_i \! +\! 1| + |\Delta_i \! -\! 1| +2,\end{aligned}$$ where we have converted the Kronecker delta at $i\! =\! 0$ to make better contact with Eq. (\[eq:interfaceEnergy\]). Thus, without further calculation we can include the effect of this trio by replacing $H$ by $H\! +\! 2R$, $U$ by $U\! +\! R$, $D$ by $D\! +\! R$, and (trivially) $V$ by $V\! +\! 2$.
By arguments used at the end of Section IIA, we recognize $R\! =\! -\scriptstyle{\frac{1}{2}}\textstyle{\epsilon_{RT}}$. Consequently, the effective NN lattice-gas energy is $\epsilon_1\! +\! 2\epsilon_{RT}$ and, more significantly the effective NNN interaction energy is $\epsilon_2\! +\! \epsilon_{RT}$. Thus, $\epsilon_{RT}$ must be attractive (negative) if it is to help account for the discrepancy in Fig. 2 of Ref. between the model and experiment. Furthermore, by revisiting the configurations discussed in the penultimate paragraph of the Introduction, we find that the kink energy $\varepsilon_k$ becomes $-\scriptstyle{\frac{1}{2}}\textstyle{\epsilon_1} -\! \epsilon_{RT}$. Thus, for a repulsive $\epsilon_{RT}$, $|\epsilon_1|$ will be larger than predicted by an analysis of, e.g., step-edge diffusivity that neglects $\epsilon_{RT}$. Lastly, the close-packed edge energy, i.e. the $T\! =\! 0$ line tension $\beta(0) \! =\! -\scriptstyle{\frac{1}{2}}\textstyle{\epsilon_1} -\! \epsilon_2$, becomes $-\scriptstyle{\frac{1}{2}}\textstyle{\epsilon_1} - \! \epsilon_2 -\! 2\epsilon_{RT}$
Discussion and Conclusions
==========================
We now turn to experimental information about the interactions, followed by comments on the limited available calculations of them, often recapitulating the discussion in Ref. . All the experiments are predicated on the belief that at 320K there is sufficient mobility to allow equilibrium to be achieved. If the NNN interactions are to explain at least partially the high stiffness of experiment compared to Ising theory, the NNN interaction must be attractive and a substantial fraction of $\epsilon_1$. Since compact islands do form on the Cu(001) surface, it is obvious that $\epsilon_1$ is attractive. If $\epsilon_2$ is also attractive, as required for reduction of the overestimate of $k_BT/\tilde{\beta}$, then the low-temperature equilibrium shape has clipped corners (octagonal-like, with sides of alternating lengths), as noted in Ref. ; no evidence of such behavior has been seen. The lack of evidence of a decreasing stiffness near $\theta \approx 45^\circ$ suggests that $\epsilon_2/\epsilon_1$ is at most 1/5.
There is implicit experimental information for $\epsilon_2$: from island shapes[@Ising45] and fluctuations[@SGVI] $\beta(0) = 220 \pm \! 11\!$ meV. Since related measurements showed $\scriptstyle{\frac{1}{2}}\textstyle{\epsilon_1} \!=\! -128$meV, we deduce $\epsilon_2 \!=\! -92 \!$ meV if $\epsilon_{RT}$ is insignificant. These values imply that $\epsilon_2/\epsilon_1$ is somewhat larger than 1/3, which seems unlikely in light of the unobserved predictions about the shape of islands in that case (cf. the end of Section III).
To corroborate this picture, one should estimate the values of $\epsilon_1$ and $\epsilon_2$, as well as $\epsilon_{RT}$, from first-principles total-energy calculations. In contrast to Cu(111),[@Bogi; @Feibel] however, no such information even for $\epsilon_1$ has been published for Cu(001); there are, however, several semiempirical calculations which found $\varepsilon_k \approx 0.14$eV.[@semi] In such calculations based on the embedded atom method (EAM), which work best for late transition and noble fcc metals, the indirect (“through-substrate") interactions are expected to be strong only when the adatoms share common substrate nearest neighbors; then the interaction should be repulsive and proportional to the number of shared substrate atoms.[@TLE-Unertl] (Longer range pair interactions and multisite non-pairwise interactions are generally very-to-negligibly small in such calculations; they probably underestimate the actual values of these interactions since there is no Fermi surface in this picture, and it is the Fermi wavevector that dominates long-range interactions.) If the NN and NNN interactions on Cu(001) were purely indirect, we would then predict $\epsilon_2 \!=\! \scriptstyle{\frac{1}{2}}\textstyle{\epsilon_1} \! > \! 0$. However, whenever direct interactions (due to covalent effects between the nearby adatoms) are important, they overwhelm the indirect interaction. At NN separation, which is the bulk NN spacing, direct interactions must be significant, explaining why $\epsilon_1$ can be attractive. It is not obvious from such general arguments whether there are significant direct interactions between Cu adatoms at NNN separations. (For Pt atoms on Pt(100), the only homoepitaxial case in which $\epsilon_2$ was computed semiempirically, EAM calculations[@WDF] gave $\epsilon_2/|\epsilon_1|$ = 0.2, less than half the ratio predicted by counting substrate neighbors, but with the predicted repulsive $\epsilon_2$.) It is also not obvious [*a priori*]{} whether multi-atom interactions also contribute significantly. (For homoepitaxy, the only semiempirical result is that they are insignificant for Ag on Ag(001);[@VA] however, it is likely that semiempirical calculations will underestimate multi-atom interactions.)
To address these questions, we are currently carrying out calculations[@STK] using the VASP package.[@VASP] Preliminary results for Cu(001) suggest that $\epsilon_2$ is indeed attractive, and that $\epsilon_2/\epsilon_1$ is about 1/8; however, there are indications of a [*repulsive*]{} right-triangle trio interaction $\epsilon_{RT}$ with sizable magnitude (perhaps comparable to $|\epsilon_2|$, consistent with [*a priori*]{} expectations[@TLE-Unertl; @TLE-Maine]), which would diminish rather than enhance the effect of $\epsilon_2$.
In summary, NNN interactions may well account for a significant fraction, perhaps even a majority, of the discrepancy between NN Ising model calculations and experimental measurements of the orientation dependence of the reduced stiffness;[@dieluweit02] the effect is even somewhat greater than estimated by the Twente group[@ZP1; @ZP2]. However, inclusion of $\epsilon_2$ is not the whole answer, nor, seemingly, is consideration of $\epsilon_{RT}$. One possible missing ingredient is other multi-site interactions, most notably the linear trio $\epsilon_{LT}$ consisting of 3 colinear atoms (a pair of NN legs and an apex angle of $180^{\circ}$). In a model calculation their energy was comparable to $\epsilon_{RT}$,[@TLE-Unertl; @TLE-Maine] albeit with half as many occurrences per atom in the monolayer phase. The corrections due to $\epsilon_{LT}$ would be more complicated than simple shifts in the effective values of $\epsilon_1$ and $\epsilon_2$. Since direct interactions are probably important, there is no way to escape doing a first-principles computation; we continue to use the VASP package to extend our preliminary calculations.[@STK] A more daunting (at least for lattice-gas afficionadoes) possibility is that long-range intrastep elastic effects may be important. Ciobanu and Shenoy have made noteworthy progress in understanding how this interaction contributes to the orientation dependence of noble-metal steps.[@shenoy]
Calculational Details
=====================
Partition Function
------------------
To carry out the sum in Eq. (\[eq:partfunction\]), we consider the Fourier transform of $Z(Y)$: $$\begin{aligned}
W\left( \mu \right) &\equiv &\int_{-\infty }^\infty dY~e^{i\mu Y}Z\left(
Y\right) \nonumber \label{eq:fourier} \\
&=&\sum_{\left\{ \Delta \right\} }\exp \sum_{j=1}^L\left( i\mu \Delta
_j-K\left( \Delta _j\right) \right) \nonumber \\
&=&\left[ \sum_{\Delta =-\infty }^\infty \exp \left( i\mu \Delta -K\left(
\Delta \right) \right) \right] ^L,\end{aligned}$$ where $K\left( \Delta \right) \equiv \left( V+H\left| \Delta \right|
+U\left| \Delta -1\right| +D\left| \Delta +1\right| \right) $ is the energy in Eq. (\[eq:interfaceEnergy\]), associated with adjacent columns with height difference $\Delta $. Carrying out the summation in Eq. (\[eq:fourier\]) gives $$\frac{g\left( i\mu \right) }{k_BT}\equiv -\frac 1L\ln W(i \mu )=V+U+D-\ln
B(i\mu ), \label{eq:gdefine}$$ where $$B(i\mu )\equiv 1+\frac{e^{2D}}{e^{H+U+D+i\mu }-1}+\frac{e^{2U}}{%
e^{H+U+D-i\mu }-1}. \label{eq:defineB}$$ Thus, the original partition function $Z(Y)$ is: $$\begin{aligned}
Z\left( Y\right) &=&\frac 1{2\pi }\int_{-\infty }^\infty d\mu ~e^{-i\mu
Y}W\left( \mu \right) \label{eq:ZtoW} \\
&=&\frac 1{2\pi }\int_{-\infty }^\infty d\mu ~\exp \left[ L\left( -i\mu \tan
\theta -\frac{g(i\mu )}{k_BT}\right) \right] \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ For $L\gg 1$, we can evaluate this inverse transform by steepest decent approximation. The saddle point occurs on the imaginary axis ($\mu
=-i\rho $), at the value $\rho _0$ given by the stationary-phase condition: $$-\frac{g^{\prime }\left( \rho _0\right) }{k_BT}=m\equiv \tan \theta .$$ Calculating the derivative from Eqs. (\[eq:gdefine\]) and (\[eq:defineB\]), we find $$m=B^{\prime }(\rho _0)/B(\rho _0), \label{eq:mtorho}$$ where prime stands for $\partial _\rho $. The leading contribution to this integral (\[eq:ZtoW\]) is just the integrand evaluated at this point: $$Z(Y)\approx \exp \left[ -L\left( m\rho _0+\frac{g\left( \rho _0\right) }{k_BT%
}\right) \right] . \label{eq:ZtoWapproximationmu}$$
Analysis of $g^{\prime \prime }(\rho )$ and specialization to $%
U=D$
----------------------------------------------------------------
From Eqs. (\[eq:gdefine\]), we find $$\frac{g^{\prime }\left( \rho \right) }{k_BT}=-B^{\prime }(\rho )/B(\rho )
\label{eq:dgtoB}$$ and $$\frac{g^{\prime \prime }\left( \rho \right) }{k_BT}=-B^{\prime \prime }(\rho
)/B(\rho )+\left[ B^{\prime }(\rho )/B(\rho )\right] ^2. \label{eq:ddgtoB}$$ This can be simplified, by Eq. (\[eq:mtorho\]), to $$\frac{g^{\prime \prime }\left( \rho _0\right) }{k_BT}=-mB^{\prime \prime
}(\rho _0)/B^{\prime }(\rho _0)+m^2, \label{eq:ddgrho}$$ the quantity needed for computing the stiffness as a function of $m$. While straightforward, computing the derivatives with the general form for $B$ (Eq. (\[eq:defineB\]) with $\rho =i\mu $) is quite tedious. A slight simplification emerges if we specialize to the physically relevant case $U=D$. Then, with $S\equiv H+2D$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
B(\rho ) &=&1+\frac{e^{2D}}{e^{S+\rho }-1}+\frac{e^{2D}}{e^{S-\rho }-1}
\nonumber \\
&=&1-e^{2D}+\frac{e^{2D}\sinh S}{\cosh S-\cosh \rho } \nonumber \\
& \equiv &1-e^{2 D}+\frac{e^{2D} \sinh S}{C(S,\rho)},\end{aligned}$$ so that $$B^{\prime }(\rho )=e^{2D}\sinh S\frac{\sinh \rho }{C^2(S,\rho)},$$ and $$B^{\prime \prime }(\rho )=e^{2D}\sinh S\left[ \frac{\cosh \rho }{%
C^2(S,\rho)}+\frac{2\sinh ^2\rho }{C^3(S,\rho)}%
\right] .$$ Inserting these expressions into Eq. (\[eq:mtorho\]), we have $$m=\frac{\sinh \rho _0\sinh S}{C(S,\rho_0)\left[ \sinh S-C(S,\rho_0)\left( 1-e^{-2D}\right) \right] }.$$ Similarly, with Eq. (\[eq:ddgrho\]), we find $$\frac{g^{\prime \prime }\left( \rho _0\right) }{k_BT}=-m\left[ \ \frac{%
2\sinh \rho _0}{C(S,\rho_0)}+\coth \rho _0\right] \ +m^2.$$
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
Work at the University of Maryland was supported by the NSF-MRSEC, Grant DMR 00-80008. One of us (RKPZ) acknowledges support by NSF Grants DMR 00-88451 and 04-14122. TLE acknowledges partial support of collaboration with ISG-3 at FZ-Jülich via a Humboldt U.S. Senior Scientist Award. We have benefited from ongoing interactions with E. D. Williams and her group.
[10]{}
H.-C. Jeong and E. D. Williams, Surf. Sci. Rept. [**34**]{}, 171 (1999).
This simple equivalency does not hold for stepped surfaces in an electrochemical system, where the electrode potential $\phi$ is fixed rather than the surface charge density conjugate to $\phi$. H. Ibach and W. Schmickler, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 016106 (2003).
C. Rottman and M. Wortis, Phys. Rev. B [**24**]{}, 6274 (1981).
J.E. Avron, H. van Beijeren, L. S. Schulman, and R. K. P. Zia, J. Phys. A [**15**]{}, L81 (1982); R.K.P. Zia and J.E. Avron, Phys. Rev. B [**25**]{}, 2042 (1982).
J.W. Cahn and R. Kikuchi, J. Phys. Chem. Solids [20]{}, 94 (1961).
S. Dieluweit, H. Ibach, M. Giesen, and T. L. Einstein, Phys. Rev. B [**67**]{}, 121410 (2003).
N. Akutsu and Y. Akutsu, Surf. Sci. [**376**]{}, 92 (1997).
N. C. Bartelt, T. L. Einstein, and E. D. Williams, Surf. Sci. [**276**]{}, 308 (1992).
R. Van Moere, H. J. W. Zandvliet, and B. Poelsema, Phys. Rev. B [**67**]{}, 193407 (2003).
H. J. W. Zandvliet, R. Van Moere, and B. Poelsema, Phys. Rev. B [**68**]{}, 073404 (2003).
R. C. Nelson, T. L. Einstein, S. V. Khare, and P. J. Rous, Surf. Sci. [**295**]{}, 462 (1993).
Explicitly, the contribution to the lattice-gas Hamiltonian of all NN bonds is $\epsilon_1 \Sigma_{\langle i,j\rangle} n_in_j$, where the site-occupation variable $n_i \! = \! 0,1$, and the summation is over all NN pairs of sites. It is well known that $\epsilon_1 \rightarrow -4J_1$ in the corresponding Ising model, so that $T_c$ is determined by $\sinh(|\epsilon_1|/2k_BT) \! = \! 1$. Unfortunately, the variety of notations in papers on this subject can lead to confusion. In Refs. , $\varepsilon_{1,2}$ have the opposite sign of our $\epsilon_{1,2}$. In Ref. and somewhat implicitly in Ref. , the so-called the Ising parameter, $\varepsilon$, is $\varepsilon_k \! = \! 2J \! = \! -\scriptstyle{\frac{1}{2}}\textstyle\epsilon_1$.
W. K. Burton, N. Cabrera, and F. C. Frank, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. (London) Series A-Math. and Phys. Sci. [**243**]{}, 299 (1951).
H. J. Leamy, G. H. Gilmer, and K. A. Jackson, in: [*Surface Physics of Materials*]{}, vol. 1, edited by J. M. Blakely (Academic, New York, 1975), p. 121.
T. W. Burkhardt, Z. Phys. [**29**]{}, 129 (1978).
H. J. W. Zandvliet, H. B. Elswijk, E. J. van Loenen, and D. Dijkkamp, Phys. Rev. B [**45**]{}, 5965 (1992).
M. Giesen, C. Steimer, and H. Ibach, Surf. Sci. [**471**]{}, 80 (2001).
While this issue is treated in textbooks, a more-readily-accessible exposition of the negative reciprocal relationship between the field and conjugate density susceptibilities is given (in an introductory review couched in magnetic language) by M. Kollar, I. Spremo, and P. Kopietz, Phys. Rev. B [**67**]{}, 104427 (2003).
H. J. W. Zandvliet, Phys. Rev. B [**61**]{}, 9972 (2000).
M. Giesen-Seibert and H. Ibach, Surf. Sci. [**316**]{}, 205 (1994); M. Giesen-Seibert, F. Schmitz, R. Jentjens, and H. Ibach, Surf. Sci. [**329**]{}, 47 (1995).
C. Steimer, M. Giesen, L. Verheij, and H. Ibach, Phys. Rev. B [**64**]{}, 085416 (2001).
A. Bogicevic, S. Ovesson, P. Hyldgaard, B. I. Lundqvist, H. Brune, and D. R. Jennison, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 1910 (2000).
P. J. Feibelman, Phys. Rev. B [**60**]{}, 11118 (1999).
Using EAM, C. S. Liu and J. B. Adams, Surf. Sci. [**294**]{}, 211 (1993) found $\varepsilon_k \! =\! 139$meV. Using a pair-potential expansion from a first-principles database of surface energies, L. Vitos, H. L. Skriver, and J. Kollár, Surf. Sci. [**425**]{}, 212 (1999) obtained $\varepsilon_k \! =\! 163$meV. With an $spd$ tight-binding model, F. Raouafi, C. Barreteau, M. C. Desjonquères, and D. Spanjaard, Surf. Sci. [**505**]{}, 183 (2002) calculated $\varepsilon_k \! =\! 146$meV.
T. L. Einstein, in: [*Handbook of Surface Science*]{}, edited by W. N. Unertl, Vol. 1 (Elsevier Science B. V., Amsterdam, 1996), ch. 11.
A. F. Wright, M. S. Daw, and C. Y. Fong, Phys. Rev. B [**42**]{}, 9409 (1990).
I. Vattulainen, unpublished, private communication, in conjunction with J. Merikoski, I. Vattulainen, J. Heinonen, and T. Ala-Nissila, Surf. Sci. [**387**]{}, 167 (1997).
T. J. Stasevich, T. L. Einstein, and S. Stolbov, in preparation.
G. Kresse and J. Hafner, Phys. Rev. B [**47**]{}, 558 (1993); Phys. Rev. B [**49**]{}, 14 251 (1994); G. Kresse and J. Furthmüller, Comput. Mater. Sci. [**6**]{}, 15 (1996); Phys. Rev. B [**54**]{}, 11169 (1996).
T. L. Einstein, Langmuir [**7**]{}, 2520 (1991), Surf. Sci. [**84**]{}, 497 (1979).
V.B. Shenoy and C.V. Ciobanu, Surf. Sci. [**554**]{}, 222 (2004).
[^1]: Corresponding author
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In a finite group $G$, we consider nilpotent weights, and prove a $\pi$-version of the Alperin Weight Conjecture for certain $\pi$-separable groups. This widely generalizes an earlier result by I. M. Isaacs and the first author.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, Universitat de València, 46100 Burjassot, València, Spain'
- 'Institut für Mathematik, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, 07737 Jena, Germany'
author:
- Gabriel Navarro
- Benjamin Sambale
title: Weights and Nilpotent Subgroups
---
\[section\] \[thm\][Lemma]{} \[thm\][Conjecture]{} \[thm\][Proposition]{} \[thm\][Corollary]{} \[thm\][Question]{} \[thm\][Remark]{} \[thm\][Definition]{}
\#1[[Irr]{}\_[p’]{}(\#1)]{}
[[C]{}]{} \#1[[Irr]{}(\#1)]{} \#1[[IBr]{}(\#1)]{} \#1[[**I**]{}\_(\#1)]{} \#1[[IBr]{}\_[2’]{}(\#1)]{}
\#1[[Irr]{}\_[rv]{}(\#1)]{} c\#1[[\#1]{}]{} \#1\#2[[**C**]{}\_[\#1]{}(\#2)]{} \#1\#2[[Syl]{}\_\#1(\#2)]{} \#1\#2[[**O**]{}\_[\#1]{}(\#2)]{} \#1\#2[[**O**]{}\^[\#1]{}(\#2)]{} \#1[[**Z**]{}(\#1)]{} \#1[[det]{}(\#1)]{} \#1[[ker]{}(\#1)]{} \#1\#2[[**N**]{}\_[\#1]{}(\#2)]{} \#1[[Alt]{}(\#1)]{} \#1
[**\#1**]{}
\#1[ [mod]{} \#1 ]{} \#1[[Irr]{}\_[p’]{}([B\_0]{}(\#1))]{}
-0.5cm
6.5pt
[^1]
Introduction
============
Let $G$ be a finite group and let $p$ be a prime. The celebrated Alperin Weight Conjecture asserts that the number of conjugacy classes of $G$ consisting of elements of order not divisible by $p$ is exactly the number of $G$-conjugacy classes of $p$-weights. Recall that a [**$p$-weight**]{} is a pair $(Q,\gamma)$, where $Q$ is a $p$-subgroup of $G$ and $\gamma \in \irr{\norm GQ/Q}$ is an irreducible complex character with $p$-defect zero (that is, such that the $p$-part $\gamma(1)_p=|\norm GQ/Q|_p$).
In the main result of this paper, we replace $p$ by a set of primes $\pi$ as follows:
Let $G$ be a $\pi$-separable group with a solvable Hall $\pi$-subgroup. Then the number of conjugacy classes of $\pi'$-elements of $G$ is the number of $G$-conjugacy classes of pairs $(Q, \gamma)$, where $Q$ is a nilpotent $\pi$-subgroup of $G$ and $\gamma \in \irr{\norm GQ/Q}$ has $p$-defect zero for every $p\in\pi$.
Recall that a finite group is called **$\pi$-separable** if all its composition factors are $\pi$-groups or $\pi'$-groups. Let us restate Theorem A in the (presumably trivial) case where $G$ itself is a (solvable) $\pi$-group. In this case, there is only one conjugacy class of $\pi'$-elements of $G$. On the other hand, if $Q$ is a nilpotent subgroup of $G$, then $\gamma \in \irr{\norm GQ/Q}$ has $p$-defect zero for every $p\in\pi$ if and only if $\norm GQ=Q$. Amazingly enough, there is only one conjugacy class of self-normalizing nilpotent subgroups: the Carter subgroups of $G$ (see p. 281 in [@R]).
Of course, if $\pi=\{p\}$, then Theorem A is the $p$-solvable case of the Alperin Weight Conjecture (AWC). As a matter of fact, AWC was proven for $\pi$-separable groups with a nilpotent Hall $\pi$-subgroup by Isaacs and the first author [@IN]. Now we realize that the nilpotency hypothesis can be dropped if one counts nilpotent weights instead. The solvability hypothesis is still needed, as shown by $G={\sf A}_5$ and $\pi=\{2,3,5\}$.
There is a price to pay, however. The proof in [@IN] relied on the so called Okuyama–Wajima argument, a definitely non-trivial but accessible tool on extensions of Glauberman correspondents. In order to prove Theorem A, however, we shall need to appeal to a deeper theorem of Dade and Puig (which uses Dade’s classification of the endo-permutation modules).
As it is often the case in a “solvable” framework, the equality of cardinalities in Theorem A has a hidden structure which we are going to explain now. For sake of convenience we interchange from now on the roles of $\pi$ and $\pi'$ (of course, $\pi$-separable is equivalent to $\pi'$-separable). Recall that in a $\pi$-separable group $G$, the set $\ipi G$ of irreducible $\pi$-partial characters of $G$ is the exact $\pi$-version (when $\pi$ is the complement of a prime $p$) of the irreducible Brauer characters $\ibr G$ of a $p$-solvable group (see next section for precise definitions). Each $\varphi \in \ipi G$ has canonically associated a $G$-conjugacy class of $\pi'$-subgroups $Q$, which are called the [**vertices**]{} of $\varphi$. If $\ipi{G|Q}$ is the set of irreducible $\pi$-partial characters with vertex $Q$, unless $\pi=p'$, it is not in general true that $|\ipi{G|Q}|= |\ipi{\norm GQ|Q}|$. Instead we will prove the following theorem.
Suppose that $G$ is $\pi$-separable with a solvable Hall $\pi$-complement. Let $R$ be a nilpotent $\pi'$-subgroup of $G$ and let $\mathcal Q$ be the set of $\pi'$-subgroups $Q$ of $G$ such that $R$ is a Carter subgroup of $Q$. Then $$\Bigl|\bigcup_{Q \in {\mathcal Q}}\ipi{G|Q}\Bigr|=|\ipi{\norm GR|R}| \,.$$
Since $|\ipi{\norm GR|R}|$ is just the number of $\pi'$-weights with first component $R$ (see Lemma 6.28 of [@I2]), Theorem B implies Theorem A.
As happens in the classical case where $\pi=p'$, and following the ideas of Dade, Knörr and Robinson, one can define chains of $\pi'$-subgroups and relate them with $\pi$-defect of characters. This shall be explored elsewhere. Similarly, one can attach every weight to a $\pi'$-block $B$ of $G$ by using Slattery’s theory [@Slattery]. In this setting we expect that the number of $\pi$-partial characters belonging to $B$ equals the number of nilpotent weights attached to $B$.
The groups described in Theorem A are sometimes called $\pi$-solvable. We did not find a counterexample in the wider class of so-called $\pi$-selected groups. Here, $\pi$-**selected** means that the order of every composition factor is divisible by at most one prime in $\pi$. P. Hall [@H] has shown that these groups still have solvable Hall $\pi$-subgroups. Since every finite group is $p$-selected for every prime $p$, this version of the conjecture includes AWC in full generality.
Unfortunately, Theorem A does not hold for arbitrary groups even if they possess nilpotent Hall $\pi$-subgroups. It is not so easy to find a counterexample, though. The fourth Janko group $G=J_4$ has a cyclic Hall $\pi$-subgroup of order $35$ (that is, $\pi=\{5,7\}$). The normalizers of the non-trivial $\pi$-weights are contained in a maximal subgroup $M$ of type $2^{3+12}.(S_5\times L_3(2))$. However, $l(G)-k_0(G)=25\ne 30=l(M)-k_0(M)$, where $l(G)$ denotes the number of $\pi'$-conjugacy classes and $k_0(G)$ is the number of $\pi$-defect zero characters of $G$. (The fact that $J_4$ was a counterexample for the $\pi$-version of the McKay conjecture for groups with a nilpotent Hall $\pi$-subgroup was noticed by Pham H. Tiep and the first author.)
We take the opportunity to thank the developers of [@GAP]. Without their tremendous work the present paper probably would not exist.
The paper is organized as follows: In the next section we review $\pi$-partial characters which were introduced by Isaacs. In Section 3 we present two general lemmas on characters in $\pi$-separable groups. Afterwards we prove Theorem B. In the final section we construct a natural bijection explaining Theorem B in the presence of a normal Hall $\pi$-subgroup.
Review of $\pi$-theory
======================
Isaacs’ $\pi$-theory is the $\pi$-version in $\pi$-separable groups of the $p$-modular representation theory for $p$-solvable groups. When $\pi=p'$, the complement of a prime, then $\ipi G=\ibr G$ and we recover most of the well-known classical results. In what follows $G$ is a finite $\pi$-separable group, where $\pi$ is a set of primes. All the references for $\pi$-theory can now be found together in Isaacs’ recent book [@I2]. For the reader’s convenience, we review some of the main features. If $n$ is a natural number and $p$ is a prime, recall that $n_p$ is the largest power of $p$ dividing $n$. If $\pi$ is a set of primes, then $n_\pi=\prod_{p \in \pi} n_p$. The number $n$ is a $\pi$-number if $n=n_\pi$.
If $G$ is a $\pi$-separable group, then $G^0$ is the set of elements of $G$ whose order is a $\pi$-number. A $\pi$-partial character of $G$ is the restriction of a complex character of $G$ to $G^0$. A $\pi$-partial character is [**irreducible**]{} if it is not the sum of two $\pi$-partial characters. We write $\ipi G$ for the set of irreducible $\pi$-partial characters of $G$. Notice that if $\mu \in \ipi G$ by definition there exists $\chi \in \irr G$ such that $\chi^0=\mu$, where $\chi^0$ denotes the restriction of $\chi$ to the $\pi$-elements of $G$. Also, it is clear by the definition, that every $\pi$-partial character is a sum of irreducible $\pi$-partial characters. Notice that if $G$ is a $\pi$-group, then $\ipi G=\irr G$.
\[ipi\] Let $G$ be a finite $\pi$-separable group. Then $\ipi G$ is a basis of the space of class functions defined on $G^0$. In particular, $|\ipi G|$ is the number of conjugacy classes of $\pi$-elements of $G$.
This is Theorem 3.3 of [@I2].
We can induce and restrict $\pi$-partial characters in a natural way. If $H$ is a subgroup of $G$ and $\varphi \in \ipi G$, then $\varphi_H=\sum_{\mu \in \ipi H} a_\mu \mu$ for some uniquely defined nonnegative integers $a_\mu$. We write $\ipi{G|\mu}$ to denote the set of $\varphi \in \ipi G$ such that $a_\mu \ne 0$.
A non-trivial result is that Clifford’s theory holds for $\pi$-partial characters. If $N\nor G$, it is then clear that $G$ naturally acts on $\ipi N$ by conjugation.
\[ipicliff\] Suppose that $G$ is $\pi$-separable and $N \nor G$.
(a) If $\varphi \in \ipi G$, then $\varphi_N=e(\theta_1 + \cdots + \theta_t)$, where $\theta_1,\ldots, \theta_t$ are all the $G$-conjugates of some $\theta \in \ipi N$.
(b) If $\theta \in \ipi N$ and $T=G_\theta$ is the stabilizer of $\theta$ in $G$, then induction defines a bijection $\ipi{T|\theta} \rightarrow \ipi{G|\theta}$.
See Corollary 5.7 and Theorem 5.11 of [@I2].
In part (b) of Theorem \[ipicliff\], if $\mu^G=\varphi$, where $\mu \in \ipi{T|\theta}$, then $\mu$ is called the [**Clifford correspondent**]{} of $\varphi$ over $\theta$, and sometimes it is written $\mu=\varphi_\theta$.
It is not a triviality to define vertices for $\pi$-partial characters (a concept that in classical modular representation theory has little to do with character theory). This was first accomplished in [@IN] (generalizing a result of Huppert on Brauer characters of $p$-solvable groups).
\[vertices\] Suppose that $G$ is $\pi$-separable, and let $\varphi \in \ipi G$. Then there exist a subgroup $U$ of $G$ and $\alpha \in \ipi U$ of $\pi$-degree such that $\alpha^G=\varphi$. Furthermore, if $Q$ is a Hall $\pi$-complement of $U$, then the $G$-conjugacy class of $Q$ is uniquely determined by $\varphi$.
This is Theorem 5.17 of [@I2].
The uniquely defined $G$-class of $\pi'$-subgroups $Q$ associated to $\varphi$ by Theorem \[vertices\] is called the set of [**vertices**]{} of $\varphi$. If $Q$ is a $\pi'$-subgroup of $G$, then we write $\ipi{G|Q}$ to denote the set of $\varphi \in \ipi G$ which have $Q$ as a vertex. By definition, notice in this case that $$\varphi(1)_{\pi'}=|G:Q|_{\pi'}\, .$$
Our last important ingredient is the Glauberman correspondence.
Let $S$ be a finite solvable group acting via automorphisms on a finite group $G$ such that $(|S|,|G|)=1$. Then there exists a canonical bijection, called the **$S$-Glauberman correspondence**, $${\operatorname{Irr}}_S(G)\to\irr C, \qquad\chi\mapsto\chi^*,$$ where ${\operatorname{Irr}}_S(G)$ is the set of $S$-invariant irreducible characters of $G$ and $C=\cent GS$. Here, $\chi^*$ is a constituent of the restriction $\chi_C$. Also, if $T \nor S$, then the $T$-Glauberman correspondence is an isomorphism of $S$-sets.
See Theorem 13.1 of [@I1].
Preliminaries
=============
If $G$ is a finite group, $\pi$ is a set of primes, and $\chi \in \irr G$, then we say that $\chi$ has [**$\pi$-defect zero**]{} if $\chi(1)_{\pi}=|G|_{\pi}$.
\[pirad\] If $\chi \in \irr G$ has $\pi$-defect zero, then $\oh{\pi} G=1$.
Let $N \nor G$, and let $\theta \in \irr N$ be under $\chi$. Then we have that $\theta(1)$ divides $|N|$ and $\chi(1)/\theta(1)$ divides $|G:N|$ by Corollary 11.29 of [@I1]. Thus $\chi(1)_\pi=|G|_\pi$ if and only if $\theta(1)_\pi=|N|_\pi$ and $(\chi(1)/\theta(1))_\pi=|G:N|_\pi$. The result is now clear applying this to $N=\oh \pi G$.
We shall use the following notation. Suppose $G$ is $\pi$-separable, $N \nor G$, $\tau \in \ipi N$ and $Q$ is a $\pi'$-subgroup of $G$. Then $$\ipi{G|Q,\tau}=\ipi{G|Q} \cap \ipi{G|\tau} \, .$$
\[gvert\] Suppose $G$ is $\pi$-separable and that $N \nor G$. Let $Q$ be a $\pi'$-subgroup of $G$.
(a) Suppose that $\mu \in \ipi{G|Q}$. Then there is a unique $\norm GQ$-orbit of $\tau \in \ipi N$ such that $\mu_\tau \in \ipi{G_\tau|Q}$, where $\mu_\tau$ is the Clifford correspondent of $\mu$ over $\tau$. Every such $\tau$ is $Q$-invariant.
(b) Suppose that $\tau \in \ipi N$ is $Q$-invariant. Let $\c U$ be a complete set of representatives of the $G_\tau$-orbits on the set $\{Q^g \, |\, g \in G, Q^g \sbs G_\tau\}$. Then $$|\ipi{G|Q,\tau}|=\sum_{U \in {\mathcal U}} |\ipi{G_\tau|U,\tau}|\, .$$ Thus, if $G_\tau\norm GQ=G$, then $$|\ipi{G|Q,\tau}|=|\ipi{G_\tau|Q,\tau}|\, .$$
<!-- -->
(a) Let $\nu \in \ipi N$ be under $\mu$, and let $\mu_\nu \in \ipi{G_\nu|\nu}$ be the Clifford correspondent of $\mu$ over $\nu$. If $R$ is a vertex of $\mu_\nu$, then $R$ is a vertex of $\mu$, by Theorem \[vertices\]. Therefore $R=Q^g$ for some $g \in G$. If $\tau=\nu^{g^{-1}}$, then we have that $\mu_\tau$ has vertex $Q$. Suppose now that $\rho \in \ipi N$ is under $\mu$ such that $\mu_\rho$ has vertex $Q$. By Theorem \[ipicliff\](a), there exists $g \in G$ such that $\tau^g=\rho$. Thus $Q^g$ is a vertex of $\mu_\rho$. Then there is $x \in G_\rho$ such that $Q^{gx}=Q$. Since $\tau^{gx}=\rho$, the proof of part (a) is complete.
(b) We have that induction defines a bijection $\ipi{G_\tau|\tau} \rightarrow \ipi{G|\tau}$. Notice that $$\bigcup_{U \in {\c U}} \ipi{G_\tau|U}$$ is a disjoint union. It suffices to observe, again, that if $\xi \in \ipi{G_\tau|\tau}$ has vertex $U$, then $\xi^G$ has vertex $U$.
Proofs
======
The deep part in our proofs comes from the following result.
\[deep\] Suppose that $L$ is a normal $\pi$-subgroup of $G$, $Q$ is a solvable $\pi'$-subgroup of $G$ such that $LQ \nor G$. Suppose that $M \sbs \zent G$ is contained in $L$ and that $\varphi \in \irr M$. Then $|\ipi{G|Q, \varphi}|=|\ipi{\norm GQ|Q, \varphi}|$.
Let $\c A$ be a complete set of representatives of $\norm GQ$-orbits on ${\rm Irr}_Q(L|\varphi)$, the $Q$-invariant members of $\irr{L|\varphi}$. Using Lemma \[gvert\], we have that $$\ipi{G|Q, \varphi}=\bigcup_{\tau \in {\c A}} \ipi{G|Q,\tau}$$ is a disjoint union. Let $\c A^*$ be the set of the $Q$-Glauberman correspondents of the elements of $\c A$. Notice that $\c A^*$ is a complete set of representatives of $\norm GQ$-orbits on $\irr{\cent LQ|\varphi}$. Moreover, $\norm {G_\tau}Q=\norm {G_{\tau^*}}Q$. Then, as before, $$\ipi{\norm GQ|Q, \varphi}=\bigcup_{\tau \in {\c A}} \ipi{\norm GQ|Q,\tau^*}$$ is a disjoint union. Thus $$|\ipi{\norm GQ|Q,\varphi}|=\sum_{\tau \in {\c A}} |\ipi{\norm {G_\tau}Q|Q, \tau^*}|\,.$$ Thus we need to prove that $$|\ipi{G_\tau|Q, \tau}|=|\ipi{\norm {G_\tau}Q|Q, \tau^*}|\,.$$ We may assume that $\tau$ is $G$-invariant.
Now, since $LQ \nor G$ and $\tau$ is $G$-invariant, by Lemma 6.30 of [@I2], we have that $Q$ is contained as a normal subgroup in some vertex of $\theta$, whenever $\theta \in \ipi G$ lies over $\tau$. Therefore $\theta \in \ipi{G|\tau}$ has vertex $Q$ if and only if $\theta(1)_{\pi'}=|G:Q|_{\pi'}$. Similarly, $\theta\in\ipi{\norm GQ|\tau^*}$ has vertex $Q$ if any only if $\theta(1)_{\pi'}=|\norm GQ:Q|_{\pi'}=|G:Q|_{\pi'}$ since $G=L\norm GQ$ by the Frattini argument and the Schur–Zassenhaus theorem.
Now we use the Dade–Puig theory on the character theory above Glauberman correspondents, which is thoroughly explained in [@T]. By Theorem 6.5 of [@T], in the language of Chapter 11 of [@I1] (see Definition 11.23 of [@I1]), we have that the character triples $(G,L,\tau)$ and $(\norm GQ, \cent LQ, \tau^*)$ are isomorphic. Write $^*: \irr{G|\tau} \rightarrow \irr{\norm GQ|\tau^*}$ for the associated bijection of characters. By Lemma 6.21 of [@I2], there exists a unique bijection $$^{*}: \ipi{G|\tau} \rightarrow \ipi{\norm GQ|\tau^*}$$ such that if $\chi^0=\phi \in \ipi{G|\tau}$ and $\chi \in \irr G$ (which necessarily lies over $\tau$), then $(\chi^*)^0=\phi^*$. Since $\chi(1)/\tau(1)= \chi^*(1)/\tau^*(1)$ (by Lemma 11.24 of [@I1]), it follows that $\chi(1)_{\pi'}=\chi^*(1)_{\pi'}$. We deduce that $$|\ipi{G|Q, \tau}|=|\ipi{\norm {G}Q|Q, \tau^*}|\,,$$ as desired.
In order to prove Theorem B, we argue by induction on the index of a normal $\pi$-subgroup $M$ of $G$. Theorem B follows from the special case $M=1$.
\[thm\] Suppose that $G$ is $\pi$-separable with a solvable Hall $\pi$-complement. Let $R$ be a nilpotent $\pi'$-subgroup of $G$. Let $M\nor G$ be a normal $\pi$-subgroup, and let $\varphi \in \irr M$ be $G$-invariant. Let $\mathcal Q$ be the set of $\pi'$-subgroups $Q$ of $G$ such that $R$ is a Carter subgroup of $Q$. Then $$\Bigl|\bigcup_{Q \in {\mathcal Q}}\ipi{G|Q, \varphi}\Bigr|=|\ipi{M\norm GR|R, \varphi}| \,.$$
We argue by induction on $|G:M|$. By Lemma 3.11 of [@I2], let $(G^*,M^*,\varphi^*)$ be a character triple isomorphic to $(G,M,\varphi)$, where $M^*$ is a central $\pi$-subgroup of $G^*$. If $Q$ is a $\pi'$-subgroup of $G$, notice that we can write $(QM)^*=M^* \times Q^*$, for a unique $\pi'$-subgroup $Q^*$ of $G^*$. If $R$ is contained in a $\pi'$-subgroup $Q$, then $R$ is a Carter subgroup of $Q$ if and only if $RM/M$ is a Carter subgroup of $QM/M$, using that $Q$ is naturally isomorphic to $QM/M$. This happens if and only if $(RM/M)^*$ is a Carter subgroup of $(QM/M)^*$, which again happens if and only if $R^*$ is a Carter subgroup of $Q^*$. Notice further that if $R$ is a Carter subgroup of $Q$, then $R$ is a Carter subgroup of every Hall $\pi$-complement $Q_1$ of $QM$ that happens to contain $R$ (again using the isomorphism between $QM/M$ and $Q$). We easily check now that the set of $\pi'$-subgroups of $G^*$ that contain $R^*$ as a Carter subgroup is exactly $\mathcal{Q^*}=\{Q^* | Q \in \mathcal Q\}$.
By the Frattini argument and the Schur–Zassenhaus theorem, notice that $\norm G{MR}=M\norm GR$. By Lemma 6.21 and the proof of Lemma 6.32 of [@I2], there is a bijection $^*: \ipi{G|\varphi} \rightarrow \ipi{G^*|\varphi^*}$ such that $\eta$ has vertex $Q$ if and only if $\eta^*$ has vertex $Q^*$. From all these arguments, it easily follows that we may assume that $M$ is central. In particular, $M\le\norm GR$.
Let $K=\oh{\pi'} G$. Suppose that there exists some $\mu \in \ipi{G|Q, \varphi}$ for some $Q \in \mathcal Q$. By Lemma 6.30 of [@I2] (in the notation of that lemma, $K$ is $1$ and $Q$ is $K$), we have that $K$ is contained in $Q$. Hence, it is no loss if we only consider $Q \in \mathcal Q$ such that $K \sbs Q$.
Suppose that $\norm KR$ is not contained in $R$. Then there cannot be weights $(R, \gamma)$, where $\gamma \in \irr{\norm GR/R}$ has $\pi$-defect zero by Lemma \[pirad\]. So the right hand side is zero. Suppose that there exists some $\mu \in \ipi{G|Q, \varphi}$ for some $Q \in \mathcal Q$ (with $K \sbs Q$). Since $R$ is a Carter subgroup of $Q$, then $R$ is a Carter subgroup of $KR$, and therefore $\norm KR$ is contained in $R$. Therefore may assume that $\norm KR$ is contained in $R$. We claim that $R$ is a Carter subgroup of $Q$ if and only if $RK/K$ is a Carter subgroup of $Q/K$. One implication is known (see 9.5.3 in [@R]). Suppose that $RK/K$ is a Carter subgroup of $Q/K$. Since $\norm QR$ normalizes $RK$, it is contained in $RK$. Hence $\norm QR=\norm {KR}R=R$, and $R$ is a Carter subgroup of $Q$. In this situation the Frattini argument yields $\norm GRK=\norm G{RK}$.
Next, we will replace $G$ by $G/K$. By Lemma 6.31 of [@I2] (the roles of $K$ and $M$ are interchanged in that lemma), $$|\ipi{G|Q,\varphi}|=|\ipi{G/K|Q/K,\hat\varphi},$$ where $\hat\varphi \in \irr{MK/K}$ corresponds to $\varphi$ via the natural isomorphism. Similarly, $$|\ipi{\norm GR|R,\varphi}|=|\ipi{\norm GRK/K|RK/K,\hat\varphi}|=|\ipi{\norm G{RK}/K|RK/K,\hat\varphi}|.$$ Hence, for the remainder of the proof we may assume that $\oh{\pi'} G=K=1$.
Suppose now that $L=\oh \pi G$. Let $\c A$ be a complete set of $\norm GR$-representatives of the $R$-invariant characters in $\irr{L|\varphi}$. If $L=M$, then $L=G$ by the Hall-Higman Lemma 1.2.3, and $G$ is a $\pi$-group. In this case, $R=1=Q$, and there is nothing to prove. Thus, we may assume that $|G:L|<|G:M|$.
For each $\tau \in \c A$, let ${\c Q}_\tau$ be the set of $\pi'$-subgroups $Q$ of $G_\tau$ such that $R$ is a Carter subgroup of $Q$. By induction, $$\Bigl|\bigcup_{Q \in {\mathcal Q}_\tau}\ipi{G_\tau|Q, \tau}\Bigr|=|\ipi{L\norm {G_\tau}R|R, \tau}| \,.$$ Since $L$ is a $\pi$-group and $R$ is a $\pi'$-subgroup, we have that $L\norm GR=\norm G{LR}$. Also, $\norm G{LR}_\tau=L\norm G R_\tau$. By Lemma \[gvert\], we have that $$|\ipi{L\norm {G_\tau}R|R, \tau}|=|\ipi{L\norm {G}R|R, \tau}| \,.$$ Also, $$|\ipi{L \norm GR|R, \varphi}|= \sum_{\tau \in {\c A}}
|\ipi{L\norm {G}R|R, \tau}| \, ,$$ by using the first paragraph of the proof of Theorem \[deep\]. By Theorem \[deep\], $$|\ipi{L \norm GR|R, \varphi}|=|\ipi{\norm GR|R, \varphi}| \, .$$ Therefore, $$\sum_{\tau \in {\c A}} \Bigl|\bigcup_{Q \in {\mathcal Q}_\tau}\ipi{G_\tau|Q, \tau}\Bigr|
=|\ipi{\norm GR|R, \varphi}| \, .$$ We are left to show that $$\Bigl|\bigcup_{Q \in {\mathcal Q}}\ipi{G|Q, \varphi}\Bigr|=\sum_{\tau \in {\c A}} \Bigl|\bigcup_{Q \in {\mathcal Q}_\tau}\ipi{G_\tau|Q, \tau}\Bigr| \, .$$
Let $\c R$ be a complete set of representatives of $\norm GR$-orbits in $\c Q$, and notice that $$\bigcup_{Q \in {\mathcal Q}}\ipi{G|Q, \varphi} = \bigcup_{Q \in {\mathcal R}}\ipi{G|Q, \varphi}$$ is a disjoint union. Indeed, if $\mu \in \ipi{G|Q_1, \varphi} \cap \ipi{G|Q_2, \varphi}$ for $Q_i \in \c Q$, then we have that $Q_1=Q_2^g$ for some $g \in G$ by the uniqueness of vertices. Hence $R^g$ and $R$ are Carter subgroups of $Q_1$, and therefore $R^{gx}=R$ for some $x \in Q_1$. It follows that $Q_1=Q_2^{gx}$ are $\norm GR$-conjugate.
Now fix $Q \in \c R$. For each $\mu \in \ipi{G|Q,\varphi}$, we claim that there is a unique $\tau \in \c A$ such that $\mu_\tau \in \ipi{G_\tau|Q^x, \tau}$, for some $x \in \norm GR$. We know that there is $\nu \in \irr{L|\varphi}$ such that $\mu_\nu \in \ipi{G_\nu|Q, \nu}$ by Lemma \[gvert\](a). Now, $\nu^x=\tau$ for some $x \in \norm GR$ and $\tau \in \c A$, and it follows that $\mu_\tau \in \ipi{G_\tau|Q^x, \tau}$. Suppose that $\mu_\epsilon \in \ipi{G_\epsilon|Q^y, \epsilon}$, for some $y \in \norm GR$ and $\epsilon \in \c A$. Now, $\epsilon=\tau^g$ for some $g \in G$, by Clifford’s theorem. Thus $Q^{xgt}=Q^y$ for some $t \in G_\epsilon$, by the uniqueness of vertices. Thus $xgty^{-1} \in \norm GQ$. Since $R$ is a Carter subgroup of $Q$, by the Frattini argument we have that $xgty^{-1}=qv$, where $q \in Q$ and $v \in G$ normalizes $Q$ and $R$. Since $Q^x$ fixes $\tau$, then $Q$ fixes $\tau^{x^{-1}}$. Now $$\epsilon^{y^{-1}}=(\tau^{gt})^{y^{-1}}=\tau^{x^{-1}xgty^{-1}}=\tau^{x^{-1}qv}=\tau^{x^{-1}v} \, .$$ So $\epsilon$ and $\tau$ are $\norm GR$-conjugate, and thus they are equal.
Now we define a map $$f: \bigcup_{Q \in {\mathcal R}}\ipi{G|Q, \varphi}
\rightarrow
\bigcup_ {\tau \in {\c A}}\left(\left( \bigcup_{Q \in {\mathcal Q}_\tau}\ipi{G_\tau|Q, \tau}\right) \times \{ \tau\}\right)$$ given by $f(\mu)=(\mu_\tau, \tau)$, where $\tau \in \c A$ is the unique element in $\c A$ such that $\mu_\tau \in \ipi{G_\tau|Q^x, \tau}$, for some $x \in \norm GR$. Since $\mu_\tau^G=\mu$, we have that $f$ is injective. If we have that $\gamma \in \bigcup_{Q \in {\mathcal Q}_\tau}\ipi{G_\tau|Q, \tau}$ then $\gamma^G
\in \bigcup_{Q \in {\mathcal Q}}\ipi{G|Q, \varphi}$, so $f$ is surjective.
Some of the difficulties in Theorem \[thm\] are caused by the fact that Clifford correspondence does not necessarily respect vertices, even in quite restricted situations. Suppose that $N$ is a normal $p'$-subgroup of $G$, $\tau \in \irr N$, $Q$ is a $p$-subgroup of $G$ and $\tau$ is $Q$-invariant. Then it is not necessarily true that induction defines a bijection $\ibr{G_\tau|Q,\tau} \rightarrow \ibr{G|Q,\tau}$. For instance, take $p=2$ and $G={\tt SmallGroup}(216,158)$. This group has a unique normal subgroup $N$ of order 3. The Fitting subgroup $F$ of $G$ is $F=N \times M$, where $M$ is a normal subgroup of type $C_3 \times C_3$, and $G/F=D_8$. Let $1 \ne \tau \in \irr N$. Then $G_\tau \nor G$ has index 2, and $G_\tau /N=S_3 \times S_3$. Now $\tau$ has a unique extension $\hat\tau \in \ibr{G_\tau}$. The group $G_\tau$ has three conjugacy classes of subgroups $Q$ of order 2. Take $Q_1$ that corresponds to $C_2 \times 1$ and $Q_2$ that corresponds to $1 \times C_2$. Then $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ are not $G_\tau$-conjugate but $G$-conjugate. So $|\ibr{G_\tau|Q_1,\tau}|=1$ and $|\ibr{G|Q_1,\tau}|=2$.
A canonical bijection
=====================
If $G$ has a normal Hall $\pi$-subgroup, then we have a canonical bijection in Theorem \[thm\]. This seems worth to be explored.
\[A\] Suppose that $G=NH$ where $N$ is a normal $\pi$-subgroup and $H$ is a $\pi'$-subgroup. Then $\norm GQ=\cent NQ\norm HQ$ for every $Q\le H$.
First note that $$Q=Q(N\cap H)=QN\cap H\nor N\norm GQ\cap H\le\norm HQ.$$ Let $xh\in\norm GQ$ where $x\in N$ and $h\in H$. Then $h=x^{-1}(xh)\in N\norm GQ\cap H\le\norm HQ$. This shows $\norm GQ=\norm NQ\norm HQ=\cent NQ\norm HQ$.
\[B\] Suppose that $G=NH$ where $N$ is a normal $\pi$-subgroup and $H$ is a solvable $\pi'$-subgroup. Let $R\le H$, and let $\tau \in \irr{\cent NR}$ be such that $\norm GR_\tau=\cent NR \times R$. Let $\gamma \in {\rm Irr}_R(N)$ be the Glauberman correspondent of $\tau$. Then $R=\norm {H_\gamma}R$.
Suppose that $R<S \le H_\gamma$, where $R \nor S$. Then $S$ acts on the $R$-Glauberman correspondence. Since $S$ fixes $\gamma$, therefore it fixes $\gamma^*=\tau$. But this gives the contradiction $S \sbs \norm GR_\tau=\cent NR \times R$.
\[C\] Suppose that $G=NH$ where $N$ is a normal $\pi$-subgroup and $H$ is a solvable $\pi'$-subgroup. Let $R$ be a nilpotent subgroup of $H$. Let $\mathcal Q$ be the set of subgroups $Q \sbs H$ such that $R$ is a Carter subgroup of $Q$. Then there is a natural bijection $$\bigcup_{Q \in {\mathcal Q}}\ipi{G|Q} \rightarrow \ipi{\norm GR|R} \,.$$
Let $Q \in \mathcal Q$. By the Frattini argument, notice that $\norm GQ =Q(\norm GQ \cap \norm GR)$, and that $Q \cap (\norm GQ \cap \norm GR)=R$.
Let $\phi \in \ipi{G|Q}$. By Lemma \[gvert\], there exists a $Q$-invariant $\theta \in \irr N$ under $\phi$. Then $T=G_\theta=QN$ using Corollary 8.16 in [@I1] for instance. If $\theta_1$ is another such choice, then $\theta_1=\theta^g$ for some $g \in \norm GQ$. Thus, we may assume that $g \in \norm GQ \cap \norm GR$. Let $\theta^* \in \cent NR$ be the $R$-Glauberman correspondent of $\theta$. Now, by Lemma \[A\] applied in $T$, we have that $\norm TR=\cent NR \norm QR=\cent NR \times R$. We claim that $\norm TR$ is the stabilizer of $\theta^*$ in $\norm GR$. If $x \in \norm GR$ fixes $\theta^*$, then $x$ fixes $\theta$, and thus $x \in \norm TR$, as claimed. Now $\phi^*:=(\theta^*\times 1_R)^{\norm GR}$ is irreducible, and belongs to $\ipi{\norm GR|R}$. Since $\theta_1$ is $\norm GQ \cap \norm GR$-conjugate to $\theta$, $\phi^*$ is independent of the choice of $\theta$.
Suppose that $\phi^*=\mu^*$, where $\phi \in \ipi{G|Q_1}$ and $\mu \in \ipi{G|Q_2}$, where $R$ is a Carter subgroup of $Q_i$ and $Q_i \sbs H$. Suppose that we picked $\theta$ for $\phi$ and $\epsilon$ for $\mu$, so that $\phi^*=(\theta^* \times 1_R)^{\norm GR}$ and $\mu^*=(\epsilon^* \times 1_R)^{\norm GR}$. Then $\norm GR= \cent NR\norm HR$, and $\theta^*$ and $\epsilon^*$ are $\norm HR$-conjugate, say $(\theta^*)^x=\epsilon^*$. Then $\theta^x=\epsilon$. By replacing $(Q_1,\theta)$ by $(Q_1^x,\theta^x)$, we may assume that $\theta=\epsilon$. But then $Q_1=H_\theta=H_\epsilon=Q_2$. Since $\pi$-partial character are determined on the $\pi$-elements, we must have $\phi=\mu$ now.
Suppose conversely that $\tau \in \ipi{\norm GR|R}$. Then $\tau$ is induced from $\cent NR \times R$. Let $\mu \in \irr{\cent NR}$ such that $\mu \times 1_R$ induces $\tau$. Then the stabilizer of $\mu$ in $\norm GR$ is $\cent NR \times R$. If $\rho \in {\rm Irr}_R(N)$ is the $R$-Glauberman correspondent of $\mu$, then by Lemma \[B\] we know that $R$ is a Carter subgroup of $Q=H_\rho$, where $Q$ is the stabilizer in $H$ of $\rho$. Thus with the notation of the first part of the proof we obtain $\tau=\mu^*$ where $\mu$ is induced from $G_\rho=QN$.
[ABCDE]{}
The GAP group, ‘[*[GAP]{} - groups, algorithms, and programming*]{}’, Version 4.10.0, 2018, [http://www.gap-system.org]{}.
I. M. Isaacs, ‘[*Character Theory of Finite Groups*]{}’, AMS Chelsea, Providence, RI, 2006.
I. M. Isaacs, ‘[*Characters of Solvable Groups*]{}’, Graduate studies in Mathematics [**189**]{}, AMS, Providence, RI, 2018.
I. M. Isaacs, G. Navarro, Weights and vertices for characters of $\pi$-separable groups, J. Algebra [**177**]{} (1995), 339–366.
D. J. S. Robinson, ‘[*A course in the theory of groups*]{}’, 2nd edition, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1996.
P. Hall, Theorems like Sylow’s, Proc. London Math. Soc. **6** (1956), 286–304.
M. C. Slattery, Pi-blocks of pi-separable groups. [I]{}, J. Algebra **102** (1986), 60–77.
A. Turull, Above the Glauberman correspondence, Adv. in Math. [**217**]{} (2008), 2170–2205.
[^1]: The research of the first author is supported by MTM2016-76196-P and Prometeo/Generalitat Valenciana. The second author thanks the German Research Foundation (projects SA 2864/1-1 and SA 2864/3-1).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Sven Wedemeyer$^*$'
- Mikolaj Szydlarski
- Shahin Jafarzadeh
- Henrik Eklund
- Juan Camilo Guevara Gomez
- Tim Bastian
- Bernhard Fleck
- Jaime de la Cruz Rodriguez
- Andrew Rodger
- Mats Carlsson
bibliography:
- 'swmain.bib'
date: 'Received — ; accepted — '
subtitle: 'I. Introduction to ALMA Band 3 observations'
title: The Sun at millimeter wavelengths
---
[The observation covers a duration of 48min at a cadence of 2s targeting a Quiet Sun region at disk-centre. Corresponding time series of brightness temperature maps are constructed with the first version of the Solar ALMA Pipeline (SoAP) and compared to simultaneous observations with the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO). ]{} [The angular resolution of the observations is set by the synthesized beam, an elliptical Gaussian that is approximately $1.4\arcsec\times 2.1\arcsec$ in size. The ALMA maps exhibit network patches, internetwork regions and also elongated thin features that are connected to large-scale magnetic loops as confirmed by a comparison with SDO maps. The ALMA Band 3 maps correlate best with the SDO/AIA 171Å, 131Å and 304Å channels in that they exhibit network features and, although very weak in the ALMA maps, imprints of large-scale loops. A group of compact magnetic loops is very clearly visible in ALMA Band 3. The brightness temperatures in the loop tops reach values of about 8000-9000K and in extreme moments up to 10000K. ]{} [ALMA Band 3 interferometric observations from early observing cycles already reveal temperature differences in the solar chromosphere. The weak imprint of magnetic loops and the correlation with the 171, 131, and 304 SDO channels suggests though that the radiation mapped in ALMA Band 3 might have contributions from a larger range of atmospheric heights than previously assumed but the exact formation height of Band 3 needs to be investigated in more detail. The absolute brightness temperature scale as set by Total Power measurements remains less certain and must be improved in the future. Despite these complications and the limited angular resolution, ALMA Band 3 observations have large potential for quantitative studies of the small-scale structure and dynamics of the solar chromosphere. ]{}
{width="12cm"}
Introduction
============
The Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) provides new diagnostic possibilities to probe the chromosphere of the Sun at high spatial, temporal, and spectral resolution . In principle, observing at millimeter wavelengths has the advantage that the radiation is formed under conditions of local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) and therefore provides a more direct measure of local gas temperatures in the chromosphere than other commonly used diagnostics at shorter wavelengths, such as optical and UV wavelengths, that are not in LTE. The comparatively long millimeter and submillimeter wavelengths have historically had the disadvantage of a correspondingly lower angular resolution, relying largely on single dish observations (e.g., Bastian et al. 1993, Lindsey et al. 1995, and references therein). Interferometric techniques, using an array of antennas, offer the means of observing the Sun with high angular resolution. These were explored in the 1990s (e.g., Kundu et al. 1993) and 2000s (White et al. 2006) using small arrays. ALMA is the largest and most ambitious array ever built to observe celestial phenomena at millimeter and submillimeter wavelengths, including the Sun. ALMA offers the potential of unlocking this new diagnostic tool for high-resolution studies of the solar chromosphere. An overview of potential science cases with ALMA is given by @2016SSRv..200....1W, whereas Cycle 4 capabilities are described by @2017SoPh..292...88W and @2017SoPh..292...87S. While first regular ALMA observations of the Sun were only offered in Cycle 4 with a first solar campaign in December 2016, earlier observations from Commissioning and Science Verification (CSV) campaigns have been made publicly available. Both regular and CSV data are already used in publications: .
Interferometric observations of a dynamic source like the Sun and the reliable reconstruction of corresponding image series are challenging tasks. As a next step, in order to further develop and characterise ALMA’s diagnostic capabilities, the available observations have to be thoroughly studied and compared to other diagnostics. Here, we present and analyse observations with ALMA Band 3 at wavelengths around 3mm from December 2016 (Cycle 4), which were among the first regular observations of the Sun with ALMA. The aim of the results presented here is to illustrate the potential, limitations, and challenges of studying the small-scale structure and dynamics of the solar atmosphere with ALMA Band 3. The technical details of the observations are described in Sect. \[sec:material\] and the results of the data analysis in Sect. \[sec:results\]. Discussion and conclusions are provided in Sects. \[sec:disc\] and \[sec:conc\], respectively.
Observations {#sec:material}
============
\[sec:observ\]
Solar observation in Band 3
---------------------------
The Band 3 observations discussed in this article were carried out on December 22, 2016 from 14:22UT - 15:07UT. ALMA observations of the Sun currently comprise both interferometric observations of a specific target and full disk maps made with ALMA total power (TP) antennas. For the interferometric observations, an array in configuration C40-3 was used, which included a total of 52 antennas from the 12-m Array as well as the 10 fixed 7m antennas of the Atacama Compact Array. The resulting array has baselines ranging from 9.1m to 492.0m resulting in a nominal angular resolution of 1.56 and a Maximum Recoverable Scale (MRS) of 68. In addition to the interferometric observations, ALMA has up to 4 specially designed Total Power (TP) antennas that can perform rapid scans of the whole disk of the Sun [@2017SoPh..292...88W]. For the observations analysed here, three TP antennas were available for fast-scan mapping. The column of precipitable water vapour (PWV) in Earth’s atmosphere during the observation was 1.60mm.
Because of an operational glitch, the interferometric array did not point at and track the intended target region but instead re-centred on in helioprojective coordinates repeatedly during the observation. As a result, the observed disk-centre Quiet Sun region is slowly drifting through the ALMA field-of-view (FOV) because the telescope pointing did not track solar rotation (see Sect. \[sec:intprocess\]). The Band 3 observing sequence consists of 4 scans with a duration of $\sim$10min each. These scans are separated by calibration breaks of $\sim$2.4min. The observations were carried out with a cadence of 2s - the highest possible in Cycle 4. In Cycle 4, ALMA Band 3 was set up for solar observations in 4 spectral windows (hereafter referred to as sub-bands) around a central frequency of 100GHz. These sub-bands, which we refer to as sub-bands 1 – 4 (abbreviated SB1 – SB4) with increasing frequency, are centered on 93GHz (SB1), 95GHz (SB2), 105GHz (SB3), and 107GHz (SB4), corresponding to wavelengths of 3.224mm, 3.156mm, 2.855mm, and 2.802mm. Each sub-band has a total bandwidth of 2GHz (with the central 1.875GHz being retained), which results in two pairs of neighbouring sub-bands (SB1-SB2 and SB3-SB4) with a central gap. The three available TP maps were completed at 14:23UT, 14:36UT, and 14:49UT. A complete scan in Band 3 took between 12.6min and 12.9min, which includes calibration. The net time for scanning the solar disk in a double-circle pattern is 5min. The TP maps thus cover most of the interferometric observation and can be used for combining the interferometric and TP data, which results in absolute brightness temperatures. The TP map for SB4 for the first scan (from 14:11UT to 14:23UT) is shown in Fig. \[fig:almatp\]a. Please refer to Sect. \[sec:app\_tp\] for background information regarding the TP observations.
Interferometric data processing {#sec:intprocess}
-------------------------------
#### Approach for the Band 3 data set.
The calibrated ALMA data were downloaded from the ALMA Archive and further processed with the Solar ALMA Pipeline (SoAP, @soap_inprep in prep.[^1]) based on the Common Astronomy Software Applications (CASA[^2]) package. Please note that solar observing is currently still a non-standard mode. Solar data are therefore not processed with the official ALMA pipeline. Instead, SoAP is used for this publication. Please refer to Sect. \[sec:app\_intimg\] in the appendix for more information on interferometric image reconstruction.
Unique to data from December 2016 are the complications arising from the erroneous pointing and tracking, which resulted in the instrument phase tracking center repeatedly being re-pointed to the apparent center of the solar disk, resulting in a slow drift of the FOV with intermediate jumps. It was therefore necessary to correct for the effect of the Sun’s rotation during the course of the observation. To do so, a time series of Band 3 images at 2s cadence was constructed. The image processing required for each snapshot image includes several important steps: first, the ALMA PSF (the “dirty beam”) is deconvolved from the image data (the “dirty map”) through application of the multi-scale (multi-frequency) CLEAN algorithm as implemented in CASA. Here, all interferometric information from the four sub-bands is used to produce one continuum image (referred to as “full-band map”) for each time step (see also Sect. \[sec:app\_intimg\]). Second, the image data are corrected for the effect of the primary beam (see Sect. \[sec:fov\]). Third, the interferometric data are combined (also called “feathered”) with the TP map in order to add an (DC brightness) offset and thus the absolute brightness temperature scale corresponding to zero-spacing information to the reconstruction (Sect \[sec:tp\]). Finally, the ALMA Band 3 maps are co-aligned with observational data from other observatories (Sect. \[sec:coobserv\]). The apparent drift of snapshot images in time due to solar rotation was then corrected by cross-correlating consecutive 2s images with a reference image, where the first frame in the times series was taken as the reference. The resulting time sequence represents true snapshot imaging at 2s cadence with no temporal averaging. We would like to emphasise that self-calibration for a short time window is the recommended approach but that self-calibration resulted in too aggressive corrections and loss of information on small spatial scales for December 2016 data suffering from pointing errors. A detailed description of the data processing with SoAP will be provided in a forthcoming publication [@soap_inprep].
Interferometric field-of-view {#sec:fov}
-----------------------------
For the Band 3 data discussed here, the FWHM beam width varies from 67.5 for SB1 to 60.0 for SB4 with 63.8 for the band centre frequency. Please refer to Sect. \[sec:app\_fov\] in the appendix for general background information. Since, as a result of the primary beam taper the source brightness decreases with distance from the beam axis while the noise stays constant, the signal-to-noise ratio declines as function of distance from the beam axis. To correct for the primary beam taper, the image data are divided by the relevant Gaussian (unit maximum) out to some user-specified threshold level where the SNR remains significant. The resulting FOV for interferometric ALMA images is therefore set by the wavelength (or frequency) and the chosen threshold for the primary beam. A threshold of 0.3 is a reasonable but generous choice and results in diameters of the FOV from 89 (SB1) to 79 (SB4). In the particular case of the data from December 2016, problems with the pointing and resulting coordinate jumps led to a reduction of the final FOV once the data had been corrected for solar rotation. The resulting FOV of these maps was set to a diameter of 65.6, which corresponds to effective Gaussian thresholds of 0.52 for SB1 and 0.44 for SB4, respectively.
Synthesized beam {#sec:observbeam}
----------------
We define the beam representative for the observations considered here (which determines the angular resolution) as the time-averages of the major axis, minor axis, and position angle. The resulting representative beam corresponds to the band-average frequency of 100GHz and has a major axis of 2.10 (full-width-half-maximum, FWHM ), a minor axis of 1.37 (FWHM ) and a position angle of 68.0deg (see Fig. \[fig:almapsf\]). The beam for the time step at 2016-12-22 14:42:04UT comes closest to the representative beam in terms of size. During the 48min covered during the observation with the Sun moving on the sky, the major axis shrank by $\sim$7% (see Fig. \[fig:almapsf\]c), whereas the minor axis stayed almost constant and the position angle increased by less than 2 degrees (see Fig. \[fig:almapsf\]d). The changes of the beam must be taken into account for a meaningful interpretation of the resulting data. Please refer to Sect. \[sec:app\_beam\] for more details.
{width="\textwidth"}
Absolute temperatures based on Total Power maps {#sec:tp}
-----------------------------------------------
@2017SoPh..292...88W suggest that, until systematic errors in the dual-load calibration scheme are fully understood and resolved, ALMA Band 3 TP maps should be scaled to a prescribed value of 7300K. The TP maps for the data presented here were produced for each sub-band and calibrated using the dual-load approach described by @2017SoPh..292...88W as implemented in CASA[^3]. Please note that, for Band 3, @2017SoPh..292...88W recommend to use the average over the inner square region with a size 120$\times$120 (black square in Fig. \[fig:almatp\]a), whereas the CASA script provided with the TP data uses the average over the central region of the solar disk with a radius of 240 (40 pixels, see dashed white circle in Fig. \[fig:almatp\]a). The histograms in Fig. \[fig:almatp\]c show the absolute brightness temperatures for the two different regions for the different sub-bands. The average brightness temperatures for the inner 120$\times$120 in the TP map used here () are 7635K (SB1), 7529K (SB2), 7434K (SB3), and 7247K (SB4) as compared to the corresponding average values for the circular region with radius of 240: 7559K (SB1), 7454K (SB2), 7357K (SB3), and 7171K (SB4). The values for the inner 120$\times$120 region are thus 75-77K higher than the larger circular region. It should be noted that the 120$\times$120 region is relatively small considering the width of the primary beam ($\sim60$), resulting in poor statistics and susceptibility to untypical brightness temperatures. As a consequence, the histograms for the central square 120$\times$120 in Fig. \[fig:almatp\]c-d are much narrower as compared to the histograms of the inner region with a radius of 240. It should also be noted that the common procedure is to use only one TP sub-band (typically SB2) for determining the offset and combination with the interferometric data, which thus ignores data from the other three sub-bands.
{width="\textwidth"}
The aforementioned mean values, and also the distribution peak temperatures, are highest for SB1 and lowest for SB4, consistent with the expectation that SB1 is formed higher in the solar atmosphere and that the average gas temperature in the mapped layers is monotonically increasing, as, e.g., reflected by the classic semi-empirical models of @Vernazza_1981ApJS...45..635V. On the other hand, the differences between the peak temperatures do not scale according to the sub-band frequencies and are not grouped accordingly into two pairs, suggesting offsets in the brightness temperatures of possibly on the order of 100K. The radial brightness temperature averages in Fig. \[fig:almatp\]b show the same differences between the sub-bands and thus the same order. The standard deviation is for all sub-bands between 100K and 150K for radii between 150 and 900, which is in line with the statistical uncertainty found by @2017SoPh..292...88W. Following the re-scaling procedure recommended by @2017SoPh..292...88W for all interferometric sub-bands separately would then shift the distributions of all sub-bands to roughly the same peak value (see Fig. \[fig:almatp\]d). While correcting offsets between the sub-bands, this procedure would also remove brightness temperature differences between the sub-bands that are connected to slightly different formations heights and the average temperature increase in the chromosphere. The resulting corrected sub-band differences are misleading in the sense that they do not reflect the true temperature gradients in the solar atmosphere.
We note that, for the observation presented here, there is a bright feature in the inner region (dashed circle in Fig. \[fig:almatp\]a, see also Fig. \[fig:almaoverview\]) that becomes a strong plage or enhanced network region of opposite polarity in the days following the observation. Excluding the bright feature would change the average value for the inner region with radius 240 for SB2 from originally 7454K to 7438K. This feature alone thus produces a 16K shift in the absolute brightness temperature scale. Further improvements to the calibration removing such effects are desirable.
For the data presented here, we strictly follow the procedure implemented in the officially provided CASA script and rescale the average over the (unaltered) central region with a radius of 40 pixels (corresponding to 240) in the TP SB2 map to the recommended reference value of 7300K. The average value in the original SB2 map is 7454K and thus only 154K higher than the recommended value, resulting in an applied scaling factor of 0.979 for the whole map. For the moment, significant uncertainties of the TP maps and thus the absolute brightness temperatures remain but will be reduced by future improvements of the calibration procedure.
Final data product and co-observations with SDO {#sec:coobserv}
-----------------------------------------------
Post-processing with SoAP produced one time series of 1200 full-band (continuum) ALMA maps with a cadence of 2s divided into 4 scans of duration (300 maps each) and intermediate breaks. As mentioned in Sect. \[sec:fov\], the FOV of these maps was limited to a diameter of 65.6 to ensure that each pixel in the FOV has data for all time steps. The full-disk TP maps for each of the three TP scans are also available for the analysis. Cotemporaneous observations with the Solar Dynamics Observatory [SDO; @2012SoPh..275....3P] recorded with the Atmospheric Imaging Assembly [AIA @2012SoPh..275...17L] and the Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager [HMI; @2012SoPh..275..207S] instrument are used here. The ALMA and SDO images have been co-aligned for the whole duration of the observation covering $\sim$47.6min including ALMA intermediate calibration breaks. A representative timestep is presented in Fig. \[fig:almasdo\]a. Movies for the whole time series are provided as online material: (i) The ALMA FOV alone and (ii) in comparison to SDO channels. For the movies, additional boxcar averaging with a window of 20sec is applied [cf. @1994ApJ...430..413S].
Data mask
---------
The FOV (see Fig. \[fig:almasdo\]a, see also Fig. \[fig:almaoverview\]) contains a Quiet Sun region with a mixture of magnetic network and internetwork patches. In order to distinguish between Quiet Sun internetwork and network pixels, a data mask is constructed based on a combination of time-averaged maps in SDO/AIA1700 and SDO/AIA1600 and saturated SDO/HMI magnetograms and the band-averaged ALMA maps. The time-averages include the whole observing period. The final mask is shown in Fig. \[fig:almahist\]a.
![**a)** The pixel mask distinguishing between network (NW) and internetwork (IN) pixels (white lines separate NW and IN). The black dashed circle marks the inner region with a radius of 22. The red circle shows the location of a group of compact loops (labeled C). The triangles mark two locations (A and B) for which profiles are shown in Fig. \[fig:almaprof\]. **b)** Brightness temperature distributions in the inner regions of the FOV (radius $r \leq 22$) over the whole observing time period. All pixels (black) compared to internetwork (blue) and network pixels (red) for the full band maps.[]{data-label="fig:almahist"}](p19alma1c_histograms.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
![ALMA brightness temperatures for the two selected positions A (internetwork) and B (network), which are marked in Fig. \[fig:almahist\]. The upper row shows the temporal evolution for **a)** the internetwork position A and **b)** the network position B. The dot on the abscissa marks the time step shown in Fig. \[fig:almasdo\]. The temporal evolution of the average over all pixels in the inner region (radius $r \leq 22$, grey line) and over the contained internetwork (IN, blue line) and network (NW, red line) pixels is plotted for comparison. Profiles along the x-axis are shown in the lower row for the same time step for **c)** position A (internetwork) and **d)** position B (network). The selected spatial position in Fig. \[fig:almahist\]a is marked with a dot on the abscissa. For comparison, the time-averages at the selected positions (blue/red dot-dashed lines), the averages over all time steps for all pixels in the inner region (grey solid line) and for the internetwork and network pixels (blue/red dashed lines), respectively, are shown. []{data-label="fig:almaprof"}](p19alma1c_tbexample.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
Results {#sec:results}
=======
Atmospheric structure observed with ALMA and SDO {#sec:observstruct}
------------------------------------------------
An example of full-band maps for ALMA Band 3 is put into context with co-aligned images from SDO in Fig. \[fig:almasdo\]. The statistics for the brightness temperature values for the whole time series are provided in Table \[tab:almatb\]. The observed Quiet Sun region contains a few magnetic network elements that are mostly located in the left and top of the FOV. The network elements appear brighter and thus hotter than their surrounding in the ALMA map (see also the HMI magnetogram in Fig. \[fig:almasdo\]c). A corresponding network mask (which excludes the outermost part of the FOV) is marked in Fig. \[fig:almahist\]a. Most of the remaining FOV is characterised by a dynamic mesh-like pattern resembling the pattern seen in other chromospheric diagnostics . The pattern contains dark regions although their temperature differences with respect to the immediate surrounding varies a lot. Occasionally, elongated features become discernible temporarily and remind of parts of fibrils or dark compact arches but the visibility of these features varies in time[^4]. A comparison of the ALMA maps with the SDO maps suggests that at least some of these features might be connected to extended magnetic loops as most notably seen in the 17.1nm map (Fig. \[fig:almasdo\]e and Fig. \[fig:almaoverview\]a). These features might therefore be caused by weak opacity contributions from coronal loops in the line of sight that then result in weak imprints in the ALMA maps. If and how significant this effect is should be investigated in the future. The correlation between the ALMA and SDO maps is discussed in Sect. \[sec:almasdocorr\]. The small region marked with a red circle in Fig. \[fig:almasdo\] is discussed in detail in Sect. \[sec:almaloops\].
{width="12cm"}
Brightness temperature distribution {#sec:tbdistribut}
-----------------------------------
------------------- ------ ------ ------
\[-2mm\] Quantity All NW IN
\[-2mm\]
\[-2mm\] avg. 7400 7588 7228
median 7363 7533 7223
RMS 453 478 342
min. 5814 5828 5814
max. 9690 9690 9678
1st perc. 6515 6565 6487
99th perc. 8690 8814 8195
histogram, max. 7325 7415 7254
histogram, FWHM 752 782 702
------------------- ------ ------ ------
: Observed brightness temperatures in ALMA Band 3. Only the inner region of the FOV within a radius of 22 is considered. Separate values are given for all considered pixels and for the subsets marked as network (NW) and internetwork (IN). Compare Fig. \[fig:almahist\]a for the pixel map. []{data-label="tab:almatb"}
Taking into account the whole observation sequence with all 1200 time steps, results in brightness temperatures ranging from $\sim$4440K to $\sim$10700K for all pixels and $\sim$5810K to $\sim$9690K in the inner region . The corresponding average and standard deviation is $(7500 \pm 514)$K for the whole FOV and $(7400 \pm 453)$K for the inner region. The brightness temperature distribution for the whole observing period for the inner region has a maximum at 7325K (see Fig. \[fig:almahist\]b). In addition, distributions are shown separately for internetwork and network pixels in Fig. \[fig:almahist\]b, respectively (see Fig. \[fig:almahist\]a for the pixel mask). The distribution for network pixels has a peak at a higher temperature compared to the internetwork distribution and deviates clearly from a Gaussian distribution, exhibiting a stretched tail at higher temperatures. The values for the maxima and widths of the distributions are provided in Table \[tab:almatb\]. The difference of the distribution maxima for the network pixels and the internetwork pixels is 160K, whereas the average temperature differs by 360K. The distributions for the network is about 11% broader than for the internetwork except with a FWHM values of 782K and 702K, respectively. These results are compared to other ALMA observations in Sect. \[sec:disctemp\].
Temporal variation {#sec:tbtimevar}
------------------
One position in the internetwork and one in the network are selected and marked in Fig. \[fig:almahist\]a and labelled A and B, respectively. The temporal evolution of the brightness temperature at these locations is shown in Fig. \[fig:almaprof\]a-b. There seems to be an oscillation with a period on the order of 3min as it is expected for chromospheric internetwork regions although such variations are more pronounced for other locations in the internetwork. A more detailed study of the oscillatory behaviour will be published in a forthcoming paper [@jafarzadeh_waves_inprep]. The network position does not show an equally clear oscillation but variations on different time scales. Brightness temperature profiles along the x-axis for the two selected position are shown in Fig. \[fig:almaprof\]c and d, respectively. The major and minor axes (FWHM ) of the synthetic beams (see the top of the panels) limit the smallest scales over which variations can be recovered.
{width="\textwidth"}
Correlation of ALMA and SDO maps {#sec:almasdocorr}
--------------------------------
A comparison of the ALMA maps with the SDO maps reveals that the extended magnetic loops as most notably seen in the 17.1nm map (Fig. \[fig:almasdo\]e) also leave weak imprints in the ALMA maps. In order to quantify such similarities, the cross-correlations of the ALMA maps with the corresponding SDO maps are calculated for the considered SDO channels. For each time step, the SDO maps are first convolved with the representative ALMA Band 3 beam before calculating the cross-correlation for the whole inner FOV region ($r < 22\arcsec$) but excluding the circular region with the compact loops (red circles in Fig. \[fig:almasdo\]). The resulting time-averaged values $\langle\mathcal{C}\rangle_t$ are highest for ALMA Band 3 – SDO/AIA 30.4nm and ALMA Band 3 – SDO/AIA 13.1nm, both reaching a moderate correlation of , followed by SDO/AIA 17.1nm with $\langle\mathcal{C}\rangle_t = 0.33$. The cross-correlation values for only network pixels in the inner region are $\langle\mathcal{C}\rangle_t = 0.35$, 0.34, and 0.33 for SDO AIA 17.1nm, SDO/AIA 30.4nm, and SDO/AIA 13.1nm, respectively. In general, the correlation is much weaker for internetwork pixels with values staying below 0.28 (SDO/AIA 30.4nm) and 0.19 (SDO/AIA 13.1nm). The cross-correlation with selected SDO channels is visualized in Fig. \[fig:sdocorr\] for all pixels and also for network and internetwork pixels separately. The plots for SDO/AIA 17.1nm and SDO/AIA 13.1nm (panels e-f) reveal the tendency of increasing brightness temperature with increasing SDO count value, implying that statistically a higher value in these channels is connected to a higher brightness temperature along the same line of sight. Please refer to Sect. \[sec:disc\_height\] for a discussion of potential implications for the formation height ranges of ALMA Band 3.
Compact loops {#sec:almaloops}
-------------
In the top right of the interferometric FOV, a group of short magnetic loops is visible in most SDO channels (see encircled region in Fig. \[fig:almasdo\] and Fig. \[fig:loops\]b for a close-up). The loops connect patches of opposite polarity as visible in the HMI magnetogram. Given the appearance in the SDO maps, we suggest that the features in the ALMA maps (see Fig. \[fig:loops\]a) are unresolved loop strands. The projected lengths of the loops are on the order of 10, which agrees with the distance between the magnetic foot points seen in the HMI map (Fig. \[fig:almasdo\]b). The ALMA map shows higher brightness temperatures at roughly the same location as the hotter SDO channels (panels d-f), implying that ALMA maps the hot loop tops at brightness temperatures between 8500K and a maximum of 9650K. Several elongated features with enhanced temperature are discernible. Their widths are with 2-3 close to the resolution limit, whereas the distance of 4-6 between the elongated features is resolved. Between these features, the brightness temperature can be as low as 7500K and thus close to the average value for the whole FOV. The brightness temperature at the loop tops varies strongly in time between around 8000K and peak values of close to or in excess of 9000K. The temperature difference between the loop tops and the surrounding is thus often on the order of 1000K or more although it varies, resulting in varying contrast of the loops. The brightness temperature variations are compared to the corresponding variations in SDO AIA171 for three selected positions (D, E, F) in At the beginning of the observing period, some loop tops exhibit several consecutive peaks with about 4-5min in-between, which may imply oscillatory behaviour. Positions D and E show are located on the loops whereas position F marks a cooler region in-between the loops for the shown time step in Fig. \[fig:loops\]a. It is quite clear that loops are not properly resolved and also sway in time, thus affecting the signal at a given fixed spatial position. The loop position D shows a strong temperature rise from 8000K at $t = 20$s to 9200K at $t = 170$s, i.e. 1200K over 150s with a corresponding rate of $\sim$8Ks$^{-1}$, here referred to as event 1. This event is followed by another temperature rise (event 2) with a rate of $\sim$6Ks$^{-1}$. For event 2, the SDOAIA171 signal also steeply increases at the same time whereas there is only a moderate increase for event 1. The changes in SDO AIA171 is not always tightly coupled to the changes in ALMA brightness temperature as is most obvious for event 3 at position F. For that event, a steep temperature rise of 1100K over 120s is observed (rate: $\sim$9Ks$^{-1}$) whereas the SDO AIA171 signal slowly decreases.
Analysis of the SDO data for the interferometric FOV and the surroundings (see Fig. \[fig:almaoverview\]) before and after the ALMA observation, suggests that the compact loop system is the result of a flux emergence event. The first loop top appears in HMI magnetograms around UT9:11, i.e. about five hours prior to the ALMA observation. Subsequently, two footpoints with opposite magnetic polarity move away from each other and reach their final separation within one hour. In that process, further footpoints emerge next to the initial ones and finally form the group of compact loops. The loops become visible in AIA171 maps during that emergence phase. After the ALMA observation, the two polarities move towards each other until they mix around UT17:40, followed by the disintegration of the loops. The AIA304 and AIA171 data show that the group finally vanishes from about 20UT.
Such emerging magnetic loops are expected to be optically thin at millimeter wavelengths and may reveal the atmosphere underneath, which could provide the thermal properties of the inner part of emerged regions (Nóbrega-Siverio, priv.comm.). Quite opposite to this expectation, the ALMA observation presented here clearly feature bright magnetic loops, suggesting that they are optically thick and thus block the view at the possibly existing cool plasma below. A possible explanation is that the observed loop tops stay at rather low altitude, at least during the 45min covered by ALMA. The extended coronal loops that traverse the ALMA FOV (see Fig. \[fig:almasdo\]) seem to be located higher in the atmosphere and might prevent the compact loops from rising higher. The consequence would be that the latter remain in the chromosphere with loops containing plasma with higher density and correspondingly larger opacity.
Discussion {#sec:disc}
==========
Brightness temperature distribution {#sec:disctemp}
-----------------------------------
The average brightness temperatures in the ALMA Band 3 full-band maps discussed here are on the order of 7400K for all pixels in the inner parts of the FOV and on the order of $\sim7590$K and $\sim7230$K when separating network and internetwork pixels (see Table \[tab:almatb\]). Accordingly, the difference between the average full-band network and internetwork brightness temperatures is $\sim$360K. As expected, these values are close to the reference value of 7300K suggested by [@2017SoPh..292...88W] because the absolute brightness temperature scale was corrected accordingly. It should be noted, however, that the applied correction was a minor one (see Sect. \[sec:observbeam\]). In the following, we compare the brightness temperature distributions of the data presented here to the ALMA Band 3 observations from Cycle 4 by @2019ApJ...877L..26L and .
@2019ApJ...877L..26L analyse data obtained on April 27, 2017, for a Quiet Sun region at 200 distance from solar disk-centre that contains magnetic network and internetwork patches. They state a width of 1.6 for both axes of their synthesized beam, which is slightly smaller than the representative beam used for the data presented here. The brightness temperatures range from 5630 K to 9140K in their time-averaged map and from 4370K to 11170K in the corresponding time sequence at 2s cadence. The lowest temperatures are found in a 20 wide region, which is significantly cooler than the surrounding atmosphere but which is not visible at other wavelengths as observed with SDO. From their Fig. 2, we determine the peaks and FWHM values of the brightness temperature distributions for the selected network and internetwork patches. The network patch has a maximum at 7340K and a FWHM of 1240K, whereas the internetwork regions have maxima at 7200K and 7090K and FWHM s of 530K and 430K and corresponding standard deviations of 225K and 183K, respectively. In contrast, their cool region has a maximum at 6330K and a FWHM of 1470K. The distribution peak temperatures for the internetwork regions are only slightly lower than found in this study (see Table \[tab:almatb\] and Sect. \[sec:tbdistribut\]) but it might be argued that they nonetheless agree within the expected uncertainties of possibly a few 100K. The FWHM of the internetwork temperature distribution found by @2019ApJ...877L..26L is significantly smaller than for the data set analysed here (702K, see Table \[tab:almatb\]). Their distribution for network pixels, on the other hand, has a maximum at 75K lower than the value found here see Table \[tab:almatb\]) but it still agrees within the error limits. The corresponding FWHM, however, is much larger than found in this study. As we will demonstrate in Sect. \[sec:angres\], the FWHM of the brightness temperature distribution depends on the effective angular resolution of the observation and thus on a number of factors ranging from seeing conditions to details of the image reconstruction procedure.
observed the Sun with ALMA in Band 3 on March 16, 2017 for several positions from the limb to disk-center. For the latter, they found an average brightness temperatures of 7530K for network pixels, 6940K for internetwork (cell) pixels, and 7220K as average over the FOV. We find that the average brightness temperatures for network pixels agree quite well with values for the observations presented here whereas the value for internetwork pixels found by is almost 300K lower than the value found here. Accordingly, they state an average difference between network and internetwork of 590K, whereas it is only 360K in the data presented here (see Table \[tab:almatb\]). Furthermore, determined the standard deviation over the FOV as 390K as compared to $\sim 450$K for all pixels in the inner region of the data presented here. The values found by is similar to the value found here for internetwork pixels ($\sim$340-400K) and lower than the corresponding network value ($\sim$500K). state that the synthetic beam of their disk-center observation has a major axis of 8.1 and a minor axis of 2.3, which is significantly larger than the synthetic beams for the data presented here. Please note that achieved smaller beams for earlier observations closer to the solar limb. The differences in brightness temperatures between those found by at solar disk-centre and those reported here might therefore be partially due to the differences in angular resolution in addition to differences arising from the applied post-processing method. We also note that the data run used by was obtained under worse seeing conditions with a higher amount of precipitable water vapour (PWV) in Earth’s atmosphere.
For comparison, we considered the BIMA observation by at 85GHz with a beam (and thus an angular resolution) of 10. find rms variations of $\sim$120K for both network and interwork locations. This value is about a factor 3-4 less than for the ALMA results discussed above.
![Selected synthetic brightness temperature map (Bifrost/ART) for the average Band 3 frequency (100GHz). The enhanced network region is marked with a yellow dashed rectangle. **a)** The original mm map averaged over the frequencies covered by the solar ALMA observations in Band 3. **b)** The mm map after applying the PSF (see upper left corner) corresponding to the representative synthetic beam for the observation presented here. **c)** Brightness temperature distributions for the original map (black solid line, grey area) and after applying different PSFs: representative beam as in panel b (orange solid, yellow area), (blue solid), @2019ApJ...877L..26L (blue dot-dashed), and (BIMA, black dot-dashed). The distribution for observed Band 3 temperatures is plotted as red line and red shaded area (all pixels, see Fig. \[fig:almahist\]b).[]{data-label="fig:simres"}](p19alma1c_simres.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
[l|r|r|r|c|c|c]{} &&&&\
Quantity & All &NW&IN&maj&min&ang\
\
\
$T_\mathrm{b}$, avg. \[K\]& 7015 & 7977 & 6688 &–&–&–\
$T_\mathrm{b}$, rms \[K\]& 1549 & 1794 & 1304 &&&\
\
\
$T_\mathrm{b}$, avg. \[K\]& 7015 & 7969 & 6691 &2.10&1.37& 68.0$^\circ$\
$T_\mathrm{b}$, rms \[K\]& 1033 & 1254 & 693 &&&\
\
\
$T_\mathrm{b}$, avg. \[K\]& 7015 & 7971 & 6690 &1.6&1.6&–\
$T_\mathrm{b}$, rms \[K\]& 1056 & 1279 & 722 &&&\
\
\
$T_\mathrm{b}$, avg. \[K\]& 7015 & 7865 & 6726 &8.1&2.3&-48$^\circ$\
$T_\mathrm{b}$, rms \[K\]& 744 & 802 & 431 &&&\
\
\
$T_\mathrm{b}$, avg. \[K\]& 7016 & 7681 & 6790 &10.0&10.0&–\
$T_\mathrm{b}$, rms \[K\]& 536 & 495 & 317 &&&\
\
\
$T_\mathrm{b}$, avg. \[K\] & 7400 & 7588 & 7228&2.10&1.37& 68.0$^\circ$\
$T_\mathrm{b}$, rms \[K\] & 453 & 478 & 342&&&\
Dependence on angular resolution. {#sec:angres}
---------------------------------
As already demonstrated by , not resolving small-scale chromospheric features due to limited angular resolution results in a reduction of the corresponding standard deviation in the obtained brightness temperature maps. The better the angular resolution, the higher the standard deviation in the observations. In the following, we test the influence of reduced angular resolution on the resulting brightness temperature distribution by convolving synthetic brightness temperature maps with different synthetic beams. Brightness temperature maps for ALMA Band 3 frequencies are calculated with the Advanced Radiative Transfer (ART) code (de la Cruz Rodriguez et al., in prep.) for a time series of snapshots from a 3D radiation magnetohydrodynamic simulation with Bifrost . The series used here has a duration of 20min and a cadence of 1s and features an enhanced network region in the middle with surrounding Quiet Sun. For each time step, the maps for the different frequencies are averaged, resulting in band-average maps. See Fig. \[fig:simres\]a for an example for a selected time step. Applying the representative beam for the data presented here (see Sect. \[sec:observbeam\]), produces a brightness temperature map at an angular resolution equivalent to the analysed ALMA observations (see Fig. \[fig:simres\]b). This procedure is repeated for all maps in the time series and also for the ALMA beams used by and @2019ApJ...877L..26L, and the BIMA beam by . The resulting brightness temperature distributions for the original maps and the degraded maps for all four beams are compared to the observational results in Fig. \[fig:simres\]c. All time steps are taken into account. For the elliptic beams such as in the observations presented here and for , additional degraded maps are calculated with the beam rotated by $90\,\deg$. This extra step reduces possible artificial effects due to the coincidental alignment of elongated features in the original map with a beam axis. The resulting averages and standard deviations of the brightness temperature maps are summarised in Table \[tab:simtb\].
The original maps have an average of 7015K and a standard deviation of 1549K. The network pixels in the middle of the map (see dashed rectangle in Fig. \[fig:simres\]a-b) have an almost 1000K higher average and a larger standard deviation whereas both are reduced for the internetwork pixels (outer region of the map in Fig. \[fig:simres\]a-b).) Reducing the angular resolution by convolution with a synthetic beam (i.e. a PSF) does not affect the brightness temperature average but results in a narrower distribution (see Fig. \[fig:simres\]c) and a correspondingly reduced standard deviation (Table \[tab:simtb\]). Using the representative beam from the ALMA observations presented here results in a standard deviation of 1033K, which is very similar to the results obtained with the symmetric 1.6 wide beam reported by @2019ApJ...877L..26L. The larger and more elliptical beam by results in even lower standard deviation of 744K. For comparison, we also apply the 10 BIMA beam by , which returns a standard deviation of 536K for the whole map and 317K for internetwork pixels although a substantial mixing of network and internetwork within the beam is expected.
The average brightness temperatures for the whole maps (“all” in Table \[tab:simtb\]) are only 300K lower than those derived from the observations presented in this work. The simulated standard deviation, however, is roughly a factor two higher than the corresponding observational value. It is important to note that the original simulated maps represent the best possible maps that can be obtained with a given beam, whereas additional factors can lead to a further reduction of the standard deviation in the observed maps. First of all, interferometric snapshot observations with a finite number of antennas can by nature never provide a truly complete coverage of the spatial Fourier space and resulting degradation must be expected. Furthermore, seeing conditions, noise contributions and technical details of the imaging process itself are possible causes for further reduction. On the other hand, these first results are already very promising.
We conclude that our results agree with the study by [@2019ApJ...877L..26L] at least on a qualitative level and also in some aspects with but more systematic statistical comparisons should be attempted in the future. There are many factors that influence the brightness temperature distribution ranging from the properties of the observed target regions and accuracy of the applied network mask to different seeing condition and details of the imaging procedure. The small size of the FOV and thus the peculiarities of the observed regions will produce variations in the statistical properties derived from different observations. Such results should be compared to a corresponding analysis of mosaicking data that cover larger FOVs . Furthermore, the test for different angular resolutions implies that more extended array configurations of ALMA, which might be offered in future observing cycles, are likely to lead to higher rms variations and thus more contrast in the reconstructed images.
Formation height {#sec:disc_height}
----------------
@2017SoPh..292...88W [see also references therein] point out that contributions from the corona to brightness temperatures measured with ALMA should be expected and that the contributions could amount to a few 100K in Band 3 from the densest parts of the corona. As mentioned in Sect. \[sec:observstruct\] and quantified in terms of cross-correlations in Sect. \[sec:almasdocorr\], coronal loops that extend across the ALMA field of view and are clearly visible in coronal SDO channels can leave very weak imprints in some ALMA Band 3 maps but are best seen in movies. Internetwork and network regions are clearly seen in the ALMA maps presented here but appear to be more horizontally expanded than SDO/AIA 170nm maps, which, together with the rather weak to moderate cross-correlation between this SDO channel and ALMA Band 3, may imply that Band 3 is formed above the layer from where the continuum radiation at 170nm emerges. At the same time, one should be cautious with concluding on the formation height range based on these arguments, especially regarding the cross-correlations, even with these findings supporting the claim by @2017SoPh..292...88W. Rather, it is essential to study the mapped height ranges and contribution functions along the line of sight in ALMA data in detail. The scientific potential of the measured brightness temperatures can only be truly unfolded once the temperatures can be assigned to precise height ranges and thus being translated into measurements of the chromospheric temperature stratification.
Conclusion and Outlook {#sec:conc}
======================
Although the solar observing mode of ALMA is still in its early development phase, the ALMA Band 3 data presented here and in previous publications already demonstrate ALMA’s potential for scientific studies of the solar chromosphere. The spatial resolution currently achieved in Band 3 certainly limits the study of the chromospheric small-scale structure and dynamics but, at the same time, and this cannot be emphasized enough, it is an enormous leap forward for the observation of the Sun at millimeter wavelengths.
With this tool at hand, the brightness temperature distribution for a Quiet Sun region at disk-centre is quantitatively analysed, also separated in network and internetwork patches, and can thus serve as important test for numerical simulations of the solar atmosphere.
While many aspects such as the exact formation height ranges, possible weak coronal contributions, and details of the imaging procedure need to be investigated in more detail, the presented data already allows for a large range of scientific studies. For instance, we are able to measure the brightness temperatures in a group of compact loops as function of time.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work is supported by the SolarALMA project, which has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No. 682462), and by the Research Council of Norway through its Centres of Excellence scheme, project number 262622. JdlCR is supported by grants from the Swedish Research Council (2015-03994), the Swedish National Space Board (128/15) and the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB). This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (SUNMAG, grant agreement 759548). The Institute for Solar Physics is supported by a grant for research infrastructures of national importance from the Swedish Research Council (registration number 2017-00625). This paper makes use of the following ALMA data: ADS/JAO.ALMA\#2016.1.00423.S. ALMA is a partnership of ESO (representing its member states), NSF (USA) and NINS (Japan), together with NRC(Canada), MOST and ASIAA (Taiwan), and KASI (Republic of Korea), in co-operation with the Republic of Chile. The Joint ALMA Observatory is operated by ESO, AUI/NRAO and NAOJ. We are grateful to the many colleagues who contributed to developing the solar observing modes for ALMA and for support from the ALMA Regional Centres. We acknowledge support from the Nordic ARC node based at the Onsala Space Observatory Swedish national infrastructure, funded through Swedish Research Council grant No 2017 – 00648, and collaboration with the Solar Simulations for the Atacama Large Millimeter Observatory Network (SSALMON, http://www.ssalmon.uio.no). The ISSI international team 387 “A New View of the Solar-stellar Connection with ALMA” was funded by the International Space Science Institute (ISSI, Bern, Switzerland). We thank D. E. Nóbrega Siverio for helpful comments regarding the observed compact loops.
Introduction to interferometric observations {#sec:appendix}
============================================
Interferometric image reconstruction {#sec:app_intimg}
------------------------------------
Reconstructing solar images from interferometric observations is by its very nature a challenging task that is limited by the achieved sampling of the spatial Fourier domain. Each measurement made by a pair of antennas (a “baseline”) with a particular spacing (measured in wavelengths) and orientation corresponds to a single Fourier component[^5] of the source brightness distribution. The more Fourier components measured, the more reliable the original source image can be reconstructed from the available information. For sources that do not change significantly during an observation, the Earth’s rotation can be utilized to greatly increase the number of Fourier components measured owing to the fact that the orientation of the antenna distribution relative to the source changes in time. This is referred to as “Earth rotation aperture synthesis”. While this technique can be used to better sample the Fourier domain, it is not applicable in the case of variable sources like the Sun. It could be argued that using measurements over short time periods is a justifiable compromise between quality of the reconstructed images and time resolution. The common procedure for the studies published so far is therefore to reconstruct single images from all available frequency channels from all sub-bands over extended time windows of up to an entire scan ($\sim 10$ min) or even the full duration of the observations ($\sim 1$ hr). We refer to maps that are constructed from all frequency channels as “full-band” maps, regardless the time window used, whereas the term “snapshot” images is used for maps that are made every integration time. The latter would result in time series of maps with 2s cadence for Cycle 4 data.
As the Fourier component sampled by a certain baseline also depends on the observing frequency, the sampling in the Fourier domain can be improved by using larger frequency ranges for the imaging process, combining spectral channels and or even all sub-bands. This technique, referred to as “frequency synthesis”, essentially averages out information in the spectral domain in favour of better image fidelity. Obviously, care must be taken in evaluating the trade-offs between improved sampling - and the possibility of improved imaging fidelity - and the loss of information caused by averaging over temporal or spectral variations. Depending on the intended scientific aim, this might not be desirable and image reconstruction resulting in slightly less reliable brightness temperatures might be acceptable in return for access to the spectral domain. The reliability of brightness temperature differences after splitting into sub-bands is under investigation and will be discussed in greater detail in future publications. For this first paper, we produce maps using all four sub-bands (full-band maps) but we do not average the data in time.
Interferometric field-of-view {#sec:app_fov}
-----------------------------
The FOV of the interferometric observations is set by the primary beam, which is due to the aperture of a single antenna. The effect of the primary beam response is to multiply the field of view by an approximately Gaussian function, referred to as the primary beam taper. The size of the Gaussian primary beam is typically specified in terms of its full-width-at-half-maximum (FWHM), which depends on the observed wavelength [or frequency, see, e.g., @2016SSRv..200....1W].
Synthesized beam {#sec:app_beam}
----------------
![The synthesized beam (here also referred to as point spread function, PSF) representative for the Band 3 solar observations. The beam corresponds to the central frequency of 100GHz. **a)** Coloured contour plot for the central region around the main lobe, **b)** profiles along the major and minor axes, **c)** variation with time for the major and minor axes, and **d)** for the orientation angle. The dashed horizontal lines in the lower panels mark the time-averages of the beam parameters, while the dotted vertical lines mark the time of the actual full-band beam that is closest in size to the representative beam as derived from the time-average of the major and minor axes.[]{data-label="fig:almapsf"}](p19alma1c_psf.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
The synthesized (interferometric) beam, which corresponds to the point spread function (PSF) of the interferometric array, is calculated during the image reconstruction process and provided as output. The PSF depends on the angles under which the target appears on the sky and thus changes with time when the target is tracked during an observation. The ALMA PSF is characterized by a central lobe normalized to unit amplitude and sidelobes due to incomplete sampling in the Fourier domain. The central lobe is approximately an elliptical Gaussian, whose dimensions are determined by the maximum distances between antennas, thus determining the angular resolution of the observation. Image deconvolution involves removal of the PSF sidelobe response from the image leaving, in principle, a map that is the true brightness distribution convolved with the “clean beam” plus noise. In general, the (clean) beam is simply the elliptical Gaussian fit to the central lobe of the PSF (Fig. \[fig:almapsf\]a).
Absolute temperatures based on Total Power maps {#sec:app_tp}
-----------------------------------------------
The interferometric observations provide brightness temperature differences relative to the mean brightness but lack an absolute offset corresponding to the measurement at the zero spatial frequency (or zero-spacing frequency) in the Fourier domain. That is, the zero component corresponds to a telescope pair with a baseline of zero length. Since this is technically impossible, ALMA overcomes this problem by combining interferometric data with observations with single-dish total power antennas. These antennas have a diameter of 12m like the other antennas in the ALMA’s 12-m array. The angular resolution of the full disk maps produced by TP fast-scanning techniques is therefore identical to the FOV of the 12-m array. While details on spatial scales below $\approx 60$ remain unresolved in TP maps, the features in the map can clearly be correlated with full-disk maps obtained with the Solar Dynamics Observatory [SDO; @2012SoPh..275....3P] (see Sect. \[sec:coobserv\]). Note that a single measurement with a TP antenna toward the interferometric target provides the zero-spacing component in Fourier space, whereas fast-scanning over the solar disk measures the brightness distribution of the source on angular scales of the primary beam (here $\sim 60$) and larger (to the angular extent of the Sun itself).
[^1]: SoAP is an initiative of the SolarALMA project in Oslo in collaboration with the international solar ALMA development team.
[^2]: CASA: `http://casa.nrao.edu`
[^3]: The CASA versions of the dual-load calibration scripts were produced in connection with a meeting of the International Team 387 funded by the International Space Science Institute (ISSI, Bern, Switzerland).
[^4]: The features are better visible in the movies provided as online material.
[^5]: The spatial Fourier space is also referred to as “ uv space”. A component in the uv space is determined by the separation of the two involved antennas (i.e. the baseline length), the observing frequency, and the angles under which the source is observed on the sky.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We review the status of the coupling constants of chiral Lagrangians in the meson sector, the so-called low-energy constants (LECs). Special emphasis is put on the chiral $SU(2)$ and $SU(3)$ Lagrangians for the strong interactions of light mesons. The theoretical and experimental input for determining the corresponding LECs is discussed. In the two-flavour sector, we review the knowledge of the $O(p^4)$ LECs from both continuum fits and lattice QCD analyses. For chiral $SU(3)$, NNLO effects play a much bigger role. Our main new results are fits of the LECs $L_i$ both at NLO and NNLO, making extensive use of the available knowledge of NNLO LECs. We compare our results with available lattice determinations. Resonance saturation of LECs and the convergence of chiral $SU(3)$ to NNLO are discussed. We also review the status of predictions for the LECs of chiral Lagrangians with dynamical photons and leptons.'
---
plus 1pt
LU TP 14-16\
UWThPh-2014-10\
[**Mesonic low-energy constants**]{}\
[**Johan Bijnens$^{1}$ and Gerhard Ecker$^{2}$**]{}\
${}^{1)}$ Department of Astronomy and Theoretical Physics, Lund University,\
Sölvegatan 14A, SE 223-62 Lund, Sweden\
${}^{2)}$ University of Vienna, Faculty of Physics,\
Boltzmanngasse 5, A-1090 Wien, Austria
INTRODUCTION
============
Low-energy meson physics and the study of the strong interaction at low energies underwent a phase transition in the theoretical description with the introduction of Chiral Perturbation Theory ([ChPT]{}) in the early 1980s [@Weinberg:1978kz; @Gasser:1983yg; @Gasser:1984gg]. It allowed the theory of the lightest hadrons, the pions, kaons and eta, to be put on a solid theoretical footing. The main idea is that rather than a perturbative expansion in a small parameter like $\alpha$ or $\alpha_S$, there is a well-defined perturbation theory as an expansion in orders of momenta and masses. [ChPT]{} was also the prototype effective field theory, showing how to make sense of nonrenormalizable theories in a well-defined fashion.
The predictions of [ChPT]{} are of twofold type. There are the loop contributions at each order and the contributions that involve the parameters of the higher-order Lagrangians. This review summarizes the present knowledge of the values of these parameters. The standard name for these parameters is low-energy constants (LECs). The main part of this review concerns the LECs of two- and three-flavour mesonic [ChPT]{} in the isospin limit. Section \[sec:chpt\] gives an overview of the Lagrangians and serves to define our notation.
A first determination of the LECs was done in the papers where they were introduced [@Gasser:1983yg; @Gasser:1984gg]. For those of the two-flavour or [$n_f=2$]{} case, the various LECs at next-to-leading order (NLO) can be determined in a rather straightforward fashion. The main analyses have been pushed to next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO). This is reviewed in Sec. \[sec:nf2\] where we discuss the theoretical and experimental input to determine them.
The three-flavour or [$n_f=3$]{} coefficients were first determined in [@Gasser:1984gg] by using large-$N_c$ arguments, the relation with the [$n_f=2$]{} LECs, the pseudoscalar masses and $F_K/F_\pi$. The next step was to determine them from $K_{l4}$ decays at NLO [@Riggenbach:1990zp; @Bijnens:1989mr]. The first attempt at adding higher-order effects in determining the [$n_f=3$]{} LECs was Ref. [@Bijnens:1994ie]. The first full calculations at NNLO in [$n_f=3$]{} mesonic [ChPT]{}appeared in the late 1990s and a first fit using these expressions for the LECs was done in [@Amoros:2000mc; @Amoros:2001cp]. At this level, there was not sufficient information to really determine all LECs at NLO directly from data, in particular $L_4$ and $L_6$ are very difficult to obtain. The underlying reason for this is discussed in Sec. \[sec:largenc\]. Another difficulty is that quark masses and LECs cannot be disentangled without using more information [@Kaplan:1986ru]. We fix this ambiguity by using the quark mass ratio $m_s/\hat m$ as input. More calculations became available and partial analyses were performed but a new complete analysis was done in [@Bijnens:2011tb]. The main improvement of the refitting done in this review over [@Bijnens:2011tb] is a more extensive use of knowledge of the NNLO LECs as discussed in Sec. \[sec:nf3fits\]. A minor improvement is the inclusion of some newer $K_{l4}$ data. The data and theoretical input used in the [$n_f=3$]{} fits beyond that already used for the [$n_f=2$]{}results are described in Sec. \[sec:input3\]. Our fitting and the new central values for the LECs are given in Sec. \[sec:nf3fits\]. The evidence for resonance saturation of both NLO and NNLO LECs is discussed in Sec. \[sec:resonance\]. The quality of the fits and the convergence of the chiral expansion are discussed in Sec. \[sec:convergence\].
The LECs that show up in extensions with dynamical photons and leptons cannot be determined from phenomenology directly but need further treatment. We collect the known results in Sec. \[sec:photons\] where we pay close attention to the correct inclusion of short-distance contributions. For those involving the weak nonleptonic interaction we only give a short list of the main references in Sec. \[sec:other\] and refer to the recent review [@Cirigliano:2011ny] for more references and details. Likewise, we remain very cursory with respect to the anomalous intrinsic parity sector in Sec. \[sec:other\].
Lattice QCD has started to make progress in the determination of LECs, especially for those involving masses and decay constants. We rely heavily on the flavour lattice averaging group (FLAG) reports [@Colangelo:2010et; @Aoki:2013ldr]. Specific results are quoted and compared with our continuum results in Secs. \[sec:nf2lattice\] and \[sec:nf3lattice\]. Some comments can also be found in Sec. \[sec:largenc\].
A summary of the main results can be found in the conclusions.
CHIRAL PERTURBATION THEORY {#sec:chpt}
==========================
[ChPT]{} dates back to current algebra but its modern form was introduced by the papers of Weinberg, Gasser and Leutwyler [@Weinberg:1978kz; @Gasser:1983yg; @Gasser:1984gg]. The underlying idea is to use the global chiral symmetry present in the QCD Lagrangian for two ([$n_f=2$]{}) or three ([$n_f=3$]{}) light quarks when the quark masses are put to zero. This symmetry is spontaneously broken in QCD. The Nambu-Goldstone bosons resulting from this breaking are identified with the pions ([$n_f=2$]{}) or the lightest pseudoscalar octet, $\pi$, $K$ and $\eta$ ([$n_f=3$]{}). The singlet axial symmetry is broken explicitly for QCD at the quantum level due to the $U(1)_A$ anomaly and we thus disregard it. A direct derivation of [ChPT]{} from the underlying assumptions is given by Leutwyler [@Leutwyler:1993iq].
The perturbation in [ChPT]{} is not an expansion in a small coupling constant but an expansion in momenta and quark masses. Its consistency was shown in detail in [@Weinberg:1978kz] and is often referred to as Weinberg or $p$ power counting.
A more extensive introduction to [ChPT]{} can be found in [@Scherer:2012xha]. There are many reviews of [ChPT]{}. Those focusing on the meson sector are two at the one-loop level [@Ecker:1994gg; @Pich:1995bw] and one at the two-loop level [@Bijnens:2006zp].
In terms of a quark field $\bar q =(\bar u~\bar d)$ ([$n_f=2$]{}) or $\bar q =(\bar u~\bar d~\bar s)$ ([$n_f=3$]{}) the fermionic part of the QCD Lagrangian can be written as $$\label{QCD}
\mathcal{L}_{QCD} = \bar q i\gamma^\mu
\left( \partial_\mu-ig_s G_\mu -i(v_\mu+\gamma_5 a_\mu)\right)q
-\bar q s q+i\bar q p\gamma_5 q\,.$$ The external fields or sources $v_\mu, a_\mu, s$ and $p$ are $n_f\times n_f$ matrices in flavour space. They were introduced in [@Gasser:1983yg; @Gasser:1984gg] to make chiral symmetry explicit throughout the calculation and to facilitate the connection between QCD and [ChPT]{}. For later use we define $l_\mu=v_\mu-a_\mu$ and $r_\mu = v_\mu+a_\mu$.
The degrees of freedom are the Goldstone bosons of the spontaneous breakdown of the $SU(n_f)_L\times SU(n_f)_R$ chiral symmetry of QCD with $n_f$ massless flavours to the vector subgroup $SU(n_f)_V$. These are parametrized by a special $n_f\times n_f$ unitary matrix $U$. The transformations under a chiral symmetry transformation $g_L\times g_R\in SU(n_f)_L\times SU(n_f)_R$ are $$\begin{aligned}
U &\to& g_R U g_L^\dagger\,,{\qquad\qquad\qquad s+ i p\to g_R (s + i p)
g_L^\dagger}\,, \nonumber\\
l_\mu&\to& g_L l_\mu g_L^\dagger -i\partial_\mu g_L g_L^\dagger\,,\quad
r_\mu\to g_R r_\mu g_R^\dagger -i\partial_\mu g_R g_R^\dagger\,.\end{aligned}$$ In addition we define $u$ with $u^2=U$ and $h(u,g_L,g_R)$ transforming as $$u\to g_R u h^\dagger = h u g_L^\dagger\,.$$
The easiest way to construct Lagrangians is to use objects $X$ that transform under chiral symmetry as $X\to h X h^\dagger$. For the present paper these are $u_\mu,f_\pm^{\mu\nu}$, $\chi_\pm$ and $\chi_-^\mu$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:defs}
u_\mu &=& i\left[u^\dagger\left(\partial_\mu-ir_\mu\right)u
-u\left(\partial_\mu-il_\mu\right)u^\dagger\right]\,,
\qquad \chi = 2B\left(s+ip\right)\,,
\nonumber\\
\chi_\pm &=& u^\dagger \chi u^\dagger\pm u\chi^\dagger u\,,
\qquad\qquad\qquad
\chi_-^\mu = u^\dagger D^\mu \chi u^\dagger - u D^\mu \chi^\dagger u\,,
\nonumber\\
f_\pm^{\mu\nu} &=& u F^{\mu\nu}_L u^\dagger \pm u^\dagger
F_R^{\mu\nu}u\,, \qquad\qquad ~~
D_\mu \chi =\partial_\mu \chi-i r_\mu \chi+i\chi l_\mu\,,
\nonumber\\
F_L^{\mu\nu}&=&\partial^\mu l^\nu-\partial^\nu l^\mu -i\left[l^\mu,l^\nu\right]\,,
\qquad
F_R^{\mu\nu}=\partial^\mu r^\nu-\partial^\nu r^\mu -i\left[r^\mu,r^\nu\right]\,.
$$ The Lagrangian at lowest order, $p^2$, is known since long ago and is in the present notation $$\label{eq:LOlag}
\mathcal{L}_2 = \frac{F^2}{4}{\ensuremath{\left\langle u_\mu u^\mu+\chi_+ \right\rangle}}$$ where ${\ensuremath{\left\langle \dots \right\rangle}}$ denotes the $n_f$-dimensional flavour trace. The notation we will use for [$n_f=2$]{} is $F$ and $B$, and for [$n_f=3$]{} $F_0$ and $B_0$ for the constants in (\[eq:defs\]) and (\[eq:LOlag\]). The Lagrangians at next-to-leading order, $p^4$, were constructed in [@Gasser:1983yg; @Gasser:1984gg] for [$n_f=2$]{} and [$n_f=3$]{}. The [$n_f=2$]{} Lagrangian is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:NLOlag2}
\mathcal{L}_4^{{\ensuremath{n_f=2}}}&=&
\frac{l_1}{4}{\ensuremath{\left\langle u_\mu u^\mu \right\rangle}}{\ensuremath{\left\langle u_\nu u^\nu \right\rangle}}
+\frac{l_2}{4}{\ensuremath{\left\langle u_\mu u_\nu \right\rangle}}{\ensuremath{\left\langle u^\mu u^\nu \right\rangle}}
+\frac{l_3}{16}{\ensuremath{\left\langle \chi_+ \right\rangle}}^2 +\frac{i l_4}{4}{\ensuremath{\left\langle u_\mu \chi_-^\mu \right\rangle}}
\nonumber\\&&
+ \frac{l_5}{4}{\ensuremath{\left\langle f_+^2-f_-^2 \right\rangle}}
+\frac{i l_6}{2}{\ensuremath{\left\langle f_{+\mu\nu}u^\mu u^\nu \right\rangle}}
- \frac{l_7}{16}{\ensuremath{\left\langle \chi_- \right\rangle}}^2
\nonumber\\&&
+ ~~{\rm 3 ~contact~terms} ~.\end{aligned}$$
The [$n_f=3$]{} Lagrangian is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:NLOlag3}
\mathcal{L}_4^{{\ensuremath{n_f=3}}}&=&
L_1{\ensuremath{\left\langle u_\mu u^\mu \right\rangle}}{\ensuremath{\left\langle u_\nu u^\nu \right\rangle}}
+L_2{\ensuremath{\left\langle u_\mu u_\nu \right\rangle}}{\ensuremath{\left\langle u^\mu u^\nu \right\rangle}}
+L_3{\ensuremath{\left\langle u_\mu u^\mu u_\nu u^\nu \right\rangle}}
\nonumber\\&&
+L_4{\ensuremath{\left\langle u_\mu u^\mu \right\rangle}}{\ensuremath{\left\langle \chi_+ \right\rangle}}
+L_5{\ensuremath{\left\langle u_\mu u^\mu\chi_+ \right\rangle}}
+L_6{\ensuremath{\left\langle \chi_+ \right\rangle}}^2
+L_7{\ensuremath{\left\langle \chi_- \right\rangle}}^2
\nonumber\\&&
+\frac{L_8}{2}{\ensuremath{\left\langle \chi_+^2+\chi_-^2 \right\rangle}}
-iL_9{\ensuremath{\left\langle f_{+\mu\nu}u^\mu u^\nu \right\rangle}}
+\frac{L_{10}}{4}{\ensuremath{\left\langle f_+^2-f_-^2 \right\rangle}}
\nonumber\\&&
+ ~~{\rm 2 ~contact~terms} ~.
$$
The Lagrangian for the general $n_f$-flavour case can be found in [@Bijnens:1999sh]. Terms that vanish due to the equations of motion have been dropped. This is discussed in detail in [@Bijnens:1999sh].
The Lagrangians at $O(p^6)$ are of the form $$\label{eq:NNLOlag}
\mathcal{L}_6^{{\ensuremath{n_f=2}}}=\sum_{i=1,56} c_i o_i\,,
\qquad
\mathcal{L}_6^{{\ensuremath{n_f=3}}}=\sum_{i=1,94} C_i O_i\,,$$ The classification was done in [@Bijnens:1999sh] after an earlier attempt [@Fearing:1994ga]. The form of the operators $o_i$ and $O_i$ can be found in [@Bijnens:1999sh]. In [@Haefeli:2007ty] an extra relation for the [$n_f=2$]{} case was found reducing the number of terms there to 56.
Renormalization is done with a [ChPT]{} variant of $\overline{MS}$ introduced in [@Gasser:1983yg]. A detailed explanation valid to two-loop order can be found in [@Bijnens:1997vq; @Bijnens:1999hw].
The relevant subtraction coefficients for all cases are known. These are then used to split the coupling constants in the Lagrangian into an infinite and a renormalized part. This split is not unique, so below is the definition of the renormalized constants that we use: $$\label{eq:defLir}
\hat L_i = (c\mu)^{d-4}\left(\hat\Gamma_i\Lambda + \hat L_i^r(\mu)\right)\,.$$ The divergent part is contained in $\Lambda=1/(16\pi^2(d-4))$ and in [ChPT]{} we use as a standard $\ln c = -(1/2)\left(\ln 4\pi+\Gamma^\prime(1)+1\right)$. For [$n_f=2$]{}, $\hat L_i=l_i$ and $\hat \Gamma_i=\gamma_i$ are derived and listed in [@Gasser:1983yg]. For [$n_f=3$]{}, $\hat L_i=L_i$ and $\hat\Gamma_i = \Gamma_i$ are derived and listed in [@Gasser:1984gg]. For [$n_f=3$]{} the convention is to directly list the $L_i^r$ at a scale $\mu=0.77~$GeV. For [$n_f=2$]{} the convention is to quote instead values for the $\mu$-independent $\bar l_i$ which are defined as $$\label{eq:deflib}
\bar l_i = \frac{32\pi^2}{\gamma_i}l_i^r(\mu)-\ln\frac{M_\pi^2}{\mu^2}\,.$$ The definition of the renormalized couplings at $O(p^6)$ is $$\hat{C_i} =\frac{(c\mu)^{2(d-4)}}{\hat F^2}
\left(\hat C_i^r(\mu)-\hat \Gamma_i^{(2)}\Lambda^2-\left(\hat \Gamma_i^{(1)}
+\hat \Gamma_i^{(L)}(\mu)\right)\Lambda\right)\,.$$ The values for all quantities needed for the [$n_f=2$]{} and [$n_f=3$]{} cases can be found in [@Bijnens:1999hw]. We will below quote the $c_i^r$ and $C_i^r$ at a scale $\mu=0.77~$GeV and use the physical pion decay constant $F_\pi=0.0922~$GeV to make the $\hat C_i^r$ dimensionless.
In addition to the operators listed explicitly in the Lagrangians (\[eq:LOlag\],\[eq:NLOlag2\],\[eq:NLOlag3\],\[eq:NNLOlag\]) there are also so-called contact terms. The corresponding coefficients cannot be directly measured in physical quantities involving mesons and are therefore not relevant for phenomenology. Nevertheless, they have in principle well-defined values from Green functions of currents, but depend on the precise definitions of these currents.
Other Lagrangians {#sec:other}
-----------------
In the treatment of radiative corrections for strong and semileptonic processes at low energies, photons and leptons enter as dynamical degrees of freedom. Consequently, additional effective Lagrangians are needed.
Leaving out the kinetic terms for photons and leptons, a single new term arises to lowest order, $O(e^2 p^0)$ [@Ecker:1988te]: $$\label{eq:e2p0}
\mathcal{L}_{e^2p^0} = e^2 {F_0}^4 Z \langle {{\cal Q}}_L^{\rm em} {{\cal Q}}_R^{\rm
em}\rangle ~.$$ The spurion fields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:QLQR}
{{\cal Q}}_L^{\rm em} = u Q_L^{\rm em} u^{\dagger}~, \hspace*{.5cm} & \hspace*{.5cm}
{{\cal Q}}_R^{\rm em} = u^{\dagger}Q_R^{\rm em} u \end{aligned}$$ are expressed in terms of the quark charge matrix $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Qem}
Q_L^{\rm em} = Q_R^{\rm em} &=& \left( \begin{array}{ccc} 2/3 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & -1/3 & 0
\\ 0 & 0 & -1/3 \end{array} \right) ~.\end{aligned}$$ The lowest-order electromagnetic LEC $Z$ can be determined either directly from the pion mass difference ($Z \simeq 0.8$) or, in principle more reliably, from a sum rule in the chiral limit ($Z \simeq 0.9$) [@Moussallam:1998za].
Neglecting leptonic terms for the moment, the next-to-leading order Lagrangian of $O(e^2 p^2)$ was constructed by Urech [@Urech:1994hd]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Le2p2}
{\mathcal{L}}_{e^2p^2} &=&
e^2 {F_0}^2 \left\{ \frac{1}{2} K_1 \; \langle ({{\cal Q}}^{\rm em}_L)^2 +
({{\cal Q}}^{\rm em}_R)^2\rangle \; \langle u_\mu
u^\mu\rangle + K_2 \; \langle {{\cal Q}}^{\rm em}_L {{\cal Q}}^{\rm em}_R\rangle
\; \langle u_\mu u^\mu \rangle \right. {\nonumber}\\
&& \mbox{} - K_3 \; [\langle {{\cal Q}}^{\rm em}_L u_\mu\rangle
\; \langle {{\cal Q}}^{\rm em}_L u^\mu
\rangle + \langle {{\cal Q}}^{\rm em}_R u_\mu\rangle
\; \langle {{\cal Q}}^{\rm em}_R u^\mu\rangle ] {\nonumber}\\
&& \mbox{} + K_4 \; \langle {{\cal Q}}^{\rm em}_L u_\mu\rangle
\; \langle {{\cal Q}}^{\rm em}_R u^\mu \rangle
+ K_5 \; \langle[({{\cal Q}}^{\rm em}_L)^2 + ({{\cal Q}}^{\rm em}_R)^2]
u_\mu u^\mu\rangle {\nonumber}\\
&& \mbox{} + K_6 \; \langle ({{\cal Q}}^{\rm em}_L {{\cal Q}}^{\rm em}_R +
{{\cal Q}}^{\rm em}_R {{\cal Q}}^{\rm em}_L) u_\mu u^\mu\rangle
+ \frac{1}{2} K_7 \; \langle ({{\cal Q}}^{\rm em}_L)^2
+ ({{\cal Q}}^{\rm em}_R)^2\rangle \; \langle \chi_+\rangle
{\nonumber}\\
&& \mbox{} + K_8\; \langle {{\cal Q}}^{\rm em}_L {{\cal Q}}^{\rm em}_R\rangle
\; \langle \chi_+\rangle
+ K_9 \; \langle [({{\cal Q}}^{\rm em}_L)^2 + ({{\cal Q}}^{\rm em}_R)^2]
\chi_+\rangle {\nonumber}\\
&& \mbox{} + K_{10}\; \langle({{\cal Q}}^{\rm em}_L {{\cal Q}}^{\rm em}_R
+ {{\cal Q}}^{\rm em}_R {{\cal Q}}^{\rm em}_L) \chi_+\rangle
- K_{11} \; \langle({{\cal Q}}^{\rm em}_L {{\cal Q}}^{\rm em}_R
- {{\cal Q}}^{\rm em}_R {{\cal Q}}^{\rm em}_L) \chi_-\rangle {\nonumber}\\
&& \mbox{}- iK_{12}\; \langle[({\widehat}\nabla_\mu {{\cal Q}}^{\rm em}_L) {{\cal Q}}^{\rm em}_L -
{{\cal Q}}^{\rm em}_L {\widehat}\nabla_\mu {{\cal Q}}^{\rm em}_L
- ({\widehat}\nabla_\mu {{\cal Q}}^{\rm em}_R) {{\cal Q}}^{\rm em}_R +
{{\cal Q}}^{\rm em}_R {\widehat}\nabla_\mu {{\cal Q}}^{\rm em}_R] u^\mu\rangle {\nonumber}\\
&& \mbox{}+ K_{13} \; \langle ({\widehat}\nabla_\mu {{\cal Q}}^{\rm em}_L)
({\widehat}\nabla^\mu {{\cal Q}}^{\rm em}_R) \rangle {\nonumber}\\
&& \left. \mbox{} + K_{14} \; \langle ({\widehat}\nabla_\mu {{\cal Q}}^{\rm em}_L)
({\widehat}\nabla^\mu {{\cal Q}}^{\rm em}_L) +
({\widehat}\nabla_\mu {{\cal Q}}^{\rm em}_R) ({\widehat}\nabla^\mu {{\cal Q}}^{\rm em}_R)\rangle
\right\}, \end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:covder1}
{\widehat}\nabla_\mu {{\cal Q}}^{\rm em}_L &=&
u (D_\mu Q_L^{\rm em}) u^{\dagger}, {\nonumber}\\
{\widehat}\nabla_\mu {{\cal Q}}^{\rm em}_R &=&
u^{\dagger}(D_\mu Q^{\rm em}_R) u ,\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:covder2}
D_\mu Q^{\rm em}_L &=& \partial_\mu Q^{\rm em}_L
- i[l_\mu,Q^{\rm em}_L], {\nonumber}\\
D_\mu Q^{\rm em}_R &=& \partial_\mu Q^{\rm em}_R - i[r_\mu,Q^{\rm em}_R]~.\end{aligned}$$ In the presence of dynamical photons and leptons, the external fields $l_\mu,r_\mu$ are modified as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lrmu}
l_\mu & \longrightarrow & v_\mu - a_\mu - e Q_L^{\rm em} A_\mu + \sum_{\ell=e,\mu}
(\bar \ell \gamma_\mu \nu_{\ell L} Q_L^{\rm w} + {\overline}{\nu_{\ell L}}
\gamma_\mu \ell Q_L^{{\rm w}{\dagger}}), {\nonumber}\\
r_\mu & \longrightarrow & v_\mu + a_\mu - e Q_R^{\rm em} A_\mu\end{aligned}$$ where $A_\mu$ is the photon field and the weak charge matrix is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Qw}
Q_L^{\rm w} = - 2 \sqrt{2}\; G_F \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
0 & V_{ud} & V_{us} \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{array} \right) ~, &\qquad
{{\cal Q}}_L^{\rm w} = u Q_L^{\rm w} u^{\dagger}~.\end{aligned}$$ $G_F$ is the Fermi coupling constant and $V_{ud}$, $V_{us}$ are Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix elements.
For radiative corrections in semileptonic processes, one needs in addition the leptonic Lagrangian [@Knecht:1999ag] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Llept}
{\mathcal{L}}_{\rm lept} &=&
e^2 \sum_{\ell} \left \{ {F_0}^2 \left[
X_1 {\overline}{\ell} \gamma_\mu \nu_{\ell L}
\langle u^\mu \{ {{\cal Q}}_R^{\rm em}, {{\cal Q}}_L^{\rm w} \} \rangle
\right. \right. {\nonumber \\}&& \left. \left.
+ X_2 {\overline}{\ell} \gamma_\mu \nu_{\ell L}
\langle u^\mu [{{\cal Q}}_R^{\rm em}, {{\cal Q}}_L^{\rm w}] \rangle
+ X_3 m_\ell {\overline}{\ell} \nu_{\ell L} \langle {{\cal Q}}_L^{\rm w} {{\cal Q}}_R^{\rm em} \rangle
\right. \right. {\nonumber \\}&& \left. \left.
+ i X_4 {\overline}{\ell} \gamma_\mu \nu_{\ell L}
\langle {{\cal Q}}_L^{\rm w} {\widehat}\nabla^\mu {{\cal Q}}_L^{\rm em} \rangle
+ i X_5 {\overline}{\ell} \gamma_\mu \nu_{\ell L}
\langle {{\cal Q}}_L^{\rm w} {\widehat}\nabla^\mu {{\cal Q}}_R^{\rm em} \rangle
+ h.c. \right] \right. {\nonumber \\}&& \left.
+ X_6 \bar \ell (i \! \not\!\partial + e \! \not\!\!A )\ell
+ X_7 m_\ell {\overline}\ell \ell \right \}. \end{aligned}$$ Estimates of the electromagnetic LECs $K_i$ and $X_i$ will be reviewed in Sec. \[sec:photons\].
In this review we restrict ourselves to mesonic Lagrangians for strong and semileptonic processes including radiative corrections. [ChPT]{} has been applied to many more cases even in the meson sector, which will not be treated in any detail here. Neglecting lattice actions altogether, two more classes of chiral Lagrangians have been considered for the treatment of odd-intrinsic-parity (anomalous) processes and of nonleptonic decays. We include some relevant references here for the Lagrangians and for estimates of the corresponding LECs.
Anomalous processes start at $O(p^4)$. The odd-intrinsic-parity Lagrangian of $O(p^4)$ is given by the Wess-Zumino-Witten Lagrangian [@Wess:1971yu; @Witten:1983tw] that has no free parameters. The anomalous Lagrangian of $O(p^6)$ has 23 LECs [@Ebertshauser:2001nj; @Bijnens:2001bb]. Only partial results are available for the numerical values of those constants. The most promising approach is based on a short-distance analysis with or without chiral resonance Lagrangians [@Moussallam:1997xx; @Knecht:2001xc; @RuizFemenia:2003hm]. Electromagnetic corrections for anomalous processes ($n_f=2$) have also been investigated [@Ananthanarayan:2002kj].
The chiral Lagrangian for nonleptonic interactions of lowest order, $O(G_F p^2)$, contains two LECs $g_8,g_{27}$ [@Cronin:1967jq]. The most recent evaluation of these LECs, including isospin breaking corrections, can be found in the review [@Cirigliano:2011ny].
The LECs of $O(G_F p^4)$ (22 couplings $N_i$ in the octet and 28 couplings $D_i$ in the 27-plet Lagrangians) [@Kambor:1989tz; @Ecker:1992de] are less known than their strong counterparts at $O(p^4)$. The most recent phenomenological analysis of those combinations that occur in the dominant $K\to 2 \pi, 3 \pi$ decays can be found in Ref. [@Bijnens:2004ai]. Some of the LECs appearing in rare $K$ decays have also been analysed [@Cirigliano:2011ny].
Resonance saturation of weak LECs [@Ecker:1992de; @D'Ambrosio:1997tb] suffers from the drawback that the weak resonance couplings are unknown and that short-distance constraints are missing. Nevertheless, resonance saturation provides at least a possible parametrization of the LECs. The most systematic approach is based on factorization (valid to leading order in $1/N_c$) [@Pallante:2001he; @Cirigliano:2003gt], but higher-order corrections in $1/N_c$ may well be sizeable.
A different approach is to use the $1/N_c$ arguments in conjunction with the underlying short-distance physics. This approach was pioneered by [@Bardeen:1986uz] and further pursued in [@Bijnens:1998ee]. A more recent discussion is in [@Buras:2014maa]. One main problem here is to make sure that short- and long-distance matching is performed in a clean fashion [@Bijnens:1999zn; @Peris:1998nj].
Finally, there is a chiral Lagrangian for electromagnetic corrections to nonleptonic weak processes. The single LEC of lowest order, $O(G_F e^2 p^0$), related to the electromagnetic penguin contribution [@Bijnens:1983ye; @Grinstein:1985ut], is reasonably well known [@Cirigliano:1999hj; @Bijnens:2001ps; @Cirigliano:2003gt]. The additional 14 LECs of $O(G_F e^2 p^2)$ [@Ecker:2000zr] have again been estimated to leading order in $1/N_c$ (factorization). In this way, the LECs can be expressed in terms of Wilson coefficients, the strong LECs $L_5,L_8$ and the electromagnetic LECs $K_i$ [@Pallante:2001he; @Cirigliano:2003gt].
Contributions at each order and terminology {#sec:terminology}
-------------------------------------------
[ChPT]{} has been an active field since the early 1980s. As a consequence, the same quantities are often denoted by different symbols and terminology. The actual constants are referred to as low-energy constants, parameters or coupling constants in the Lagrangians and sometimes even referred to as counterterms. For the purpose of this review, these are all equivalent.
Another source of confusion is the nomenclature used for the orders. The use in this review is that the contribution to tree-level diagrams from $O(p^2)$ Lagrangians only is called lowest order or order $p^2$ or tree-level. The next order, which consists of tree-level diagrams with one vertex of the $O(p^4)$ Lagrangian and the remaining vertices from the $O(p^2)$ Lagrangian and of one-loop diagrams with only $O(p^2)$ vertices, is called order $p^4$ or next-to-leading order or one-loop order. In the same vein, the third order is called next-to-next-to-leading order or $p^6$ or two-loop order.
When adding other Lagrangians, one needs in addition to specify to which order one has included electromagnetic or weak coupling constants and, if applicable, $m_d-m_u$.
TWO FLAVOURS {#sec:nf2}
============
Continuum input {#sec:input2}
---------------
If one looks at the [$n_f=2$]{} Lagrangians we have two parameters at LO, $F$ and $B$, $7+3$ at NLO and $52+4$ at NNLO. The $i+j$ notation refers to the number of LECs and the number of contact terms. For most processes of interest, the tree-level contributions at NNLO are small, since the relevant scale in most of these cases is $M_\pi$.
This has the advantage that the determination of the NLO LECs does not depend on how well we know the values of the $c_i^r$ but it makes comparison with models for the $c_i$ more uncertain.
All observables needed are known to NNLO. The NLO results are all present in [@Gasser:1983yg]. The NNLO results for $M_\pi^2$ and $F_\pi$ were done in [@Burgi:1996qi; @Bijnens:1997vq]. $\pi\pi$ scattering was done to NNLO in [@Bijnens:1995yn; @Bijnens:1997vq]. Finally, the scalar and vector form factors of the pion were obtained to two-loop order in [@Bijnens:1998fm] while the pion radiative decay can be found in [@Bijnens:1996wm].
The pion mass is experimentally very well known [@Beringer:1900zz]. The larger question here is which pion mass to use, charged or neutral. When comparing theoretical results with experimental quantities it is usually better to use the charged pion mass since most experiments are performed with these. When extracting quark masses, it is better to use the neutral pion mass since this is expected to have only a very small contribution from electromagnetism. In the below we use the values $$M_{\pi^+} = 139.57018(35)~\mathrm{MeV}~,\qquad
M_{\pi^0} = 134.9766(6)~\mathrm{MeV}~.$$ The pion decay constant is measured in $\pi\to\mu\nu$ and the main uncertainty is the size of electromagnetic effects. $V_{ud}$ is known to sufficient precision from neutron and nuclear decays. We will adopt the value $$\label{eq:Fpi}
F_\pi = 92.2\pm0.1~\mathrm{MeV}$$ from the PDG [@Beringer:1900zz].
The next major input needed are the $\pi\pi$ scattering lengths and related quantities. The main theoretical underpinning of this are the Roy equations [@Roy:1971tc], a set of integral equations that the $\pi\pi$ scattering amplitude satisfies because of crossing and unitarity. These require as input two subtraction constants, or equivalently values of the scattering lengths $a_0^0$ and $a^2_0$, and phenomenological input for the higher waves and at short distances. A large (re)analysis was done in [@Ananthanarayan:2000ht]. This analysis confirmed a number of results from the 1970s and sharpened them. In [@Colangelo:2001df] the analysis was strengthened by two additional inputs: The scalar radius should have a value of about $0.6$ fm$^2$ and the [ChPT]{} series for the $\pi\pi$ amplitude was found to converge extremely well in the center of the Mandelstam triangle. This allowed to make a rather sharp prediction for the two subtraction constants if one assumes [ChPT]{}. The resulting values for the scattering lengths $a^0_0$ and $a^2_0$ have since been confirmed by other theoretical analyses using the same or similar methods [@DescotesGenon:2001tn; @GarciaMartin:2011cn]. There has since also been a large experimental effort to pin down these two scattering lengths by NA48/2 and others in both $K_{\ell4}$ [@Batley:2007zz] and $K\to 3\pi$ [@Batley:2005ax] decays and by DIRAC [@Adeva:2005pg]. The values we will use for the scattering lengths are those from [@Colangelo:2001df]: $$\label{eq:a0a2}
a^0_0 = 0.220\pm0.005\,,\qquad a^2_0= -0.0444\pm0.0010\,.$$
The pion scalar form factor is not directly measureable but it can be obtained from dispersion relations. The main part is given by the Omnés solution using the $\pi\pi$ S-wave from the analysis above but improvements are possible by including also other channels, first and foremost the $KK$ channel. The main conclusion from [@Donoghue:1990xh; @Moussallam:1999aq] is that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:fs}
F_S^\pi(q^2) &=& F_S^\pi(0)\left(1+\frac{\langle
r^2\rangle^\pi_S}{6}q^2+c^\pi_S q^4+\dots\right)
\nonumber\\
\langle r^2\rangle^\pi_S &=& 0.61\pm0.04~\mathrm{fm}^2,
\qquad
c^\pi_S = 11\pm1~\mathrm{GeV}^{-4}~.\end{aligned}$$ A more recent discussion can be found in [@Ananthanarayan:2004xy].
The pion vector form factor can be measured directly as well as treated with dispersive methods. The direct fit to the low-energy data, which are dominated by [@Amendolia:1986wj], was done in [@Bijnens:1998fm]: $$\begin{aligned}
F_V^\pi(q^2) &=& F_V^\pi(0)\left(1+\frac{\langle
r^2\rangle^\pi_V}{6}q^2+c^\pi_V q^4+\dots\right)
\nonumber\\
\langle r^2\rangle^\pi_V &=& 0.437\pm0.016~\mathrm{fm}^2,
\qquad
c^\pi_V = 3.85\pm0.60~\mathrm{GeV}^{-4}~.\end{aligned}$$ A more recent analysis using dispersive methods [@Ananthanarayan:2013dpa] reached $\langle r^2\rangle^\pi_V\in (0.42,0.44)~\mathrm{fm}^2$ and $c^\pi_V \in (3.79,4.00)~\mathrm{GeV}^{-4}$ in good agreement with the above but somewhat smaller errors.
Values of the LECs {#nf2fits}
------------------
When looking at values of the LECs in two-flavour theory, the usual convention is to use the $\bar l_i$ defined in (\[eq:deflib\]). These are independent of the subtraction scale but do depend instead explicitly on the pion mass. For a subtraction scale $\mu=0.77$ GeV one should keep in mind that $$-\ln\frac{M_\pi^2}{\mu^2} = 3.42\,.$$ Values of the $\bar l_i$ around this value are thus dominated by the pion chiral logarithm.
The values of $\bar l_1$ and $\bar l_2$ were originally determined from the $D$-wave $\pi\pi$ scattering lengths in [@Gasser:1983yg]. The analysis in [@Colangelo:2001df] relies instead on the whole $\pi\pi$ scattering analysis and yields $$\label{eq:l1l2}
\bar l_1 = -0.4\pm0.6\,,\qquad \bar l_2 = 4.3\pm0.1\,.$$ The main sources of uncertainty are the input estimates of the $c_i^r$ for both.
$\bar l_3$ is very difficult to get from phenomenology. For this one needs to know how the pion mass depends on higher powers of $\hat m$. Putting an upper limit on this leads to the estimate given in [@Gasser:1983yg]: $$\label{eq:l3}
\bar l_3 = 2.9\pm2.4\,.$$
The scalar radius was used as input in [@Colangelo:2001df]. From the value above they derived $$\label{eq:l4}
\bar l_4 = 4.4\pm0.2\,.$$ This value is in good agreement with the determination done in [@Bijnens:1998fm] directly from the scalar radius.
The constant $\bar l_5$ is quite well known. It can be determined from the difference between vector and axial-vector two-point functions. The analysis in [@GonzalezAlonso:2008rf] quotes $$\label{eq:l5}
\bar l_5 = 12.24\pm0.21\,.$$
The constant $\bar l_6$ can be determined from the pion electromagnetic radius. This was done in [@Bijnens:1998fm] and gives the value $$\label{eq:l6}
\bar l_6 = 16.0\pm0.5\pm0.7\,.$$ The last error is mainly from the estimate of the $c^r_i$.
A combination of the latter two can be obtained from the axial form factor $F_A$ in the decay $\pi^+\to e^+\nu\gamma$. The two-loop calculation was done in [@Bijnens:1996wm] with the result $$\label{eq:l5l6}
\bar l_5-\bar l_6 = - 3.0\pm0.3\,.$$ Ref. [@Bijnens:1996wm] used $F_A= 0.0116\pm0.0016$ from the measured value for $\gamma=F_A/F_V$ and the CVC prediction for $F_V$. $F_V$ and $F_A$ have since been measured with better precision with the result from [@Bychkov:2008ws] being $F_A=0.0117\pm0.0017$ so the value in (\[eq:l5l6\]) does not change.
Note that the values in (\[eq:l5\]) and (\[eq:l5l6\]) can be combined to [@GonzalezAlonso:2008rf] $$\label{eq:l6b}
\bar l_6 = 15.24\pm0.39\,,$$ nicely compatible within errors with (\[eq:l6\]), thus providing proof that [ChPT]{} works well in this sector. Another check that [ChPT]{} works was done by looking at the relations for $\pi\pi$ scattering found in [@Bijnens:2009zd] independent of the values of the $c_i^r$. Those were fairly well satisfied.
The determination of the constants at order $p^6$ is in worse shape. Four combinations of the $c_i^r$ are reasonably well known. These come from $c_V^\pi$, $c_S^\pi$ [@Bijnens:1998fm] and $\pi\pi$ scattering [@Colangelo:2001df]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ci}
r_{V2}^r &=& -4 c_{51}^r+4 c_{53}^r = (1.6\pm0.5)\cdot 10^{-4}\,,
\nonumber\\
{r_{S3}^r} &=& {-8 c_6^r \approx 1.5 \cdot 10^{-4}}\,,
\nonumber\\
r_5^r &=& -8 c_1^r+10 c_2^r+14 c_3^r = (1.5\pm0.4)\cdot 10^{-4}\,,
\nonumber\\
r_6^r &=& 6 c_2^r+2c_3^r = (0.40\pm0.04)\cdot 10^{-4}\,.\end{aligned}$$ $r_{S3}^r$ is not so well known since $c_S^\pi$ is dominated by the other contributions.
Including lattice results {#sec:nf2lattice}
-------------------------
In the last years the quark masses obtainable on the lattice have been coming closer to and even reaching the physical point. The situation relevant for the quantities considered in this review is presented in the FLAG reports [@Colangelo:2010et; @Aoki:2013ldr]. In particular, Sec. 5.1 of [@Aoki:2013ldr] reviews the status as of 2013.
The value of $\bar l_6$ can be obtained from the lattice calculations of the electromagnetic pion radius and $\bar l_4$ from the scalar radius. These calculations have not yet reached a precision comparable to (\[eq:l6\]) and (\[eq:l4\]). The combination $\bar l_1-\bar l_2$ can be obtained from higher-order effects in the pion form factors. Again this value is not yet competitive with the one of (\[eq:l1l2\]).
In the continuum we cannot vary the pion mass but lattice QCD calculations can easily do this by varying the quark masses. The constants that influence this behaviour are thus much easier to obtain from lattice calculations. The quantities that are measured here are the variation of $F_\pi$ with the pion mass which gives $\bar l_4$ and the deviation of $M_\pi^2/(2B\hat m)$ from unity as a function of $M_\pi$ which gives $\bar l_3$. The lattice calculations are done in a number of physically different ways: with only up and down quarks, $N_f=2$, including the strange quark, $N_f=2+1$, and including the charm quark as well, $N_f=2+1+1$. In addition one often uses partially quenched conditions where valence and sea quarks have different masses. The last case, $N_f=2+1+1$, is pursued mainly by the ETM collaboration [@Baron:2011sf]. The case with $N_f=2+1$ has many more contributors, RBC/UKQCD [@Arthur:2012opa], MILC [@Bazavov:2010yq], NPLQCD [@Beane:2011zm] and BMW [@Borsanyi:2012zv]. For a more complete reference list, including $N_f=2$, see Ref. [@Aoki:2013ldr]. The FLAG results for $N_f=2$ and $N_f=2+1+1$ are dominated by the ETM results [@Baron:2009wt] and [@Baron:2011sf], respectively, while the $N_f=2+1$ results are averaged over several collaborations, which are not always in good agreement. This is the reason why the errors for the $N_f=2+1$ case as quoted below are larger. The results quoted are always those when the various $N_f$ cases have been analysed with [$n_f=2$]{} [ChPT]{}. FLAG [@Aoki:2013ldr] gives the averages $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:flagsu2}
\left.\bar l_3\right|_{N_f=2} &=& 3.45\pm0.26\,,\quad
\left.\bar l_3\right|_{N_f=2+1} = 2.77\pm1.27\,,\quad
\left.\bar l_3\right|_{N_f=2+1+1} = 3.70\pm0.27\,,
\nonumber \\
\left.\bar l_4\right|_{N_f=2} &=& 4.59\pm0.26\,,\left.\bar l_4\right|_{N_f=2+1} = 3.95\pm0.35\,,\quad
\left.\bar l_4\right|_{N_f=2+1+1} = 4.67\pm0.10\,.
\nonumber \\
& &\end{aligned}$$ Clearly, there is still a significant spread in central values. Not included in the FLAG averages (\[eq:flagsu2\]) are the more recent $N_f=2+1$ results [@Durr:2013goa] $\bar l_3 = 2.5\pm
0.7$ and $\bar l_4 = 3.8\pm0.5$.
A rough estimate that covers the lattice range and the continuum results (\[eq:l3\],\[eq:l4\]) is $$\label{eq:l3l4}
\bar l_3 = 3.0\pm0.8\,,\quad
\bar l_4 = 4.3\pm0.3\,.$$ These are what we will use in the fits for the [$n_f=3$]{} constants below.
THREE FLAVOURS {#sec:nf3}
==============
New issues
----------
Among the issues specific to the three-flavour case are the size of NNLO corrections of $O(p^6)$ or alternatively the convergence of the low-energy expansion for chiral $SU(3)$. Related to this issue is a possible paramagnetic effect [@DescotesGenon:1999uh], which would manifest itself here by rather large values for $L_4^r$ and $L_6^r$. The values we obtain are not fully conclusive but large $N_c$, Sec. \[sec:largenc\], and the present lattice results, Sec. \[sec:nf3lattice\], support small values for $L_4^r$ and $L_6^r$.
The convergence of several physical quantities is discussed in Sec. \[sec:convergence\].
Large $N_c$ {#sec:largenc}
-----------
The expansion in the number of colours was defined in [@'tHooft:1973jz]. Leaving aside $l_7$ and $L_7$ because of the special large-$N_c$ counting due to $\eta^\prime$ exchange [@Gasser:1984gg; @Peris:1994dh], there is an important difference between the LECs of $O(p^4)$ for chiral $SU(2)$ and $SU(3)$.
The $SU(2)$ LECs $l_1, \dots, l_6$ are all leading order in $1/N_c$, i.e. of $O(N_c)$. In the $SU(3)$ case, there are three (combinations of) LECs that are suppressed and of $O(1)$ at large $N_c$: $2 L_1 - L_2$, $L_4$ and $L_6$ [@Gasser:1984gg]. It is of special interest whether the phenomenological analysis respects this hierarchy.
In the original analysis of Gasser and Leutwyler [@Gasser:1984gg] the large-$N_c$ suppressed LECs were assumed to vanish at a scale $\mu=M_\eta$. More recent analyses showed (e.g., fit All in Ref. [@Bijnens:2011tb]) that it is difficult to verify the large-$N_c$ suppression with global fits especially for $L_4$ and $L_6$ because of big errors.
Lattice determinations of $L_4$ and $L_6$, on the other hand, are quite consistent with the large-$N_c$ suppression [@Aoki:2013ldr]. Why is it then notoriously difficult to extract meaningful values for $L_4$ and $L_6$ from global fits?
In the case of $L_4$, a partial explanation is the apparent anti-correlation of $L_4$ with the leading-order LEC $F_0$ in the fits of Ref. [@Bijnens:2011tb]: the bigger $F_0$, the smaller $L_4^r(M_\rho)$, and vice versa. This anti-correlation can be understood to some extent from the structure of the chiral $SU(3)$ Lagrangian up to and including NLO: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:anticorr}
\mathcal{L}_2 + \mathcal{L}_4^{{\ensuremath{n_f=3}}} &=&
\displaystyle\frac{F_0^2}{4} \langle u_\mu u^\mu + \chi_+
\rangle
+ ~L_4 \langle u_\mu u^\mu \rangle
\langle \chi_+ \rangle + \dots {\nonumber \\}&& \hspace*{-2cm} = ~\displaystyle\frac{1}{4} \langle u_\mu u^\mu
\rangle \left[ F_0^2 + 8 L_4 \left(2 M^{\circ 2}_K +
M^{\circ 2}_{\pi} \right)\right] + \dots~ \end{aligned}$$ where $M^\circ_P (P=\pi,K)$ denotes the lowest-order meson masses. The dots refer to the remainder of the NLO Lagrangian (\[eq:NLOlag3\]) in the first line and to terms of higher order in the meson fields in the second line. Therefore, a lowest-order tree-level contribution is always accompanied by an $L_4$ contribution in the combination [@Ecker:2013pba] $$\label{eq:Fmu}
F(\mu)^2:=F_0^2 + 8 L_4^r(\mu) \left(2 M^{\circ 2}_K +
M^{\circ 2}_{\pi} \right)~.$$ Of course, there will in general be additional contributions involving $L_4$ at NLO, especially in higher-point functions. Nevertheless, the observed anti-correlation between $F_0$ and $L_4$ is clearly related to the structure of the chiral Lagrangian. Note that $F^2_{\pi}/16 M_K^2 = 2 \times 10^{-3}$ is the typical size of an NLO LEC. Although of different chiral order, the two terms in $F(\mu)^2$ could a priori be of the same order of magnitude. This makes it very difficult to disentangle $F_0$ and $L_4$ in phenomenological fits. At least in principle, the lattice is better off in this respect because the masses of quarks and mesons can be tuned on the lattice. In practice, most lattice studies employ strange quark masses of similar size corresponding to the actual kaon mass. As Eq. (\[eq:Fmu\]) indicates, the tuning of the light quark mass and thus of the pion mass is less effective for disentangling $L_4$ and $F_0$. Nevertheless, the uncertainties of $L_4$ from lattice evaluations are definitely smaller [@Aoki:2013ldr; @Ecker:2013pba] than from continuum fits. Note also that the combination $F(\mu)$ defined in (\[eq:Fmu\]) can be much better determined than $F_0$ itself [@Ecker:2013pba]. A similar discussion can clearly be done for $L_6^r$ and the lowest-order mass term ${(F_0^2/4)}{\ensuremath{\left\langle \chi_+ \right\rangle}}$.
In the following analysis, we are therefore not going to extract the large-$N_c$ suppressed LECs directly from the global fits. However, it will turn out to be sufficient to restrict $L_4^r$ to a reasonable range suggested by large $N_c$ and lattice results. The LECs $L_6$ and $2 L_1 - L_2$ will then more or less automatically follow suit.
Continuum data {#sec:input3}
--------------
All [ChPT]{} results we use are known to NNLO and since long at NLO. The results for the masses and decay constants at NLO are from [@Gasser:1984gg] and at NNLO from [@Amoros:1999dp]. The scalar form factor of the pion was done at NLO in [@Gasser:1984ux] and at NNLO in [@Bijnens:2003xg]. $\pi\pi$ scattering was done at NLO in [@Gasser:1984gg] and at NNLO in [@Bijnens:2004eu]. $\pi K$ scattering was done at NLO in [@Bernard:1990kw] and at NNLO in [@Bijnens:2004bu]. Finally, the $F$ and $G$ form factors in $K_{\ell4}$ were done at NLO in [@Bijnens:1989mr; @Riggenbach:1990zp] and NNLO in [@Amoros:2000mc].
We will use as input the values of $F_\pi$, $M_\pi$, $\langle r^2\rangle_S^\pi$, $c_S^\pi$, $a^0_0$ and $a^2_0$ as given in Sec. \[sec:input2\].
The remaining input has changed somewhat from [@Bijnens:2011tb] but the final effect of these changes on the fits discussed below is small. The main differences come from our different treatment of the $C_i^r$.
The value of $F_K/F_\pi$ we take from the PDG [@Beringer:1900zz]: $$\frac{F_K}{F_\pi} = 1.198\pm0.006\,.$$ The error is dominated by the uncertainty of $V_{us}$. This value is in good agreement with the lattice determinations [@Aoki:2013ldr].
We also include the results on $\pi K$ scattering from a Roy-Steiner analysis [@Buettiker:2003pp]: $$\label{eq:RS}
a_0^{1/2} = 0.224 \pm 0.022\,,\quad a^{3/2}_0 = -0.0448 \pm 0.0077\,.$$
The main change w.r.t. [@Bijnens:2011tb] is that we now use the normalization of the $K_{\ell4}$ decay also from NA48/2. The summary of their results can be found in [@Batley:2012rf]. From those results we use for the two form factors $F$ and $G$ their slope and value at threshold defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Kl4}
F &=& f_s + f^\prime_s q^2+\dots\,, \quad f_s=5.705\pm0.035\,,
\quad f^\prime_s = 0.867\pm0.050\,,
\nonumber\\
G &=& g_p+ g^\prime_p q^2+\dots\,,\quad g_p = 4.952\pm0.086\,,
\quad g^\prime_p = 0.508\pm0.122\,,\end{aligned}$$ with $q^2 = s_{\pi\pi}/(4m_\pi^2)-1$.
The final input we need is the quark mass ratio. We perform fits for several values of these but use as central value [@Aoki:2013ldr] $$\label{eq:msmhat}
\frac{m_s}{\hat m} = 27.5\pm0.5\,.$$
The masses used are those from the PDG (with the PDG 2010 value for $M_\eta$, since rerunning all the input calculations would be very time consuming; this small difference is not of any relevance in the remainder): $$M_{K^+} = 493.677(16)~\mathrm{MeV},\quad
M_{K^0} = 497.614(24)~\mathrm{MeV},\quad
M_\eta = 547.853(18)~\mathrm{MeV}\,.$$ When using the masses for the quark mass ratios and decay constants we use the neutral pion mass, the eta mass and the average kaon mass with the electromagnetic corrections removed using the estimate of [@Bijnens:1996kk]. This results in an average kaon mass of $$M_K = 494.5~\mathrm{MeV}\,.$$
Continuum fits {#sec:nf3fits}
--------------
The main principle of the fit is the same as in [@Bijnens:2011tb]. We calculate numerically the $p^4$ and $p^6$ corrections for all the quantities discussed above. In all cases we use the physical masses and $F_\pi$ in the expressions. For $F_K/F_\pi$ we use the form $$\frac{F_K}{F_\pi} = 1+F_K^{(4)}-F_\pi^{(4)}+
\left[F_K^{(6)}-F_\pi^{(6)}-F_\pi^{(4)}\left(F_K^{(4)}-F_\pi^{(4)}\right)\right]\,.$$ The masses are included via $M^2_M = M_{M0}^2+M_M^{2(4)}+M_M^{2(6)}$ and we then add as a $\chi^2$ that $m_s/\hat m$ obtained from $M^2_{K0}/M^2_{\pi0}$ and $M^2_{\eta0}/M^2_{\pi0}$ should agree with (\[eq:msmhat\]) with an error of 5%. This was chosen as a reasonable compromise for the neglected higher-order terms. The exception to the errors quoted in Secs. \[sec:input2\] and \[sec:input3\] is that we double the errors for $a^{1/2}_0$ and $a^{3/2}_0$ in (\[eq:RS\]).
The fits are also done with the variable $$L_A^r = 2L_1^r-L_2^r$$ to allow for a large-$N_c$ test.
### NLO fits {#sec:NLOfits}
We first perform a number of fits at NLO with $F_K/F_\pi$, $m_s/\hat m$ from the masses $M_K$ and $M_\eta$, the four scattering lengths, the pion scalar radius and the $K_{\ell4}$ form factors of (\[eq:Kl4\]) as input. We thus have 12 inputs to determine the $L_i^r$ for $i=1,\dots,8$.
The results are shown in Table \[tab:p4fits\]. The free fit in the second column has the smallest $\chi^2$ but it does not exhibit the large-$N_c$ hierarchy of the LECs. Moreover, the large values of $L_4^r$ and $L_6^r$ are in conflict with most lattice results [@Aoki:2013ldr]. The anti-correlation with $F_0$ discussed in Sec. \[sec:largenc\] is manifest. We also note that the results of this fit and the last column of Table 5 in [@Bijnens:2011tb] are a little different but compatible. The small differences are due to the different errors that have been used here, rather than the small change in central values.
As emphasized in Sec. \[sec:largenc\], the lattice is in a much better position to determine $L_4$. We have therefore restricted $L_4^r$ to a range compatible with lattice studies. In columns 3, 4, 5 in Table \[tab:p4fits\], we display the results for $10^3 L_4^r = 0,\, 0.3,\, - 0.3$, respectively. What is remarkable is the manifest positive correlation of $L_4$ with $L_A$ and $L_6$: Enforcing large $N_c$ on $L_4^r$ makes also $L_A^r$ and $L_6^r$ small, in agreement with the large-$N_c$ suppression.
The relatively large $\chi^2$ in the restricted fits comes almost exclusively from the scattering lengths $a^2_0$ and $a^0_0$. These parameters were determined in a sophisticated dispersion theoretical analysis of pion-pion scattering [@Colangelo:2001df] in the framework of chiral $SU(2)$. It is therefore not surprising that an NLO fit in chiral $SU(3)$ cannot really cope with the precision of $a^2_0$ and $a^0_0$ in (\[eq:a0a2\]). However, doubling the errors of $a^2_0$, $a^0_0$ does not really change the picture: The resulting fit values for the $L_i^r$ (including errors) are almost unchanged, but the $\chi^2$ decreases to values similar to the one of the free fit in column 2.
Therefore, we consider the combined fit values with restricted $L_4^r$ in column 6 as the most realistic values of the $L_i^r$ at NLO. The errors listed are based on the input errors only and do not reflect the uncertainties due to higher-order corrections. This statement does not apply to the original estimates of the $L_i$ by Gasser and Leutwyler [@Gasser:1984gg] reproduced in the last column for comparison. It is worth emphasizing that our $p^4$ fit values and the estimates in Ref. [@Gasser:1984gg] from nearly 30 years ago (columns 6 and 7) are still compatible with each other.
There are two more LECs, $L_9^r$ and $L_{10}^r$. These were determined via the pion electromagnetic radius and the axial form factor in $\pi\to e\nu\gamma$ in [@Gasser:1984gg] with the results $$L_9^r = (6.9\pm0.7) \cdot 10^{-3}\,,\qquad
L_{10}^r = (-5.5\pm0.7)\cdot 10^{-3}\,.$$ The value for $L_9^r$ was redone at NLO in [@Bijnens:2002hp] with essentially the same result. A more precise value for $L_{10}^r$ was obtained in [@GonzalezAlonso:2008rf] as $$L_{10}^r = (-5.22\pm0.06)\cdot 10^{-3}\,.$$
[@crrrrrr@]{} & & & & & &\
& free fit & & & & $p^4$ fit & Ref. [@Gasser:1984gg]\
\
$10^3 L_A^r$& 1.17(27)& 0.39(16)& 0.52(16)& 0.27(16)& 0.4(2)&\
$10^3 L_1^r$& 1.11(10)& 0.98(09)& 1.00(09)& 0.95(09)& 1.0(1)& 0.7(3)\
$10^3 L_2^r$& 1.05(17)& 1.56(09)& 1.48(09)& 1.64(09)& 1.6(2)& 1.3(7)\
$10^3 L_3^r$&$-$3.82(30)&$-$3.82(30)&$-$3.82(30)&$-$3.82(30)& $-$3.8(3)& $-$4.4(2.5)\
$10^3 L_4^r$& 1.87(53)&$\equiv$0 &$\equiv$0.3&$\equiv-$0.3& 0.0(3) &$-$0.3(5)\
$10^3 L_5^r$& 1.22(06)& 1.23(06)& 1.23(06)& 1.23(06)& 1.2(1)& 1.4(5)\
$10^3 L_6^r$& 1.46(46)&$-$0.11(05)& 0.14(06)&$-$0.36(05)& 0.0(4)& $-$0.2(3)\
$10^3L_7^r$&$-$0.39(08)&$-$0.24(15)&$-$0.27(14)&$-$0.21(17)& $-$0.3(2) &$-$0.4(2)\
$10^3 L_8^r$& 0.65(07)& 0.53(13)& 0.55(12)& 0.50(14)& 0.5(2)& 0.9(3)\
\
$\chi^2$ & 3.8 & 16 & 12 & 20 & &\
dof & 4 & 5 & 5 & 5 & 5 &\
$F_0$ \[MeV\] & 58 & 81 & 76 & 86 & 81(5) &\
### NNLO fits {#sec:NNLOfits}
We now add more input. In addition to $c_S^\pi$ defined in (\[eq:fs\]), we include also the $\bar l_i$ discussed in Sec. \[nf2fits\]. The latter can be calculated from the $L_i$ at $O(p^6)$ using the results of Ref. [@Gasser:2007sg]. As was already remarked in that reference, this will allow a handle on some of the large-$N_c$ suppressed $C_i^r$. In addition, we require a not too badly behaved perturbative [ChPT]{} series for the masses. This we enforce by adding to the $\chi^2$ a contribution of the type $f^\chi(M^{2(6)}_M/M_M^2/\Delta_M)$ with $$f^\chi(x) = 2x^4/(1+x^2)$$ and $\Delta_M=0.1$. This form was chosen to be one when x=1, quadratic for large $x$ but turning on slower than $x^2$. If we had chosen $f^\chi(x)=x^2$ it would be like a normal $\chi^2$.
NNLO fits of the $L_i$ turn out to be very sensitive to the values of the $C_i$. The naive dimensional estimate[^1] for the NNLO LECs is $C_0 = (4 \pi)^{-4} = 40 \cdot 10^{-6}$.
To set the scene, we perform NNLO fits for two different scenarios. In the first case, all $C_i$ are set to zero at the scale $\mu=0.77$ GeV. For the second scenario, we take the predictions of a chiral quark model [@Jiang:2009uf], mainly because it is the only model we are aware of that predicts all the $C_i$ contributing to the observables in our fits. The results are displayed in Table \[tab:Ca0chinafits\]. In both cases, the fit is not satisfactory: In addition to the large $\chi^2$, the LECs $L_A$, $L_4$ and $L_6$ show no sign of large-$N_c$ suppression.
[@crr@]{} & &\
$C_i$ & $C_i^r=0$ & Ref. [@Jiang:2009uf]\
\
$10^3 L_A^r$& 1.17(12) & 0.70(12)\
$10^3 L_1^r$& 0.67(06)& 0.48(07)\
$10^3 L_2^r$& 0.17(04)& 0.25(04)\
$10^3 L_3^r$&$-$1.76(21)& $-$1.68(22)\
$10^3 L_4^r$& 0.73(10)& 0.86(11)\
$10^3 L_5^r$& 0.65(05)& 2.08(14)\
$10^3 L_6^r$& 0.25(09)& 0.83(06)\
$10^3L_7^r$&$-$0.17(06)&$-$0.33(06)\
$10^3 L_8^r$& 0.22(08)& 1.03(14)\
\
$\chi^2$ & 26 & 41\
dof & 9 & 9\
Therefore, it is obvious that we have to make some assumptions about the NNLO LECs in order to proceed. There are altogether 34 (combinations of the) $C_i$ that appear in our 17 input observables. For most of those $C_i$ predictions are available in the literature, although in some cases contradictory. There are essentially three types of predictions. The estimates in the first group are mainly phenomenologically oriented [@Durr:1999dp; @Boito:2013qea; @Bijnens:2003uy; @Bijnens:2003xg; @Jamin:2004re; @Kampf:2006bn; @Prades:2007ud; @Unterdorfer:2008zz; @GonzalezAlonso:2008rf; @Masjuan:2008fr; @Bernard:2009ds; @Boito:2012nt]. A second class uses more theory in addition to phenomenological input, e.g., chiral quark models, resonance chiral theory, short-distance constraints, holography, etc. [@Knecht:2001xc; @Cirigliano:2004ue; @Cirigliano:2005xn; @Rosell:2006dt; @Cirigliano:2006hb; @Kaiser:2007zz; @Pich:2008jm; @Jiang:2009uf; @SanzCillero:2009ap; @Pich:2010sm; @Colangelo:2012ipa; @Golterman:2014nua]. Finally, there are also some estimates from lattice studies [@Bazavov:2010hj; @Ecker:2010nc; @Bazavov:2012cd; @Boyle:2014pja; @Ecker:2013pba].
We use the available information to define priors for the $C_i$ with associated ranges of acceptable values. The fits are then performed by two different methods leading essentially to the same results: minimization and a random-walk procedure in the restricted space of the $C_i$. If the resulting fit values for the $L_i$ deviate too much from the $p^4$ values in Table \[tab:p4fits\] and/or if the $\chi^2$ is too large, we modify the boundaries of the $C_i$ space and start again.
Therefore, we cannot claim to have found the best values for the $L_i$ to NNLO with this procedure, because the notion of “best values” is mathematically ill-defined with 17 input data and 8+34 parameters. On the other hand, our final results displayed in Table \[tab:p6fits\] exhibit the following attractive properties.
- As shown by the $\chi^2$, especially in comparison with the test fits in Table \[tab:Ca0chinafits\], the quality of the fits is excellent.
- The values of the NLO and NNLO fits are of course different, but not drastically so. This has partly been enforced by requiring that the meson masses show a reasonable “convergence” (see Sec. \[sec:convergence\]).
- The results to NNLO are much more sensitive to $L_4$ than at NLO. We therefore present only two cases, one without restricting $L_4^r$ and the other for fixed $L_4^r=0.3 \cdot 10^{-3}$. In the latter case, as found already at NLO, the small $L_4$ guarantees that also $L_A$ and $L_6$ are in accordance with large $N_c$.
In Table \[tab:p6fits\] we present both cases: our preferred fit (BE14) with $L_4^r=0.3 \cdot 10^{-3}$ and the general fit without any restrictions on the $L_i^r$. It is clear that our preference is not based on $\chi^2$ only, but on a good deal of theoretical prejudice as well. Moreover, our preferred fit BE14 must always be considered together with the values of the NNLO LECs collected in Table \[tab:Cafit\]. We do not display the $C_i$ for the unrestricted fit but the values are similar.
fit BE14 free fit
--------------- ------------- -------------
$10^3 L_A^r$ 0.24(11) 0.68(11)
$10^3 L_1^r$ 0.53(06) 0.64(06)
$10^3 L_2^r$ 0.81(04) 0.59(04)
$10^3 L_3^r$ $-$3.07(20) $-$2.80(20)
$10^3 L_4^r$ $\equiv$0.3 0.76(18)
$10^3 L_5^r$ 1.01(06) 0.50(07)
$10^3 L_6^r$ 0.14(05) 0.49(25)
$10^3 L_7^r$ $-$0.34(09) $-$0.19(08)
$10^3 L_8^r$ 0.47(10) 0.17(11)
$\chi^2$ 1.0 0.5
$F_0$ \[MeV\] 71 64
: \[tab:p6fits\] NNLO fits for the LECs $L_i^r$. The second column contains our preferred fit (BE14) with fixed $L_4^r= 0.3
\cdot 10^{-3}$, the third one the general free fit without any restrictions on the $L_i^r$. No estimate of the error due to higher orders is included.
LEC LEC LEC LEC
---------- --------- ---------- --------- ---------- ---------- ---------- --------
$C_1$ 12 $C_{11}$ $-$4.0 $C_{20}$ 1.0 $C_{29}$ $-$ 20
$C_2$ 3.0 $C_{12}$ $-$2.8 $C_{21}$ $-$ 0.48 $C_{30}$ 3.0
$C_3$ 4.0 $C_{13}$ 1.5 $C_{22}$ 9.0 $C_{31}$ 2.0
$C_4$ 15 $C_{14}$ $-$1.0 $C_{23}$ $-$ 1.0 $C_{32}$ 1.7
$C_5$ $-$4.0 $C_{15}$ $-$3.0 $C_{25}$ $-$ 11 $C_{33}$ 0.82
$C_6$ $-$4.0 $C_{16}$ 3.2 $C_{26}$ 10 $C_{34}$ 7.0
$C_7$ 5.0 $C_{17}$ $-$1.0 $C_{28}$ $-$ 2.0 $C_{36}$ 2.0
$C_8$ 19 $C_{18}$ 0.63 $-$ 9.6
$C_{10}$ $-$0.25 $C_{19}$ $-$ 4.0 50
: \[tab:Cafit\] Preferred values of the NNLO LECs for fit BE14 in Table \[tab:p6fits\]. As always, the renormalization scale is $\mu=0.77$ GeV and the numerical values are in units of $10^{-6}$.
There have been some more studies of $L_4^r$, $L_6^r$ and the $C_i^r$ using the pion and kaon scalar form factor [@Bijnens:2003xg], $\pi\pi$ scattering [@Bijnens:2004eu] and $\pi K$ scattering [@Bijnens:2004bu; @Kampf:2006bn]. Most of these studies were very sensitive to the input values of the $L_i^r$ assumed and the input data used are to a large extent included in the fits discussed above. We therefore do not discuss those constraints. The constraints from the scalar $K \pi$ transition form factor, or $f_0$ in $K_{l3}$ decays can in principle also be used. The [ChPT]{} result is in [@Bijnens:2003uy] and has been used in [@Jamin:2004re; @Bernard:2007tk] to obtain constraints on $C_{12}^r$ and $C_{34}^r$ but the results depend again on the $L_i^r$ input used.
The situation for the constants $L_9^r$, $L_{10}^r$ and associated $C_i^r$ is better. The pion electromagnetic radius is dominated by the $L_9^r$ contribution. The determination in [@Bijnens:2002hp] to NNLO gives $$\label{eq:8890}
L_{9}^r = (5.93\pm0.43)\cdot 10^{-3}\,,
\qquad
C_{88}^r-C_{90}^r = (-55\pm5)\cdot 10^{-6}\,.$$ The values of $L_{10}^r$ and $C_{87}^r$ can be obtained from sum rules for the difference between the vector and axial-vector current correlators. The required [ChPT]{} calculation was done in [@Amoros:1999dp] and recent analyses of the spectral sum rules are [@GonzalezAlonso:2008rf; @Boito:2012nt; @Boyle:2014pja]. The latter also use some lattice data. A reasonable average of the values for $10^3 L_{10}^r$ of $-4.06\pm0.39$ [@GonzalezAlonso:2008rf], $-3.1\pm0.8$ [@Boito:2012nt] and ${ -3.46\pm0.32}$ [@Boyle:2014pja] is $$L_{10}^r = (-3.8\pm0.4)\cdot 10^{-3}\,.$$ The NNLO [ChPT]{} calculation for $\pi\to l\nu\gamma$ was done [@Geng:2003mt] but has not been used to obtain a value for $L_{10}^r$. The values for $C_{87}^r$ in the above references are compatible and give $$\label{eq:C87}
C_{87}^r = (42\pm2)\cdot 10^{-6}\,.$$ The error in (\[eq:C87\]) is probably a little underestimated. It does not include higher-order [ChPT]{} effects. The large-$N_c$ estimate of [@Masjuan:2008fr], $10^6C_{87}^r= 48\pm5$, is quite compatible with the above.
A similar analysis in the scalar sector for the difference between scalar and pseudo-scalar spectral functions can in principle be done. However, here one has to rely on much more theoretical input since direct data are not available. Bounds on $L_6^r$ were derived in [@Moussallam:1999aq; @Moussallam:2000zf] with values typically a little larger than those of the fits reported here. Results for $L_8^r$ were derived in [@Bordes:2012ud; @Rosell:2006dt] with values for $10^3 L_8^r$ of $1.0\pm0.3$ and $0.6\pm0.4$, which are again somewhat larger than our estimates. However, neither of these references included a dependence on the other $L_i^r$ used as input.
Including lattice results {#sec:nf3lattice}
-------------------------
There have been a few papers combining continuum and lattice input [@Bernard:2009ds; @Ecker:2010nc; @Ecker:2013pba; @Boyle:2014pja], but so far no major effort has been done to combine the two in a systematic fashion. The situation on the lattice side has been reviewed in the FLAG reports [@Colangelo:2010et; @Aoki:2013ldr].
One of the problems is that relatively few lattice collaborations actually use the full NNLO formulas to fit the data. Given that a typical [$n_f=3$]{}[ChPT]{} correction at NLO is about 25% and the expected NNLO correction is thus about 7%, it is clear that NLO [ChPT]{} will not be sufficient to analyse lattice data at the physical kaon and pion masses. On the other hand, using the same argument, a typical N$^3$LO correction would be of the order of 1.5%, which is more appropriate. The MILC collaboration [@Bazavov:2009fk; @Bazavov:2010hj; @Bazavov:2011fh] is here one of the exceptions. The formulas are known also at NNLO for all needed partially quenched cases [@Bijnens:2004hk; @Bijnens:2005ae; @Bijnens:2005pa; @Bijnens:2006jv]. It should be noted that the number of new parameters is not that large. Most lattice calculations use an analytic NNLO mass term in their fits. We only quote here the results of MILC [@Bazavov:2009fk] and HPQCD [@Dowdall:2013rya]. The former are with a full NNLO [ChPT]{} analysis while the latter are with an NLO [ChPT]{} analysis augmented with analytic NNLO terms. It is therefore not clear whether the latter should be compared fully with our results. The results are given in Table \[tab:lattice\].
\[-.2cm\] [@Bazavov:2009fk] [@Dowdall:2013rya]
-------------- ------------------- -------------------- -- --
$10^3 L_4^r$ 0.04(14) 0.09(34)
$10^3 L_5^r$ 0.84(40) 1.19(25)
$10^3 L_6^r$ 0.07(11) 0.16(20)
$10^3 L_8^r$ 0.36(09) 0.55(15)
: \[tab:lattice\] Lattice results from the two most complete analyses available. The lattice values at $\mu=M_\eta$ have been transformed to the usual scale $\mu=0.77$ GeV.
The results shown clearly live up to the large-$N_c$ expectations that $L_4^r$ and $L_6^r$ should be small at $\mu=0.77$ GeV. The values for $L_5^r$ and $L_8^r$ are compatible with the continuum estimates with small $L_4^r$ enforced.
The lattice results for the other $L_i^r$ have not yet reached the accuracy needed to compete with the continuum determinations.
Resonance saturation {#sec:resonance}
--------------------
In [ChPT]{}, LECs parametrize physics at shorter distances. Following the time-honoured notion of vector meson dominance, Gasser and Leutwyler [@Gasser:1983yg] suggested that the $\rho$ meson should play a special role in the LECs to which it contributes. This suggestion was later formulated in terms of a resonance Lagrangian for chiral $SU(3)$ [@Ecker:1988te; @Ecker:1989yg]. Saturating the NLO LECs $L_i$ with the lowest-lying resonance nonets turned out to provide a qualitative understanding of the numerical values of the $L_i^r$ for renormalization scales near $0.77$ GeV.
In this subsection, we first review the status of resonance saturation in view of our fit results for the $L_i^r$, both at NLO and at NNLO. In addition, we then investigate the validity of resonance saturation also for some of the NNLO LECs $C_i^r$, which come with our preferred fit BE14 of the $L_i^r$ (see Tables \[tab:p6fits\],\[tab:Cafit\]).
The expressions for the $L_i$ in terms of the parameters of the lowest-lying vector, axial-vector and scalar multiplets (neglecting small contributions from pseudoscalar resonances) are reproduced in Table \[tab:p4res\]. The resonance couplings were introduced in Ref. [@Ecker:1988te]. For the numerical estimates, we use the well-known relations from short-distance constraints on spectral functions and form factors [@Weinberg:1967kj; @Knecht:1997ts; @Ecker:1989yg; @Ecker:1988te; @Jamin:2001zq; @Pich:2002xy]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:reso}
F_V G_V = F_0^2~, & \qquad & 4 c_d c_m = F_0^2~, {\nonumber}\\[.1cm]
F_V^2 - F_A^2 = F_0^2 ~, & \qquad & F_V^2 M_V^2 = F_A^2 M_A^2 ~.\end{aligned}$$ For the actual numerical values, we have used $F_0=F_\pi$, $c_d=c_m$, $F_V=2 G_V$, $M_V=0.77$ GeV and $M_S=1.4$ GeV. The qualitative features of the numerical values of the $L_i^r$ are well reproduced with resonance saturation, as shown in Table \[tab:p4res\]. Two comments are in order.
- The absolute values of $L_1, L_2, L_3$ for the $p^6$ fit are a bit smaller than the vector meson contributions. As already noted in Refs. [@Ecker:1988te; @Ecker:1989yg], the agreement improves if instead of using the KSFR relation $F_V=2 G_V$, the decay widths $\Gamma(\rho^0 \to e^+ e^-)$ and $\Gamma(\rho \to \pi\pi)$ are invoked to extract the coupling constants $F_V$ and $G_V$. This type of fine-tuning is not our concern here.
- The much-debated scalar resonance dominance works very well for $L_5$ and $L_8$. Essential for this agreement is the notion of the lightest scalar nonet that survives in the large-$N_c$ limit. We refer to Ref. [@Cirigliano:2003yq] for a discussion in favour of an average scalar resonance mass in the vicinity of $M_S \simeq 1.4$ GeV.
--------------------- ------------ -------------- ------------------------------------------- ---------------
\[-.3cm\] $O(p^4)$ $O(p^6)$ R exchange num. estimate
\[.1cm\]
\[-.3cm\] $L_1^r$ 1.0(1) 0.53(6) $\frac{G_V^2}{8 M_V^2}$ 0.9
\[.1cm\] $L_2^r$ 1.6(2) 0.81(4) $\frac{G_V^2}{4 M_V^2}$ 1.8
\[.1cm\] $L_3^r$ $-$ 3.8(3) $-$ 3.07(20) $- \frac{3 G_V^2}{4 M_V^2} $-$ 4.8
+ \frac{c_d^2}{2 M_S^2}$
\[.1cm\] $L_4^r$ 0.0(3) 0.3 0 0
\[.1cm\] $L_5^r$ 1.2(1) 1.01(6) $ \frac{c_d c_m}{M_S^2}$ 1.1
\[.1cm\] $L_6^r$ 0.0(4) 0.14(5) 0 0
\[.1cm\] $L_7^r$ $-$ 0.3(2) $-$ 0.34(9) $- \frac{F_0^2}{48 $-$ 0.2
M_{\eta^\prime}^2}$
\[.1cm\] $L_8^r$ 0.5(2) 0.47(10) $\frac{c_m^2}{2 M_S^2}$ 0.54
\[.1cm\] $L_9^r$ 6.9(7) 5.9(4) $\frac{F_V G_V}{2 M_V^2}$ 7.2
\[.1cm\] $L_{10}^r$ $-$5.2(1) $-$3.8(4) $- \frac{F_V^2}{4 M_V^2} + \frac{F_A^2}{4 $-$ 5.4
M_A^2}$
\[.1cm\]
--------------------- ------------ -------------- ------------------------------------------- ---------------
: \[tab:p4res\] Comparison of the fitted $L_i^r$ at NLO (Table \[tab:p4fits\]) and NNLO (Table \[tab:p6fits\]) with resonance saturation [@Ecker:1988te; @Ecker:1989yg]. The numerical estimates of the resonance contributions are based on Eqs. (\[eq:reso\]), with $F_0=F_\pi$, $c_d=c_m$, $F_V=2 G_V$, $M_V=0.77$ GeV and $M_S=1.4$ GeV. All numerical values are in units of $10^{-3}$.
We now turn to the issue of resonance saturation of the NNLO LECs $C_i^r$. The most general chiral resonance Lagrangian that can generate chiral LECs up to $O(p^6)$ was constructed in Ref. [@Cirigliano:2006hb]. The corresponding chiral resonance theory generates Green functions that interpolate between QCD and [ChPT]{}. It is therefore natural to expect that resonance saturation works qualitatively also for the $C_i^r$.
However, the situation is more complicated than at $O(p^4)$. First, as discussed in the previous subsection, our knowledge of the numerical values of the $C_i^r$ is still limited. Second, many more couplings arise at $O(p^6)$, many of them related to double-resonance exchange, which are essentially unknown. In the following, we will therefore investigate relations for the $C_i^r$ that fulfill two conditions: These LECs contribute to observables used in our fits of the $L_i^r$ and, secondly, the relations either involve only resonance parameters that occurred already at $O(p^4)$ or they do not depend on any parameters at all. A list of such relations was given in Ref. [@Cirigliano:2006hb] but not analysed there. Note that many of the studies in this area assume that short-distance constraints should be satisfied. This is not always possible with a finite number of resonances [@Bijnens:2003rc] and in that case a choice of what is implemented is necessary.
----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- --------------- -----------
\[-.3cm\] LECs R exchange num. estimate fit value
\[.1cm\]
\[-.3cm\] $C_1 + C_3 - C_4$ $- \frac{c_d^2 F_\pi^2}{4 M_S^4}$ $-$ 1.2 1
\[.1cm\] $3 C_3 + C_4$ ${ \frac{G_V^2 F_\pi^2}{8 M_V^4}}$ 13 27
\[.1cm\] $C_{12}$ $- \frac{c_d c_m F_\pi^2}{2 M_S^4}$ $-$ 2.4 $-$ 2.8
\[.1cm\] $C_{18}$ $- \frac{F_\pi^4}{48 M_{\eta^\prime}^4}$ $-$ 1.8 0.6
\[.1cm\] $C_{19}$ $- \frac{F_\pi^4}{144 M_{\eta^\prime}^4}$ $-$ 0.6 $-$ 4.0
\[.1cm\] $C_{20}$ $\frac{F_\pi^4}{96 M_{\eta^\prime}^4}$ 0.9 1.0
\[.1cm\] $C_{20} + 3 C_{21}$ 0 0 $-$ 0.4
\[.1cm\] $C_{32} + 3 C_{21}$ 0 0 0.3
\[.1cm\] $C_{28} - C_{30}/2$ 0 0 $-$ 3.5
\[.1cm\] $C_1/12 - C_{28} + \frac{c_d}{c_m} C_{32}$ $- \frac{7 c_d^2 0.3 4.7
F_\pi^2}{144 M_S^4} - \frac{G_V^2 F_\pi^2}{288 M_V^4} +
\frac{c_d}{c_m} \frac{F_\pi^4}{96 M_{\eta^\prime}^4}$
\[.1cm\]
----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- --------------- -----------
: \[tab:p6res\] Relations among LECs $C_i^r$ from resonance exchange [@Cirigliano:2006hb; @Kaiser:2007zz] that are either parameter-free or depend only on parameters occurring already at $O(p^4)$. The values in the last column are taken from Table \[tab:Cafit\] with the usual renormalization scale $\mu=0.77$ GeV. The numerical estimates are given in units of $10^{-6}$, with the same input values as in Table \[tab:p4res\].
In Table \[tab:p6res\] we display the relations involving only those $C_i^r$ that contribute to our observables. We make several comments.
- The numerical estimates should be viewed with the naive dimensional estimate of NNLO LECs in mind ($C_0 = 40 \cdot
10^{-6}$).
- While the fit values in the last column of Table \[tab:p6res\] refer to the usual renormalization scale ($\mu=0.77$ GeV), the numerical estimates from resonance exchange do not carry a scale dependence (leading order in $1/N_c$). For instance, for a scale $\mu=0.85$ GeV, the fit value for the combination $C_1 + C_3 - C_4$ moves from 1 to $-$ 1.4, practically coinciding with the estimate from resonance exchange.
- $C_1 + C_3 - C_4$ and $C_{12}$ are only sensitive to scalar exchange. As for $L_5$ and $L_8$ (see Table \[tab:p4res\]), the predictions work surprisingly well. There is certainly no evidence for a failure of scalar resonance saturation.
- The parameter-free relations involving $C_{20}$, $C_{21}$ and $C_{32}$ are not only well satisfied, but the involved LECs also seem to be dominated by $\eta^\prime$ exchange in accordance with large $N_c$ [@Kaiser:2007zz].
- Finally, we cannot compare our results directly with one of the most solid predictions for NNLO LECs, i.e. for $C_{88} - C_{90}$ in Eq. (\[eq:8890\]). However, as the last entry in Table \[tab:Cafit\] documents, our values for the $C_i$ certainly do not contradict that prediction.
Convergence of [ChPT]{} for chiral $SU(3)$ {#sec:convergence}
------------------------------------------
We now study the convergence of a number of quantities for the fit BE14 and the free fit. This can be compared with the same study done in Ref. [@Bijnens:2011tb].
The quantities are always in the order LO+NLO+NNLO and the main number is fit BE14 while the number in brackets is from the free fit. $$\begin{aligned}
{F_K/F_\pi} &=& {1 + 0.176(0.121) + 0.023(0.077)}\,,
\nonumber\\
F_\pi/F_0 &=& {1+0.208(0.313) + 0.088(0.127)}\,,
\nonumber\\
M_\pi^2/M_{\pi\mathrm{phys}}^2 &=& {1.055(0.937) - 0.005(+ 0.107) - 0.050(-0.044)}\,,
\nonumber\\
M_K^2/M_{K\mathrm{phys}}^2 &=& {1.112(0.994) - 0.069(+ 0.022) - 0.043(-0.016)}\,,
\nonumber\\
M_\eta^2/M_{\eta\mathrm{phys}}^2 &=& {1.197(0.938) - 0.214(-0.076)+ 0.017(0.014)}\,.\end{aligned}$$ The LO contribution to the masses is calculated from our NLO and NNLO results. The total higher-order corrections are very reasonable for all the ratios listed above even though the NLO corrections are small in some cases.
The $\pi\pi$ scattering lengths show a very good convergence for both: $$\begin{aligned}
a^0_0 &=& 0.160+0.044(0.046)+0.012(0.012)\,,
\nonumber\\
a^2_0 &=& -0.0456+0.0016(0.0017)-0.0001(-0.0003)\,.\end{aligned}$$ The $\pi K$ scattering lengths have a worse convergence: $$\begin{aligned}
a^{1/2}_0 &=& 0.142+0.031(0.027)+0.051(0.057)\,,
\nonumber\\
a^{3/2}_0 &=& -0.071+0.007(0.005)+0.016(0.019)\,.\end{aligned}$$
Finally, we present the convergence for the $K_{l4}$ form factors at threshold: $$\begin{aligned}
f_s &=& 3.786 + 1.202(1.231) +0.717(0.688)\,,
\nonumber\\
g_p &=& 3.786 + 0.952(0.857) +0.212(0.309)\,.\end{aligned}$$ Note that we have fitted the observables to within their errors, so all higher-order contributions are included in the NNLO parts. The overall picture is that the convergence is in line with expectations for $n_f=3$ ChPT.
Dynamical photons and leptons {#sec:photons}
-----------------------------
As shown in Ref. [@Moussallam:1997xx], the electromagnetic LECs $K_i$ of the Lagrangian (\[eq:Le2p2\]) obey integral sum rule representations, generalizing the DGMLY sum rule [@Das:1967it] for the $\pi^+$-$\pi^0$ mass difference. The integral representations have the form of convolutions of pure QCD $n$-point functions ($n \le 4$) with the free photon propagator. The representations serve several purposes [@Moussallam:1997xx]: They can be used to study the dependence of the $K_i^r$ on the chiral renormalization scale, their gauge dependence and possible short-distance ambiguities. The representations also lead to model-independent relations among the LECs. Last but not least, they allow for approximate determinations of the LECs by saturating the integrals in terms of resonance exchanges. This is especially important in the present case because it is nearly impossible to determine the LECs $K_i$ from phenomenology.
In Ref. [@Moussallam:1997xx] the method was applied to $K_7$, …, $K_{13}$ involving two- and three-point functions only. $K_{14}$ multiplies a pure source term and is therefore irrelevant for phenomenology. It turns out that $K_7$ and $K_8$ are large-$N_c$ suppressed and are therefore set to zero at the scale $\mu=M_\rho$. The remaining LECs $K_9$, …, $K_{13}$ are all gauge dependent. In fact, $K_{9}$, …, $K_{12}$ also depend on the QCD renormalization scale $\mu_{\rm SD}$ [@Moussallam:1997xx; @Bijnens:1996kk]. These LECs can therefore not be expressed separately in terms of physical quantities but will occur only in certain combinations in observables. For instance, the combination $K_{10}+K_{11}$ enters the corrections of $O(e^2 m_s)$ to Dashen’s theorem [@Dashen:1969eg]. Consequently, this combination is independent of the gauge parameter $\xi$ and $\mu_{\rm SD}$, depending only on the chiral renormalization scale $\mu$. With this proviso in mind, numerical values will be given in Feynman gauge ($\xi = 1$), for $\mu_{\rm SD}=1$ GeV and for the usual chiral renormalization scale $\mu=M_\rho$. Note that in contrast to the strong LECs, the chiral scale dependence already appears at leading order in $1/N_c$. Other estimates exist in the calculations of the corrections to Dashen’s theorem [@Donoghue:1993hj; @Bijnens:1993ae]. These use other methods to estimate the intermediate- and short-distance momentum regimes. In particular, Ref. [@Bijnens:1996kk] treated the intermediate-distance dynamics with the ENJL model and the short-distance part with perturbative QCD and factorization. Using the latter method, it is also very clear why the LECs are gauge and QCD scale dependent [@Bijnens:1996kk; @Gasser:2003hk].
The more complicated case of four-point functions in the sum rule representations of $K_1$, …, $K_6$ was investigated in Ref. [@Ananthanarayan:2004qk]. It turns out that all these LECs are gauge independent[^2]. Independently of the single-resonance approximation, one can derive the following large-$N_c$ relations [@Bijnens:1996kk; @Ananthanarayan:2004qk]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Kirel}
K_3^r = - K_1^r~, \qquad & \qquad K_4^r = 2 K_2^r~.\end{aligned}$$ In Table \[tab:Kinum\] we collect numerical results for the $K_i^r(M_\rho)$ on the basis of the sum rule representations of Refs. [@Moussallam:1997xx; @Ananthanarayan:2004qk]. As the authors emphasize, uncertainties of the numerical predictions are difficult to estimate quantitatively even for physically relevant combinations: Both the large-$N_c$ approximation and the single-resonance assumption (except for the relations (\[eq:Kirel\])) should be kept in mind. The values in the other approaches have the same order of magnitude but differ in the detailed predictions.
--------------------- -------- -- ------------ ------------
\[-.3cm\] LEC LEC
\[.1cm\]
\[-.3cm\] $K_{1}^r$ $-2.7$ $K_{7}^r$ $\simeq 0$
$K_{2}^r$ $0.7$ $K_{8}^r$ $\simeq 0$
$K_{3}^r$ $2.7$ $K_{10}^r$ $7.5$
$K_{4}^r$ $1.4$ $K_{11}^r$ $1.3$
$K_{5}^r$ $11.6$ $K_{12}^r$ $-4.2$
$K_{6}^r$ $2.8$ $K_{13}^r$ $4.7$
--------------------- -------- -- ------------ ------------
: \[tab:Kinum\] Numerical values of the LECs $K_i^r(M_\rho)$ in units of $10^{-3}$ [@Moussallam:1997xx; @Ananthanarayan:2004qk]. The gauge-dependent LECs (see text) are given in Feynman gauge ($\xi=1$). The QCD renormalization scale is set to $\mu_{\rm
SD}=1$ GeV.
Finally, we turn to the case of dynamical photons and leptons for the calculation of radiative corrections in semileptonic meson decays. The corresponding LECs $X_1$, …, $X_7$ are defined in the Lagrangian (\[eq:Llept\]). Actually, neither $X_4$ nor $X_7$ are phenomenologically relevant. In analogy to the formalism set up for the $K_i$, Descotes-Genon and Moussallam [@DescotesGenon:2005pw] established integral representations for all $X_i$ with the help of a two-step matching procedure (Standard Model $\rightarrow$ Fermi theory $\rightarrow$ [ChPT]{}). These representations furnish numerical estimates of the LECs, once the chiral Green functions are approximated with the help of large-$N_c$-motivated models.
Again as for the $K_i$, the integral representations also allow the derivation of non-trivial relations among the $X_i$. Independently of any model for the two- and three-point functions involved, the following relations hold [@DescotesGenon:2005pw]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Xirel}
X_2^r = \left(X_3^r + \frac{3}{32 \pi^2}\right)/4, \qquad & \qquad X_5^r = - 2
X_2^r \end{aligned}$$ so that in fact only three independent LECs remain to be estimated with specific models.
In Table \[tab:Xinum\] we collect the numerical estimates for the LECs $X_1$, $X_2$, $X_3$ and $X_5$, putting $X_6$ aside for the moment. Except for the model-independent relations (\[eq:Xirel\]), the estimates are based on a minimal resonance model with a single multiplet of vector and axial-vector resonances each (only $V$ and $A$ spectral functions are involved).
-------------------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
\[-.3cm\] $10^{3} X_1^r$ $10^{3} X_2^r$ $10^{3} X_3^r$ $10^{3} X_5^r$
\[-.3cm\] $- 3.7$ $3.6$ $5.0$ $- 7.2$
\[4pt\]
-------------------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
: \[tab:Xinum\] Numerical values of the LECs $X_i^r(M_\rho)$ ($i=1,2,3,5$) for $M_A = \sqrt{2} M_\rho$ [@DescotesGenon:2005pw].
The LEC $X_6$ plays a special role because it cannot be determined from the matching conditions in the same way as $X_1$, $X_2$, $X_3$ and $X_5$. By looking at explicit calculations of radiative corrections of semileptonic decays, one verifies that $X_6$ and $K_{12}$ always appear in the same combination $X_6^{\rm phys}:= X_6 - 4 K_{12}$ related to wave-function renormalization.
It is convenient to write $X_6^{\rm phys}$ as the sum of two contributions: $$\label{eq:X6split}
X_6^{\rm phys}(\mu) = X_{6,{\rm SD}}^{\rm phys} +
{\tilde X}_6^{\rm phys}(\mu)~,$$ where the short-distance contribution is given by [@Sirlin:1981ie] $$\label{eq:X6SD}
X_{6,{\rm SD}}^{\rm phys} = - \frac{1}{2 \pi^2} \log{\frac{M_Z}{M_V}}$$ and the remainder has the following form in the single-resonance approximation [@DescotesGenon:2005pw]: $$\label{eq:X6rest}
{\tilde X}_6^{\rm phys}(\mu) = \frac{1}{16 \pi^2} \left(3
\log{\frac{\mu^2}{M_V^2}} + \frac{1}{2}
\log{\frac{M_A^2}{M_V^2}} - \displaystyle\frac{3 M_V^2 + M_A^2}{(4 \pi
F_0)^2} + \frac{7}{2} \right)~.$$ Summing up powers of electroweak logarithms and adding a small correction of $O(\alpha_s)$ [@Marciano:1993sh], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:resum}
X_{6,{\rm SD}}^{\rm phys} = - 0.2419 \qquad & \longrightarrow & \qquad
{\bar X}_{6,{\rm SD}}^{\rm phys} = - 0.2527~.\end{aligned}$$ By convention, the short-distance contribution is factorized and appears in a universal multiplicative factor $$\label{eq:SEW}
S_{\rm EW} = 1- e^2 {\bar X}_{6,{\rm SD}}^{\rm phys} = 1.0232$$ in all radiatively corrected semileptonic decay rates. The subdominant remainder ${\tilde X}_6^{\rm phys}(\mu)$, on the other hand, combines with other terms in the decay amplitude to yield a scale-independent expression. In the model of Ref. [@DescotesGenon:2005pw] one obtains (with $M_A = \sqrt{2} M_\rho$) $${\tilde X}_6^{\rm phys}(M_\rho) = 0.0104~.$$
CONCLUSIONS AND FINAL RESULTS
=============================
[ChPT]{} as a nonrenormalizable effective field theory requires reliable information on many of its coupling constants in order to arrive at meaningful predictions. In this review we have collected the available knowledge of the low-energy constants in mesonic [ChPT]{}, emphasizing the chiral Lagrangians for the strong interactions.
For [$n_f=2$]{} [ChPT]{} the NLO LECs are by now quite well known from phenomenology with the exception of $\bar
l_3$, for which one should turn to the lattice. The values for the $\bar l_i$ are summarized in Eqs. (\[eq:l1l2\],\[eq:l4\],\[eq:l5\],\[eq:l6b\],\[eq:l3l4\]). The convergence for most of the quantities studied is excellent. The phenomenological knowledge of the NNLO LECs given in (\[eq:ci\]) is still rather modest. Here we have restricted ourselves to quoting published results.
For [$n_f=3$]{} [ChPT]{} we have given a short overview of the different types of chiral Lagrangians. We then concentrated on a new fit of the NLO LECs in the strong sector, using all available information about the NNLO LECs. With reasonable values for the $C_i^r$ a good fit can be obtained with satisfactory convergence for many physical quantities. However, one should keep in mind that determining $L_4^r$ from continuum phenomenology is very difficult. Lattice results and large-$N_c$ arguments suggest $|L_4^r(M_\rho)| \le 3 \cdot 10^{-3}$. This leads to our main new NNLO fit for the $L_i^r$ given in column BE14 in Table \[tab:p6fits\]. We have emphasized that fit BE14 should always be considered together with the associated set of $C_i^r$ values in Table \[tab:Cafit\]. Although the changes in the $L_i^r$ are non-negligible when going from NLO to NNLO, the pattern is quite stable. Another interesting feature is that requiring a small $|L_4^r(M_\rho)|$ leads automatically to small values of $|2 L_1^r(M_\rho) - L_2^r(M_\rho)|$ and $|L_6^r(M_\rho)|$ in accordance with large $N_c$. We have compared our findings with available results from lattice studies. Quite generally, LECs parametrize the physics at shorter distances. We have taken a fresh look at the evidence for resonance saturation of the strong LECs, confirming the qualitative agreement for the $L_i^r$ and finding new evidence also for some of the $C_i^r$. In the few cases where only scalar resonances contribute, resonance saturation seems to work as well at least qualitatively for both NLO and NNLO LECs. In addition, our preferred values of the $C_i^r$ are consistent with $\eta^\prime$ exchange in accordance with large $N_c$.
Although not as impressive as for [$n_f=2$]{}, most of the observables used for our fits show a reasonable “convergence” also for [$n_f=3$]{}, once this pattern is enforced for the meson masses.
Finally, we have reviewed the status of the LECs occurring in the chiral Lagrangians with dynamical photons and leptons relevant for radiative corrections. Although phenomenology is not of much help for a determination of those LECs, different theoretical approaches have led to a consistent picture for all NLO LECs. The interplay between intermediate- and short-distance physics is well under control.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank H. Neufeld, I. Jemos and A. Pich for helpful discussions. This work is supported in part by the European Community-Research Infrastructure Integrating Activity “Study of Strongly Interacting Matter” (HadronPhysics3, Grant Agreement No. 283286) and the Swedish Research Council grants 621-2011-5080 and 621-2013-4287.
[10]{}
S. Weinberg, Physica A [**96**]{} (1979) 327.
J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Annals Phys. [**158**]{} (1984) 142.
J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Nucl. Phys. B [**250**]{} (1985) 465.
C. Riggenbach, J. Gasser, J. F. Donoghue and B. R. Holstein, Phys. Rev. D [**43**]{} (1991) 127.
J. Bijnens, Nucl. Phys. B [**337**]{} (1990) 635.
J. Bijnens, G. Colangelo and J. Gasser, Nucl. Phys. B [**427**]{} (1994) 427 \[hep-ph/9403390\].
G. Amor[ó]{}s, J. Bijnens and P. Talavera, Nucl. Phys. B [**585**]{} (2000) 293 \[Erratum ibid. B [**598**]{} (2001) 665\] \[hep-ph/0003258\].
G. Amor[ó]{}s, J. Bijnens and P. Talavera, Nucl. Phys. B [**602**]{} (2001) 87 \[hep-ph/0101127\].
D. B. Kaplan and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**56**]{} (1986) 2004.
J. Bijnens and I. Jemos, Nucl. Phys. B [**854**]{} (2012) 631 \[arXiv:1103.5945 \[hep-ph\]\].
V. Cirigliano [*et al.*]{}, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**84**]{} (2012) 399 \[arXiv:1107.6001 \[hep-ph\]\].
G. Colangelo [*et al.*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. C [**71**]{} (2011) 1695 \[arXiv:1011.4408 \[hep-lat\]\].
S. Aoki [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:1310.8555 \[hep-lat\].
H. Leutwyler, Annals Phys. [**235**]{} (1994) 165 \[hep-ph/9311274\].
S. Scherer and M. R. Schindler, Lect. Notes Phys. [**830**]{} (2012) 1.
G. Ecker, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. [**35**]{} (1995) 1 \[hep-ph/9501357\].
A. Pich, Rept. Prog. Phys. [**58**]{} (1995) 563 \[hep-ph/9502366\].
J. Bijnens, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. [**58**]{} (2007) 521 \[hep-ph/0604043\].
J. Bijnens, G. Colangelo and G. Ecker, JHEP [**9902**]{} (1999) 020 \[hep-ph/9902437\].
H. W. Fearing and S. Scherer, Phys. Rev. D [**53**]{} (1996) 315 \[hep-ph/9408346\].
C. Haefeli, M. A. Ivanov, M. Schmid and G. Ecker, arXiv:0705.0576 \[hep-ph\].
J. Bijnens [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B [**508**]{} (1997) 263 \[Erratum ibid. B [**517**]{} (1998) 639\] \[hep-ph/9707291\].
J. Bijnens, G. Colangelo and G. Ecker, Annals Phys. [**280**]{} (2000) 100 \[hep-ph/9907333\].
G. Ecker, J. Gasser, A. Pich and E. de Rafael, Nucl. Phys. B [**321**]{} (1989) 311.
B. Moussallam, Eur. Phys. J. C [**6**]{} (1999) 681 \[hep-ph/9804271\].
R. Urech, Nucl. Phys. B [**433**]{} (1995) 234 \[hep-ph/9405341\].
M. Knecht, H. Neufeld, H. Rupertsberger and P. Talavera, Eur. Phys. J. C [**12**]{} (2000) 469 \[hep-ph/9909284\].
J. Wess and B. Zumino, Phys. Lett. B [**37**]{} (1971) 95.
E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B [**223**]{} (1983) 422.
T. Ebertshauser, H. W. Fearing and S. Scherer, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{} (2002) 054033 \[hep-ph/0110261\].
J. Bijnens, L. Girlanda and P. Talavera, Eur. Phys. J. C [**23**]{} (2002) 539 \[hep-ph/0110400\].
B. Moussallam, Nucl. Phys. B [**504**]{} (1997) 381 \[hep-ph/9701400\].
M. Knecht and A. Nyffeler, Eur. Phys. J. C [**21**]{} (2001) 659 \[hep-ph/0106034\].
P. D. Ruiz-Femen[í]{}a, A. Pich and J. Portol[é]{}s, JHEP [**0307**]{} (2003) 003 \[hep-ph/0306157\].
B. Ananthanarayan and B. Moussallam, JHEP [**0205**]{} (2002) 052 \[hep-ph/0205232\].
J. A. Cronin, Phys. Rev. [**161**]{} (1967) 1483.
J. Kambor, J. H. Missimer and D. Wyler, Nucl. Phys. B [**346**]{} (1990) 17.
G. Ecker, J. Kambor and D. Wyler, Nucl. Phys. B [**394**]{} (1993) 101.
J. Bijnens and F. Borg, Eur. Phys. J. C [**40**]{} (2005) 383 \[hep-ph/0501163\].
G. D’Ambrosio and J. Portol[é]{}s, Nucl. Phys. B [**533**]{} (1998) 494 \[hep-ph/9711211\].
E. Pallante, A. Pich and I. Scimemi, Nucl. Phys. B [**617**]{} (2001) 441 \[hep-ph/0105011\].
V. Cirigliano, G. Ecker, H. Neufeld and A. Pich, Eur. Phys. J. C [**33**]{} (2004) 369 \[hep-ph/0310351\].
W. A. Bardeen, A. J. Buras and J.-M. G[é]{}rard, Nucl. Phys. B [**293**]{} (1987) 787.
J. Bijnens and J. Prades, JHEP [**9901**]{} (1999) 023 \[hep-ph/9811472\].
A. J. Buras, J.-M. G[é]{}rard and W. A. Bardeen, arXiv:1401.1385 \[hep-ph\].
J. Bijnens and J. Prades, JHEP [**0001**]{} (2000) 002 \[hep-ph/9911392\].
S. Peris, M. Perrottet and E. de Rafael, JHEP [**9805**]{} (1998) 011 \[hep-ph/9805442\].
J. Bijnens and M. B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B [**137**]{} (1984) 245.
B. Grinstein, S.-J. Rey and M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D [**33**]{} (1986) 1495.
V. Cirigliano, J. F. Donoghue and E. Golowich, Phys. Rev. D [**61**]{} (2000) 093002 \[hep-ph/9909473\].
J. Bijnens, E. G[á]{}miz and J. Prades, JHEP [**0110**]{} (2001) 009 \[hep-ph/0108240\].
G. Ecker [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B [**591**]{} (2000) 419 \[hep-ph/0006172\].
U. B[ü]{}rgi, Nucl. Phys. B [**479**]{} (1996) 392 \[hep-ph/9602429\].
J. Bijnens [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**374**]{} (1996) 210 \[hep-ph/9511397\].
J. Bijnens, G. Colangelo and P. Talavera, JHEP [**9805**]{} (1998) 014 \[hep-ph/9805389\].
J. Bijnens and P. Talavera, Nucl. Phys. B [**489**]{} (1997) 387 \[hep-ph/9610269\].
J. Beringer [*et al.*]{} \[Particle Data Group Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{} (2012) 010001.
S. M. Roy, Phys. Lett. B [**36**]{} (1971) 353.
B. Ananthanarayan, G. Colangelo, J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Phys. Rept. [**353**]{} (2001) 207 \[hep-ph/0005297\].
G. Colangelo, J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Nucl. Phys. B [**603**]{} (2001) 125 \[hep-ph/0103088\].
S. Descotes-Genon, N. H. Fuchs, L. Girlanda and J. Stern, Eur. Phys. J. C [**24**]{} (2002) 469 \[hep-ph/0112088\].
R. Garcia-Martin [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{} (2011) 074004 \[arXiv:1102.2183 \[hep-ph\]\].
J. R. Batley [*et al.*]{} \[NA48/2 Collaboration\], Eur. Phys. J. C [**54**]{} (2008) 411.
J. R. Batley [*et al.*]{} \[NA48/2 Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B [**633**]{} (2006) 173 \[hep-ex/0511056\].
B. Adeva [*et al.*]{} \[DIRAC Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B [**619**]{} (2005) 50 \[hep-ex/0504044\].
J. F. Donoghue, J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Nucl. Phys. B [**343**]{} (1990) 341.
B. Moussallam, Eur. Phys. J. C [**14**]{} (2000) 111 \[hep-ph/9909292\].
B. Ananthanarayan [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**602**]{} (2004) 218 \[hep-ph/0409222\].
S. R. Amendolia [*et al.*]{} \[NA7 Collaboration\], Nucl. Phys. B [**277**]{} (1986) 168.
B. Ananthanarayan, I. Caprini, D. Das and I. Sentitemsu Imsong, Eur. Phys. J. C [**73**]{} (2013) 2520 \[arXiv:1302.6373 \[hep-ph\]\].
M. Gonz[á]{}lez-Alonso, A. Pich and J. Prades, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{} (2008) 116012 \[arXiv:0810.0760 \[hep-ph\]\].
M. Bychkov [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**103**]{} (2009) 051802 \[arXiv:0804.1815 \[hep-ex\]\].
J. Bijnens and I. Jemos, Eur. Phys. J. C [**64**]{} (2009) 273 \[arXiv:0906.3118 \[hep-ph\]\].
R. Baron [*et al.*]{} \[ETM Collaboration\], PoS LATTICE [**2010**]{} (2010) 123 \[arXiv:1101.0518 \[hep-lat\]\].
R. Arthur [*et al.*]{} \[RBC and UKQCD Collaborations\], Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{} (2013) 094514 \[arXiv:1208.4412 \[hep-lat\]\].
A. Bazavov [*et al.*]{}, PoS LATTICE [**2010**]{} (2010) 083 \[arXiv:1011.1792 \[hep-lat\]\].
S. R. Beane [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{} (2012) 094509 \[arXiv:1108.1380 \[hep-lat\]\].
S. Bors[á]{}nyi [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{} (2013) 014513 \[arXiv:1205.0788 \[hep-lat\]\].
R. Baron [*et al.*]{} \[ETM Collaboration\], JHEP [**1008**]{} (2010) 097 \[arXiv:0911.5061 \[hep-lat\]\].
S. D[ü]{}rr [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:1310.3626 \[hep-lat\].
S. Descotes-Genon, L. Girlanda and J. Stern, JHEP [**0001**]{} (2000) 041 \[hep-ph/9910537\].
G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B [**72**]{} (1974) 461.
S. Peris and E. de Rafael, Phys. Lett. B [**348**]{} (1995) 539 \[hep-ph/9412343\].
G. Ecker, P. Masjuan and H. Neufeld, Eur. Phys. J. C [**74**]{} (2014) 2748 \[arXiv:1310.8452 \[hep-ph\]\].
G. Amor[ó]{}s, J. Bijnens and P. Talavera, Nucl. Phys. B [**568**]{} (2000) 319 \[hep-ph/9907264\].
J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Nucl. Phys. B [**250**]{} (1985) 517.
J. Bijnens and P. Dhonte, JHEP [**0310**]{} (2003) 061 \[hep-ph/0307044\].
J. Bijnens, P. Dhonte and P. Talavera, JHEP [**0401**]{} (2004) 050 \[hep-ph/0401039\].
V. Bernard, N. Kaiser and U. G. Mei[ß]{}ner, Nucl. Phys. B [**357**]{} (1991) 129.
J. Bijnens, P. Dhonte and P. Talavera, JHEP [**0405**]{} (2004) 036 \[hep-ph/0404150\].
P. B[ü]{}ttiker, S. Descotes-Genon and B. Moussallam, Eur. Phys. J. C [**33**]{} (2004) 409 \[hep-ph/0310283\].
J. R. Batley [*et al.*]{} \[NA48/2 Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B [**715**]{} (2012) 105 \[arXiv:1206.7065 \[hep-ex\]\].
J. Bijnens and J. Prades, Nucl. Phys. B [**490**]{} (1997) 239 \[hep-ph/9610360\].
J. Bijnens and P. Talavera, JHEP [**0203**]{} (2002) 046 \[hep-ph/0203049\].
J. Gasser, C. Haefeli, M. A. Ivanov and M. Schmid, Phys. Lett. B [**652**]{} (2007) 21 \[arXiv:0706.0955 \[hep-ph\]\].
S.-Z. Jiang, Y. Zhang, C. Li and Q. Wang, Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{} (2010) 014001 \[arXiv:0907.5229 \[hep-ph\]\].
S. D[ü]{}rr and J. Kambor, Phys. Rev. D [**61**]{} (2000) 114025 \[hep-ph/9907539\].
D. Boito [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:1311.6679 \[hep-ph\].
J. Bijnens and P. Talavera, Nucl. Phys. B [**669**]{} (2003) 341 \[hep-ph/0303103\].
M. Jamin, J. A. Oller and A. Pich, JHEP [**0402**]{} (2004) 047 \[hep-ph/0401080\].
K. Kampf and B. Moussallam, Eur. Phys. J. C [**47**]{} (2006) 723 \[hep-ph/0604125\].
J. Prades, PoS KAON [****]{} (2008) 022 \[arXiv:0707.1789 \[hep-ph\]\].
R. Unterdorfer and H. Pichl, Eur. Phys. J. C [**55**]{} (2008) 273 \[arXiv:0801.2482 \[hep-ph\]\].
P. Masjuan and S. Peris, Phys. Lett. B [**663**]{} (2008) 61 \[arXiv:0801.3558 \[hep-ph\]\].
V. Bernard and E. Passemar, JHEP [**1004**]{} (2010) 001 \[arXiv:0912.3792 \[hep-ph\]\].
D. Boito [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{} (2013) 094008 \[arXiv:1212.4471 \[hep-ph\]\].
V. Cirigliano [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**596**]{} (2004) 96 \[hep-ph/0404004\].
V. Cirigliano [*et al.*]{}, JHEP [**0504**]{} (2005) 006 \[hep-ph/0503108\].
I. Rosell, J. J. Sanz-Cillero and A. Pich, JHEP [**0701**]{} (2007) 039 \[hep-ph/0610290\].
V. Cirigliano [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B [**753**]{} (2006) 139 \[hep-ph/0603205\].
R. Kaiser, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [**174**]{} (2007) 97.
A. Pich, I. Rosell and J. J. Sanz-Cillero, JHEP [**0807**]{} (2008) 014 \[arXiv:0803.1567 \[hep-ph\]\].
J. J. Sanz-Cillero and J. Trnka, Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{} (2010) 056005 \[arXiv:0912.0495 \[hep-ph\]\].
A. Pich, I. Rosell and J. J. Sanz-Cillero, JHEP [**1102**]{} (2011) 109 \[arXiv:1011.5771 \[hep-ph\]\].
P. Colangelo, J. J. Sanz-Cillero and F. Zuo, JHEP [**1211**]{} (2012) 012 \[arXiv:1207.5744 \[hep-ph\]\].
M. Golterman, K. Maltman and S. Peris, Phys. Rev. D [**89**]{} (2014) 054036 \[arXiv:1402.1043 \[hep-ph\]\].
A. Bazavov [*et al.*]{} \[MILC Collaboration\], PoS LATTICE [**2010**]{} (2010) 074 \[arXiv:1012.0868 \[hep-lat\]\].
G. Ecker, P. Masjuan and H. Neufeld, Phys. Lett. B [**692**]{} (2010) 184 \[arXiv:1004.3422 \[hep-ph\]\].
A. Bazavov [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{} (2013) 073012 \[arXiv:1212.4993 \[hep-lat\]\].
P. A. Boyle [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**89**]{} (2014) 094510 \[arXiv:1403.6729 \[hep-ph\]\].
V. Bernard and E. Passemar, Phys. Lett. B [**661**]{} (2008) 95 \[arXiv:0711.3450 \[hep-ph\]\].
C. Q. Geng, I.-L. Ho and T. H. Wu, Nucl. Phys. B [**684**]{} (2004) 281 \[hep-ph/0306165\].
B. Moussallam, JHEP [**0008**]{} (2000) 005 \[hep-ph/0005245\].
J. Bordes [*et al.*]{}, JHEP [**1210**]{} (2012) 102 \[arXiv:1208.1159 \[hep-ph\]\].
A. Bazavov [*et al.*]{} \[MILC Collaboration\], PoS CD [**09**]{} (2009) 007 \[arXiv:0910.2966 \[hep-ph\]\].
A. Bazavov [*et al.*]{} \[MILC Collaboration\], PoS LATTICE [**2011**]{} (2011) 107 \[arXiv:1111.4314 \[hep-lat\]\].
J. Bijnens, N. Danielsson and T. A. L[ä]{}hde, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{} (2004) 111503 \[hep-lat/0406017\].
J. Bijnens and T. A. L[ä]{}hde, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{} (2005) 094502 \[hep-lat/0501014\].
J. Bijnens and T. A. L[ä]{}hde, Phys. Rev. D [**72**]{} (2005) 074502 \[hep-lat/0506004\].
J. Bijnens, N. Danielsson and T. A. L[ä]{}hde, Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{} (2006) 074509 \[hep-lat/0602003\].
R. J. Dowdall, C. T. H. Davies, G. P. Lepage and C. McNeile, Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{} (2013) 074504 \[arXiv:1303.1670 \[hep-lat\]\].
G. Ecker [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**223**]{} (1989) 425.
S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**18**]{} (1967) 507.
M. Knecht and E. de Rafael, Phys. Lett. B [**424**]{} (1998) 335 \[hep-ph/9712457\].
M. Jamin, J. A. Oller and A. Pich, Nucl. Phys. B [**622**]{} (2002) 279 \[hep-ph/0110193\].
A. Pich, Proc. Institute for Nuclear Theory (World Scientific) [**12**]{} (2002) 239 \[hep-ph/0205030\].
V. Cirigliano, G. Ecker, H. Neufeld and A. Pich, JHEP [**0306**]{} (2003) 012 \[hep-ph/0305311\].
J. Bijnens, E. G[á]{}miz, E. Lipartia and J. Prades, JHEP [**0304**]{} (2003) 055 \[hep-ph/0304222\].
T. Das [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**18**]{} (1967) 759.
R. F. Dashen, Phys. Rev. [**183**]{} (1969) 1245.
J. F. Donoghue, B. R. Holstein and D. Wyler, Phys. Rev. D [**47**]{} (1993) 2089.
J. Bijnens, Phys. Lett. B [**306**]{} (1993) 343 \[hep-ph/9302217\].
J. Gasser, A. Rusetsky and I. Scimemi, Eur. Phys. J. C [**32**]{} (2003) 97 \[hep-ph/0305260\].
B. Ananthanarayan and B. Moussallam, JHEP [**0406**]{} (2004) 047 \[hep-ph/0405206\]. A. Agadjanov, D. Agadjanov, A. Khelashvili and A. Rusetsky, Eur. Phys. J. A [**49**]{} (2013) 120 \[arXiv:1307.1451 \[hep-ph\]\].
S. Descotes-Genon and B. Moussallam, Eur. Phys. J. C [**42**]{} (2005) 403 \[hep-ph/0505077\].
A. Sirlin, Nucl. Phys. B [**196**]{} (1982) 83.
W. J. Marciano and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{} (1993) 3629.
[^1]: We shall always display the $C_i$ in units of $10^{-6}$.
[^2]: The $\beta$-functions of the $K_i
~(i=1,\dots,14)$ in a general covariant gauge were calculated in Ref. [@Agadjanov:2013lra].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
R. D’Arcy\*\
*UCL, London, UK, WC1E 6BT and Fermilab*\
\
A. Shemyakin\
*Fermilab, Batavia, IL 60510, USA*
title: 'Calculation of the effect of slit size on emittance measurements made by a two-slit scanner'
---
[^1]
Abstract
========
Parallel slit-slit devices are commonly used to measure the transverse emittance of a particle beam, selecting a portion of the beam with the front slit and measuring the angular distribution with the rear. This paper calculates the effect of finite slit sizes on measured emittance and Twiss functions in the case of Gaussian spatial and angular distributions of the oncoming beam. A formula for recovering the true emittance from the measured values is derived.
Introduction
============
One of many devices used to measure the beam emittance is a two-slit emittance scanner [@two-slit], which consists of two narrow slits separated by a distance $L$ (Fig. \[fig:slits\]). The beam is sent to the front slit of the scanner, which then cuts out a flat ‘beamlet’. The transverse beamlet expands proportionally to its initial angular spread and is thus measured by moving the back slit, recording the current passing through both slits with a collector. Repeating the measurement at various front and rear slit positions allows for reconstruction of a full phase space portrait and calculation of the beam emittance.
![Example geometry of a two-slit collector, displaying notation defined for all calculations in this paper.[]{data-label="fig:slits"}](fig1.pdf){width="100mm"}
Alternatively, in an Allison scanner [@allison] the beamlet is moved across the back slit, the position of which is fixed with respect to the front slit, by applying a transverse electric field along the beamlet trajectory. If the quality of the electric field is good and effects of secondary particles are minor, both scanners give the same result and are affected by the slit size in an identical manner.
Effect of finite slit size is discussed in [@sander]. However, the formula derivation is not presented (only referenced to a private communication), and the formula itself clearly has a typo because dimensions of terms in the sum differ.
In this paper, we derive formulae for this effect to be directly applied to measurements made with the Allison-type emittance scanner at Fermilab’s PXIE LEBT [@ibic].
Assumptions and Notation
========================
Consider a Gaussian beam distribution with normalised phase density
$$\label{eq:dist}
f (x, x') = \frac{1}{2 \pi \epsilon_0} e^{-\frac{x^2 + (\alpha x + \beta x')^2}{2\varepsilon_0\beta}} \quad ,$$
\
where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are Twiss functions at the front slit and $\varepsilon_0$ is the real emittance.
The beam phase portrait is measured by a scanner with two infinitely long slits, with width $2d_1$ at the front and $2d_2$ at the rear. The measured emittance may be calculated for such a scanner, assuming that steps of slit motion are much smaller than all relevant dimensions i.e. summing can be replaced by integration.
At each step the position of the slit centres are denoted as $x_1$, $x_2$ and particle coordinates (with respect to the slit centres) as $y_1$, $y_2$, where indices 1 and 2 refer to the front and back slits respectively.
Calculation
===========
At a given step of measurement the portion of the beam that reaches the collector $I_c$ is determined by integration of Eq. \[eq:dist\] over the surface outlined in Fig. \[fig:ellipse\].
![Pictorial representation of the true phase-space acceptance of the front and rear slits, bounded by the given limits.[]{data-label="fig:ellipse"}](fig2.pdf){width="100mm"}
To simplify calculations, we can integrate over $y_1$ and $y_2$:
$$\label{eq:ic}
I_c (x_1, x_2) = \int^{d_1}_{-d_1} dy_1 \int^{d_2}_{-d_2} dy_2 \enspace \frac{1}{L} \enspace f \left (x_1 + y_1, \frac{x_2 + y_2 - x_1 - y_1}{L} \right ) \quad .$$
\
The sum $S_0$, measured with steps $\Delta x_1$ and $\Delta x_2$, can be approximated by the integral
$$\label{eq:s0}
S_0 \equiv \left ( \sum \limits_{i,j} I_c (x_{1i},x_{2j}) \right ) \Delta x_1 \Delta x_2 \approx \int^{\infty}_{-\infty} dx_1 \int^{\infty}_{-\infty} dx_2 \enspace I_c (x_1, x_2) \quad .$$
\
This form can be integrated analytically by changing the order of integration, followed by a substitution of variable,
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:s0_arr}
S_0 &=& \int^{\infty}_{-\infty} dx_1 \int^{\infty}_{-\infty} \frac{dx_2}{L} \enspace \frac{1}{2\pi\varepsilon_0} \int^{d_1}_{-d_1} dy_1 \int^{d_2}_{-d_2} dy_2 \enspace \frac{1}{L} f \left (x_1 + y_1, \frac{x_2 + y_2 - x_1 - y_1}{L} \right ) \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{1}{2\pi\varepsilon_0 L} \int^{d_1}_{-d_1} dy_1 \int^{d_2}_{-d_2} dy_2 \int^{\infty}_{-\infty} dx_1 \int^{\infty}_{-\infty} dx_2 \enspace e^{-\frac{(x_1+y_1)^2 + (\alpha (x_1+y_1) + \frac{\beta}{L} (x_2 + y_2 - x_1 - y_1))^2}{2\varepsilon_0\beta}} \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{1}{2\pi\varepsilon_0 L} \int^{d_1}_{-d_1} dy_1 \int^{d_2}_{-d_2} dy_2 \int^{\infty}_{-\infty} dx_1 \enspace e^{-\frac{(x_1+y_1)^2}{2\varepsilon_0\beta}} \int^{\infty}_{-\infty} du \enspace \frac{L}{\beta} \enspace e^{-\frac{u^2}{2\varepsilon_0\beta}} \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{1}{2\pi\varepsilon_0 \beta} \int^{d_1}_{-d_1} dy_1 \int^{d_2}_{-d_2} dy_2 \int^{\infty}_{-\infty} dx_1 \enspace e^{-\frac{(x_1+y_1)^2}{2\varepsilon_0\beta}} \int^{\infty}_{-\infty} du \enspace e^{-\frac{u^2}{2\varepsilon_0\beta}}\end{aligned}$$
\
The rightmost integral may then be solved using the identity found in Eq. \[eq:eu\], leading to
$$\label{eq:s0_2}
S_0 = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\varepsilon_0 \beta}} \int^{d_1}_{-d_1} dy_1 \int^{d_2}_{-d_2} dy_2 \int^{\infty}_{-\infty} dx_1 \enspace e^{-\frac{(x_1+y_1)^2}{2\varepsilon_0\beta}} \quad .$$
\
The same identity is again employed for the integral over $x_1$, followed by definite integrals over $y_1$ and $y_2$. The final result is
$$S_0 = 4d_1d_2 \quad .$$
\
The integrals used to calculate the second moments are
$$\begin{aligned}
S_{xx} &=& \int^{\infty}_{-\infty} dx_1 \int^{\infty}_{-\infty} dx_2 \enspace x^2_1 \enspace I_c (x_1, x_2) \quad , \\
S_{x'x'} &=& \int^{\infty}_{-\infty} dx_1 \int^{\infty}_{-\infty} dx_2 \enspace \left ( \frac{x_2 - x_1}{L} \right )^2 \enspace I_c (x_1, x_2) \quad , \\
S_{xx'} &=& \int^{\infty}_{-\infty} dx_1 \int^{\infty}_{-\infty} dx_2 \enspace \left ( \frac{x_2 - x_1}{L} \right ) x_1 \enspace I_c (x_1, x_2) \quad .\end{aligned}$$
\
Proceeding with integration similar to that in Eqs. \[eq:s0\_arr\] and \[eq:s0\_2\], and utilising the integration identities in Eqs. \[eq:ueu\] and \[eq:u2eu\], the second moments are defined as
$$\begin{aligned}
\Braket{x^2} &=& \frac{S_{xx}}{S_0} = \varepsilon_0 \beta + \frac{d_1^2}{3} \quad , \\
\Braket{x'^2} &=& \frac{S_{x'x'}}{S_0} = \varepsilon_0 \left ( \frac{1+\alpha^2}{\beta} \right ) + \frac{d_1^2 + d_2^2}{3L^2} \quad , \\
\Braket{xx'} &=& \frac{S_{xx'}}{S_0} = - \alpha \varepsilon_0 - \frac{d_1^2}{3L} \quad .\end{aligned}$$
\
Finally, the reconstructed emittance and Twiss functions from measured data are given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:emit_m}
\varepsilon^2_m \equiv \Braket{x^2}\Braket{x'^2} - \Braket{xx'}^2 &=& \varepsilon_0^2 + \varepsilon_0 \left (\beta \frac{d_1^2 + d_2^2}{3L^2} + \frac{1+\alpha^2}{\beta} \frac{d_1^2}{3} - \alpha \frac{2d_1^2}{3L} \right ) + \frac{d_1^2 d_2^2}{9L^2} \nonumber \\
&=& \varepsilon_0^2 + \varepsilon_0 \left ( \frac{\beta}{3L^2} \left [ d_2^2 + d_1^2 \left \{ \left ( 1 - \frac{\alpha L}{\beta} \right )^2 + \frac{L^2}{\beta^2} \right \} \right ] \right ) + \frac{d_1^2 d_2^2}{9L^2} \quad ,\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\beta_m &\equiv& \frac{\Braket{x^2}}{\varepsilon_m} = \beta \frac{\varepsilon_0}{\varepsilon_m} + \frac{d_1^2}{3\varepsilon_m} \quad , \label{eq:beta} \\
\alpha_m &\equiv& \frac{\Braket{xx'}}{\varepsilon_m} = \alpha \frac{\varepsilon_0}{\varepsilon_m} + \frac{d_1^2}{3L\varepsilon_m} \quad . \label{eq:alpha}\end{aligned}$$
\
The relations of Eq. \[eq:beta\] and \[eq:alpha\] for the measured Twiss functions may be substituted into that of the measured emittance (Eq. \[eq:emit\_m\]). This conveniently gives the true emittance exclusively in terms of measured parameters:
$$\label{eq:emit_0}
\varepsilon^2_0 = \varepsilon_m^2 - \varepsilon_m \left (\beta_m \frac{d_1^2 + d_2^2}{3L^2} + \frac{1+\alpha_m^2}{\beta_m} \frac{d_1^2}{3} - \alpha_m \frac{2d_1^2}{3L} \right ) + \frac{d_1^2 d_2^2}{9L^2} \quad .$$
\
The error on the measured emittance due to a finite slit size is therefore
$$\label{eq:error}
\frac{\varepsilon_m - \varepsilon_0}{\varepsilon_0} = \left (1 - \frac{1}{\varepsilon_m} \left ( \beta_m \frac{d_1^2 + d_2^2}{3L^2} + \frac{1+\alpha_m^2}{\beta_m} \frac{d_1^2}{3} - \alpha_m \frac{2d_1^2}{3L} \right ) + \frac{1}{\varepsilon^2_m} \frac{d_1^2 d_2^2}{9L^2} \right ) ^{-\frac{1}{2}} - 1 \quad .$$
\
Discussion
==========
The results in [@sander] differ from those derived in this paper by typos and a numerical coefficient in the expressions for $\alpha_m$ and $\varepsilon_m$, as well as by the absence of the last term in Eq. \[eq:emit\_m\]. Note that this term does not appear if the derivation is made by integration of the distribution in Eq. \[eq:dist\], expanded near the location of the slits, as it requires slit sizes much smaller than the width of both beam and beamlet.
As a numerical example of the effect, the error in measured emittance estimated with Eq. \[eq:error\] using dimensions of the PXIE Allison scanner ($2d_1$ = 0.2 mm, $2d_2$ = 0.5 mm, and $L$ = 118 mm), with typical beam parameters at the end of the PXIE LEBT ($\alpha_m$ = -0.56 rad, $\beta_m$ = 0.33 m, and $\varepsilon_m$ = 14.4 mm mrad), is 3.2$\%$.
Acknowledgements
================
Fermilab is operated by Fermi Research Alliance, LLC, under contract DE-AC02-07CH11359 with the United States Department of Energy.
[9]{}
A. Anders, E. Chacon-Golcher, *Time resolved emittance of a bismuth ion beam from a pulsed vacuum arc ion source*, J. Appl. Phys. [**93**]{} 2298-2300 (2003)
P. Allison, J. Sherman, D. Holtkamp, *An emittance scanner for intense low-energy ion beams*, Trans. Nucl. Sci. [**NS-30**]{} 4 (1983)
O. R. Sander, *Transverse emittance: Its definition, applications, and measurement*, AIP Conf. Proc. [**212**]{} 127, p.143 (1990)
R. D’Arcy, et al., *Distinct transverse emittance measurements of the PXIE LEBT*, IBIC’14 Conf. Proc, Monterey, USA, [**TUPD01**]{} (2014)
Exponential Integration Identities
==================================
$$\label{eq:eu}
\int^{\infty}_{-\infty} e^{-ax^2 - 2bx} dx = \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{a}} e^{\frac{b^2}{a}} \quad , \enspace \rm{where} \enspace a>0 \quad .$$
$$\label{eq:ueu}
\int^{\infty}_{-\infty} x e^{-ax^2 + bx} dx = \frac{\sqrt{\pi}b}{2a^{3/2}} e^{\frac{b^2}{4a}} \quad , \enspace \rm{where} \enspace Re(a)>0 \quad .$$
$$\label{eq:u2eu}
\int^{\infty}_{-\infty} x^2 e^{-ax^2 - bx} dx = \frac{\sqrt{\pi}(2a+b^2)}{4a^{5/2}} e^{\frac{b^2}{4a}} \quad , \enspace \rm{where} \enspace Re(a)>0 \quad .$$
[^1]: \* [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Let $f(X)=X(1+aX^{q(q-1)}+bX^{2(q-1)})\in{\Bbb F}_{q^2}[X]$, where $a,b\in{\Bbb F}_{q^2}^*$. In a series of recent papers by several authors, sufficient conditions on $a$ and $b$ were found for $f$ to be a permutation polynomial (PP) of ${\Bbb F}_{q^2}$ and, in characteristic $2$, the sufficient conditions were shown to be necessary. In the present paper, we confirm that in characteristic 3, the sufficient conditions are also necessary. More precisely, we show that when $\text{char}\,{\Bbb F}_q=3$, $f$ is a PP of ${\Bbb F}_{q^2}$ if and only if $(ab)^q=a(b^{q+1}-a^{q+1})$ and $1-(b/a)^{q+1}$ is a square in ${\Bbb F}_q^*$.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620'
- 'School of Mathematics and Statistics, Henan University of Science and Technology, Luoyang 471003, China'
- 'Faculty of Mathematics and Statistics, Hubei Key Laboratory of Applied Mathematics, Hubei University, Wuhan, 430062, China'
author:
- 'Xiang-dong Hou'
- 'Ziran Tu\*'
- 'Xiangyong Zeng$\dagger$'
title: Determination of a Class of Permutation Trinomials in Characteristic Three
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
Let ${\Bbb F}_q$ be the finite field with $q$ elements and let $p=\text{char}\,{\Bbb F}_q$. A polynomial $f\in{\Bbb F}_q[X]$ is called a permutation polynomial (PP) of ${\Bbb F}_q$ if it induces a permutation of ${\Bbb F}_q$. Classifications of PPs with simple or prescribed algebraic forms are important and difficult questions. In the present paper, we consider the polynomials of the form $$\label{1.1}
f(X)=X(1+aX^{q(q-1)}+bX^{2(q-1)})\in{\Bbb F}_{q^2}[X],$$ where $a,b\in{\Bbb F}_{q^2}^*$. These polynomials were studied in two recent papers by Tu, Zeng, Li and Helleseth [@Tu-Zeng-Li-Helleseth-FFA-2018] and by Tu and Zeng [@Tu-Zeng-CC]. Sufficient conditions on the coefficients were found for $f(X)$ to be a PP of ${\Bbb F}_{q^2}$:
\[T1.1\] $f(X)$ is a PP of ${\Bbb F}_{q^2}$ if $a,b\in{\Bbb F}_{q^2}^*$ satisfy one of the following sets of conditions according to the characteristic $p$.
- [@Tu-Zeng-Li-Helleseth-FFA-2018] $p=2$, $$\label{1.2}
b(1+a^{q+1}+b^{q+1})+a^{2q}=0$$ and $$\label{1.3}
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle\text{\rm Tr}_{q/2}\Bigl(1+\frac 1{a^{q+1}}\Bigr)=0&\text{if}\ b^{q+1}=1,\vspace{0.5em}\cr
\displaystyle\text{\rm Tr}_{q/2}\Bigl(\frac {b^{q+1}}{a^{q+1}}\Bigr)=0&\text{if}\ b^{q+1}\ne 1.
\end{cases}$$
- [@Tu-Zeng-CC] $p=3$, $$\label{1.4}
\begin{cases}
a^qb^q=a(b^{q+1}-a^{q+1}),\vspace{0.3em}\cr
\displaystyle 1-\Bigl(\frac ba\Bigr)^{q+1}\ \text{is a square in}\ {\Bbb F}_q^*.
\end{cases}$$
- [@Tu-Zeng-CC] $p>3$, either $$\label{1.5}
\begin{cases}
a^qb^q=a(b^{q+1}-a^{q+1}),\vspace{0.3em}\cr
\displaystyle 1-4\Bigl(\frac ba\Bigr)^{q+1}\ \text{is a square in}\ {\Bbb F}_q^*,
\end{cases}$$ or $$\label{1.6}
\begin{cases}
a^{q-1}+3b=0,\vspace{0.3em}\cr
\displaystyle-3\Bigl(1-4\Bigl(\frac ba\Bigr)^{q+1}\Bigr)\ \text{is a square in}\ {\Bbb F}_q^*.
\end{cases}$$
Bartoli [@Bartoli-FFA-2018] proved that for $p=2$, the conditions in Theorem \[T1.1\] (i) are also necessary for $f(X)$ to be a PP of ${\Bbb F}_{q^2}$. For a different proof for the necessity and sufficiency of the conditions in Theorem \[T1.1\] (i), see [@Hou-arXiv1803.04071]. In the present paper, we show that for $p=3$, the conditions in Theorem \[T1.1\] (ii) are also necessary for $f(X)$ to be a PP of ${\Bbb F}_{q^2}$. To put our result in perspective, we mention that there have been numerous studies on PPs of ${\Bbb F}_{q^2}$ of the form $$f_{a,b,s_1,s_2}(X)=X(1+aX^{s_1(q-1)}+bX^{s_2(q-1)})\in{\Bbb F}_{q^2}[X],$$ where $1\le s_1,s_2\le q$ [@Bartoli-FFA-2018; @Bartoli-Giulietti-FFA-2018; @Bartoli-Quoos-DCC-2018; @Ding-Qu-Wang-Yuan-Yuan-SIAMJDM-2015; @Gupta-Sharma-FFA-2016; @Hou-arXiv1803.04071; @Lee-Park-AMS-1997; @Li-Helleseth-arXiv1606.03768; @Li-Helleseth-CC-2017; @Tu-Zeng-CC; @Tu-Zeng-Li-Helleseth-FFA-2018]. For a given pair $(s_1,s_2)$, necessary and sufficient conditions on $a,b$ for $f_{a,b,s_1,s_2}$ to be a PP of ${\Bbb F}_{q^2}$ have been determined only in the following cases: $(s_1,s_2)=(1,2)$ and $p$ is arbitrary [@Hou-FFA-2015b]; $(s_1,s_2)=(-1/2,1/2)$ and $p=2$ [@Tu-Zeng-FFA-2018]; $(s_1,s_2)=(q,2)$ and $p=2$ [@Bartoli-FFA-2018; @Hou-arXiv1803.04071; @Tu-Zeng-Li-Helleseth-FFA-2018].
The method of the present is similar to that of [@Hou-arXiv1803.04071]. Our main tools are the Hasse-Weil bound and resultants of polynomials. The paper is organized as follows:
Section 2 contains some preparatory results. It is well known that $f(X)$ in is a PP of ${\Bbb F}_{q^2}$ if and only if an associated rational function of degree 3 permutes the field ${\Bbb F}_q$, and a theorem by K. S. Williams tells when the latter happens. The Hasse-Weil bound provides additional information which is crucial in our proof. In Section 3, we state the main theorem and lay out a proof plan consisting of three cases depending on $a$ and $n$, where $q=3^n$. The three cases are treated in Sections 4 – 6, respectively. The basic approach in the three cases is the same: computation and analysis of resultants of relevant polynomials. However, the complexity of the computations involved increases considerably from case 1 to case 3. A few brief concluding remarks are given in Section 7. The proof (Sections 4 – 6) produces many lengthy intermediate results, which are recorded in the Appendix. If the present paper appears in a journal in the future, it is unlikely that the material in the appendix will be included. Therefore, the appendix here serves as a resource for the readers who would like to verify the proof.
Preparatory Results
===================
Throughout the paper, $p=\text{char}\,{\Bbb F}_q=3$ and $f(X)$ is the polynomial in . Let $\mu_{q+1}=\{x\in{\Bbb F}_{q^2}^*:x^{q+1}=1\}$. It is well known that $f(X)$ is a PP of ${\Bbb F}_{q^2}$ if and only if $h(X):=X(1+aX^q+bX^2)^{q-1}$ permutes $\mu_{q+1}$ [@Park-Lee-BAMS-2001; @Wang-LNCS-2007; @Zieve-PAMS-2009]. For $x\in\mu_{q+1}$ with $1+ax^q+bx^2\ne 0$, i.e., with $bx^3+x+a\ne 0$, we have $$\label{2.1}
h(x)=\frac{x(1+ax^q+bx^2)^q}{1+ax^q+bx^2}=\frac{a^qx^3+x^2+b^q}{bx^3+x+a}=g(x),$$ where $$\label{2.2}
g(X)=\frac{a^qX^3+X^2+b^q}{bX^3+X+a}\in{\Bbb F}_{q^2}[X].$$ Therefore, $f(X)$ is a PP of ${\Bbb F}_{q^2}$ if and only if $bX^3+X+a$ has no root in $\mu_{q+1}$ and $g(X)$ permutes $\mu_{q+1}$.
Assume that $bX^3+X+a$ has no root in $\mu_{q+1}$, which implies that $1+a+b\ne 0$. Choose $z\in{\Bbb F}_{q^2}\setminus{\Bbb F}_q$ and let $\phi(X)=(X+z^q)/(X+z)$. Then $\phi(X)$ maps ${\Bbb F}_q\cup\{\infty\}$ to $\mu_{q+1}$ bijectively with $\phi(\infty)=1$. Let $\psi(X)=g(1)\phi(X)=(1+a+b)^{q-1}\phi(X)$. Then $\psi^{-1}(X)$, the compositional inverse of $\psi(X)$, maps $\mu_{q+1}$ to ${\Bbb F}_q\cup\{\infty\}$ bijectively with $\psi^{-1}(g(1))=\infty$. Therefore, $g(X)$ permutes $\mu_{q+1}$ if and only if $\psi^{-1}\circ g\circ\phi$ permutes ${\Bbb F}_q\cup\{\infty\}$, i.e., if and only if $\psi^{-1}\circ g\circ\phi$ permutes ${\Bbb F}_q$, that is, if and only if for each $y\in{\Bbb F}_q$, there is a unique $x\in{\Bbb F}_q$ such that $$\label{2.3}
g\Bigl(\frac{x+z^q}{x+z}\Bigr)=(1+a+b)^{q-1}\frac{y+z^q}{y+z}.$$ Write $$\label{2.4}
g\Bigl(\frac{X+z^q}{X+z}\Bigr)=\frac{A(X)}{B(X)},$$ where $$\label{2.5}
A(X)=(1+a^q+b^q)X^3+(z-z^q)X^2+(z^{2q}-z^{1+q})X+b^qz^3+a^qz^{3q}+z^{1+2q},$$ $$\label{2.6}
B(X)=(1+a+b)X^3+(-z+z^q)X^2+(z^2-z^{1+q})X+az^3+bz^{3q}+z^{2+q}.$$ Combining and gives the following proposition.
\[P2.1\] $f(X)$ is a PP of ${\Bbb F}_{q^2}$ if and only if
- $B(X)$ has no root in ${\Bbb F}_q$, and
- for each $y\in{\Bbb F}_q$, there is a unique $x\in{\Bbb F}_q$ such that $$\label{2.7}
(1+a+b)A(x)(y+z)-(1+a+b)^qB(x)(y+z^q)=0.$$
In our proof of the main result (Theorem \[T3.1\]), equation can be simplified to the form $$\label{2.8}
C_3x^3+C_2(y)x^2+C_1(y)x+C_0(y)=0,$$ where $C_0(Y), C_1(Y), C_2(Y)\in{\Bbb F}_q[Y]$ are of degree $\le 1$ and $C_3\in{\Bbb F}_q^*$. Write $c_i=C_i(y)$, $0\le i\le 3$. Assume that $c_2\ne 0$ and let $x=x_1+c_1/c_2$. Then becomes $$\label{2.9}
\frac{c_3}{c_2}x_1^3+x_1^2+\frac{c_1^3c_3-c_1^2c_2^2+c_0c_2^3}{c_2^4}=0.$$ Further assume that $c_1^3c_3-c_1^2c_2^2+c_0c_2^3\ne 0$, and let $x_2=1/x_1$. Then becomes $$\label{2.10}
x_2^3+\frac{c_2^4}{c_1^3c_3-c_1^2c_2^2+c_0c_2^3}x_2+\frac{c_2^3c_3}{c_1^3c_3-c_1^2c_2^2+c_0c_2^3}=0.$$ By a theorem of K. S. Williams [@Williams-JNT-1975 Theorem 2], has a unique solution $x_2\in{\Bbb F}_q$ if and only if $-(c_1^3c_3-c_1^2c_2^2+c_0c_2^3)$ is a nonsquare in ${\Bbb F}_q^*$.
\[L2.2\] Assume that $q\ge 3^3$ and let $k$ be a nonsquare in ${\Bbb F}_q^*$. In the above notation, assume that $C_2(Y)\ne 0$ and let $$\label{2.11}
E(Y)=-k(C_1(Y)^3C_3-C_1(Y)^2C_2(Y)^2+C_0(Y)C_2(Y)^3)\in{\Bbb F}_q[Y].$$ If for every $y\in{\Bbb F}_q$ with $C_2(y)E(y)\ne 0$, $E(y)$ is a square in ${\Bbb F}_q^*$, then there exists $D(Y)\in{\Bbb F}_q[Y]$ such that $$\label{2.12}
E(Y)=D(Y)^2.$$
We may assume that $E(Y)\ne 0$. Hence $C_2(Y)E(Y)$ has at most $5$ roots in ${\Bbb F}_q$. Let $$F(X,Y)=X^2-E(Y)$$ and $$V_{{\Bbb F}_q^2}(F)=\{(x,y)\in{\Bbb F}_q^2:F(x,y)=0\}.$$ By assumption, $$\label{2.13}
|V_{{\Bbb F}_q^2}(F)|\ge 2(q-5)+5=2q-5.$$ We claim that $F(X,Y)$ is not irreducible over $\overline{\Bbb F}_q$ (the algebraic closure of ${\Bbb F}_q$). Otherwise, let [y]{} be transcendental over ${\Bbb F}_q$ and let [x]{} be a root of $F(X,{\tt y})$. Then ${\Bbb F}_q({\tt x}, {\tt y})/{\Bbb F}_q$ is a function field with constant field ${\Bbb F}_q$. Let $(E({\tt y}))_0$ and $(E({\tt y}))_\infty$ denote the zero devisor and the pole divisor of $E({\tt y})$ in the rational function field ${\Bbb F}_q({\tt y})$. Then $\deg (E({\tt y}))_0=\deg (E({\tt y}))_\infty=\deg E(Y)\le 4$ and $(E({\tt y}))_\infty=\deg E(Y)\cdot P_\infty$, where $P_\infty$ is the place of ${\Bbb F}_q({\tt y})/{\Bbb F}_q$ at $\infty$. By [@Stichtenoth-1993 Proposition III.7.3 (c)], the genus $g$ of ${\Bbb F}_q({\tt x},{\tt y})/{\Bbb F}_q$ satisfies $$g\le 1-2+\frac 12\bigl(\deg E(Y)+2-\text{gcd}(2,\deg E(Y))\bigr)\le 1.$$ The affine curve $V_{{\Bbb F}_q^2}(F)$ has at most two singular points in ${\Bbb F}_q^2$: $(0,y)$, where $y$ is a multiple root of $E(Y)$. Let $N_1$ denote the number of degree 1 places of ${\Bbb F}_q({\tt x},{\tt y})/{\Bbb F}_q$. Then by the Hasse-Weil bound [@Stichtenoth-1993 V.2.3], $$|V_{{\Bbb F}_q^2}(F)|\le N_1+2\le q+1+2gq^{1/2}+2\le q+3+2q^{1/2}<2q-5,$$ which is a contradiction to . Hence the claim is proved.
Write $F(X,Y)=(X+D(Y))(X-D(Y))$, where $D(Y)\in\overline{\Bbb F}_q[Y]$. If $D(Y)\notin{\Bbb F}_q[Y]$, choose $\sigma\in\text{Aut}(\overline{\Bbb F}_q/{\Bbb F}_q)$ such that $\sigma(X+D(Y))\ne X+D(Y)$. Then $\sigma(X+D(Y))=X-D(Y)$ and hence $$V_{{\Bbb F}_q^2}(F)\subset V_{{\Bbb F}_q^2}(X+D(Y))\cap V_{{\Bbb F}_q^2}(X-D(Y)).$$ It follows that $|V_{{\Bbb F}_q^2}(F)|\le\deg D(Y)\le 4$, which is a contradiction to . Thus $D(Y)\in{\Bbb F}_q[Y]$ and the proof of the lemma is complete.
In , write $$\label{2.14}
E(Y)=e_0+e_1Y+e_2Y^2+e_3Y^3+e_4Y^4$$ and $$\label{2.15}
D(Y)=D_0+D_1Y+D_2Y^2,$$ where $e_i,D_j\in{\Bbb F}_q$. Then is equivalent to $$\label{2.16}
\begin{cases}
e_0=D_0^2,\cr
e_1=-D_0D_1,\cr
e_2=D_1^2-D_0D_2,\cr
e_3=-D_1D_2,\cr
e_4=D_2^2.
\end{cases}$$ From , we have $$\label{2.17}
\begin{cases}
e_0e_3^2-e_1^2e_4=0,\cr
e_3^3-e_1e_4^2-e_2e_3e_4=0.
\end{cases}$$
In our notation, the resultant of two polynomials $P_1(X)$ and $P_2(X)$ is denoted by $\text{Res}(P_1,P_2;X)$. Our proof of the main result relies on the ability to compute $\text{Res}(P_1,P_2;X)$, where $P_1,P_2\in{\Bbb F}_q[X,Y_1,\dots,Y_m]$, and to factor $\text{Res}(P_1,P_2;X)$ in ${\Bbb F}_q[Y_1,\dots,Y_m]$. With computer assistance, the computation of $\text{Res}(P_1,P_2;X)$ is relatively easy regardless of the number $m$ of additional variables. However, factorization in ${\Bbb F}_q[Y_1,\dots,Y_m]$ is difficult; it appears that the existing symbolic computation softwares are not very effective for this question when $m\ge 3$. Some techniques in our proof are aimed at reducing the number of variables in the polynomials involved.
We alert the reader of a slight abuse of notation in the paper. We will encounter many expressions of the form $P(u)$, where $P\in {\Bbb F}_q[X]$ and $u$ is an element of ${\Bbb F}_q$ yet to be determined. Naturally, $P(u)$ is an element of ${\Bbb F}_q$. However, we frequently treat $u$ as an indeterminate and hence $P(u)$ is viewed as a polynomial in $u$ rather than an element of ${\Bbb F}_q$. It should be clear from the context which point of view is taken at the moment. This harmless abuse of notation allows us to avoid additional excessive notation.
Main Result
===========
Our main result is the following theorem.
\[T3.1\] Assume that $q=3^n$. If $f(X)$ is a PP of ${\Bbb F}_{q^2}$, then the conditions in are satisfied.
We assume that $n\ge 3$ since Theorem \[T3.1\] is easily verified for $n\le 2$.
First observe that for $\beta\in{\Bbb F}_{q^2}^*$, $$\label{3.1}
f(\beta X)=\beta X(1+a'X^{q(q-1)}+b'X^{2(q-1)}),$$ where $a'=a\beta^{1-q}$ and $b'=b\beta^{2(q-1)}$. Also note that $a$ and $b$ satisfy if and only if $a'$ and $b'$ do. Therefore, when proving Theorem \[T3.1\], we may replace $a$ and $b$ with $a'$ and $b'$. We will consider three cases:
Case 1 {#case-1 .unnumbered}
------
$a$ is a square in ${\Bbb F}_{q^2}$.
Case 2 {#case-2 .unnumbered}
------
$a$ is not a square in ${\Bbb F}_{q^2}$ and $n$ is even.
Case 3 {#case-3 .unnumbered}
------
$a$ is not a square in ${\Bbb F}_{q^2}$ and $n$ is odd.
Proof of Theorem \[T3.1\], Case 1
=================================
Assume that $a$ is a square in ${\Bbb F}_{q^2}$. Let $a=\gamma^{2i}$, where $\gamma$ is a primitive element of ${\Bbb F}_{q^2}$. Letting $\beta=\gamma^{-i}$ in gives $a'=a\beta^{1-q}=\gamma^{i(q+1)}\in{\Bbb F}_q^*$. Therefore, in this case, we may assume that $a\in{\Bbb F}_q^*$.
Case 1.1 {#case-1.1 .unnumbered}
--------
Assume that $b\notin {\Bbb F}_q$. Let $b_1=(b+b^q)/2\in{\Bbb F}_q$, $z=(b-b^q)/2\in{\Bbb F}_{q^2}\setminus{\Bbb F}_q$, and $k=z^2$. Then $k$ is a nonsquare in ${\Bbb F}_q^*$, and $z^q=-z$, $b=b_1+z$, $b^q=b_1-z$. The polynomials $A$ and $B$ in and become $$\label{3.2}
A(X)=(1+a+b_1-z)X^3-zX^2-kX+k((1-a+b_1)z-k),$$ $$\label{3.3}
B(X)=(1+a+b_1+z)X^3+zX^2-kX-k((1-a+b_1)z+k).$$ The left side of equals $z(C_3x^3+C_2(y)x^2+C_1(y)x+C_0(y))$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.4}
C_0(Y)&=k(-1+a^2+b_1-b_1^2+k)Y-ak^2,\\ \label{3.5}
C_1(Y)&=kY+(1+a+b_1)k,\\ \label{3.6}
C_2(Y)&=(1+a+b_1)Y+k,\\ \label{3.7}
C_3\hspace{1.5em}&=k-(1+a+b_1)^2\ne 0.\end{aligned}$$ Hence is equivalent to . Let $E(Y)$ be given in . We find that $$\label{3.8}
k^{-2}E(Y)=e_0+e_1Y+e_2Y^2+e_3Y^3+e_4Y^4,$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.9}
e_0=\,&k^2 (a^5- a^4 b_1- a^4+a^3 b_1^2- a^3 b_1- a^3 k+a^3+a^2 b_1^3+a^2 k+a^2\\
&- a b_1^4- a b_1^3- a b_1 k- a b_1+a k^2- a k- a+b_1^5- b_1^4- b_1^3 k\cr
&+b_1^3+b_1^2 k+b_1^2- b_1 k- b_1+1), \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\label{3.10}
e_1= -k^2 (a^3+a^2 k+a k+b_1^3- b_1^2 k- b_1 k+k^2+1),$$ $$\label{3.11}
e_2= k C_3^2,$$ $$\label{3.12}
e_3= -k (-a^4+a^3- a^2 k- a b_1^3+a b_1 k- a k- a+b_1^3- b_1^2 k- b_1 k+k^2+1),$$ $$\label{3.13}
e_4= -(a+b_1+1)^2 (a^3+a^2 b_1+a^2- a b_1^2+a b_1+a k- a- b_1^3+b_1 k-1).$$ Moreover, $$\label{3.14}
e_0e_3^2-e_1^2e_4=ak^4((1+a+b_1)^2-k)^3h_1$$ and $$\label{3.15}
e_3^3-e_1e_4^2-e_2e_3e_4=k^2((1+a+b_1)^2-k)^3h_2,$$ where $h_1$ and $h_2$ are polynomials in $a$, $b_1$ and $k$ which are given in Appendix and . By , $h_1=h_2=0$. Treating $a$, $b_1$ and $k$ as variables, we find that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.16}
&\text{Res}(h_1,h_2;k)=-a^2(1+a+b_1)^{14}(1+a+a^2+ab_1)^3,\\ \label{3.17}
&\text{Res}(h_1,h_2;b_1)=a^3k^{14}(-1+a+a^2k)^3.\end{aligned}$$ By , $$\label{3.18}
k=\frac{1-a}{a^2}.$$ We then have $$\begin{aligned}
e_4\,&=\frac {-1}{a^2}(1+a+b_1)^2(1+a+a^2+ab_1)(a+b_1+ab_1+a^3-ab_1^2)\cr
&\kern17.5em\text{(by \eqref{3.13} and \eqref{3.18})}\cr
&=0\kern 20.4em\text{(by \eqref{3.16})}.\end{aligned}$$ Then by , $e_3=0$ and $e_2$ is a square in ${\Bbb F}_q$. However, by , $e_2$ is not a square in ${\Bbb F}_q$, which is a contradiction.
Case 1.2 {#case-1.2 .unnumbered}
--------
Assume that $b\in{\Bbb F}_q$. Let $k\in{\Bbb F}_q^*$ be a nonsquare and let $z\in{\Bbb F}_{q^2}$ be such that $z^2=k$. Then $z^q=-z$. Now and become $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.22}
A(X)\,&=(1+a+b)X^3-zX^2-kX+(1-a+b)kz,\\
\label{3.23}
B(X)\,&=(1+a+b)X^3+zX^2-kX-(1-a+b)kz,\end{aligned}$$ and , after multiplication by $z^{-1}$, becomes , where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.24}
C_0(Y)\,&=-(1-a+b)kY,\\
\label{3.24a}
C_1\kern 1.7em &=k,\\
\label{3.25}
C_2(Y)\,&=Y,\\
\label{3.26}
C_3\kern 1.7em &=-(1+a+b)\ne 0.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, $$\label{3.27}
k^{-2}E(Y)=k^2(1+a+b)+kY^2+(1-a+b)Y^4,$$ which is supposed to be a complete square. Therefore, $$\label{3.28}
k^2=k^2(1+a+b)(1-a+b),$$ which gives $b=b^2-a^2$; this is the first condition in . It remains to show that $(a^2-b^2)/a^2=-b/a^2$ is a square in ${\Bbb F}_q^*$, i.e., $-b$ is a square in ${\Bbb F}_q^*$. By , the polynomial in equals $D(Y)^2$ for some $D(Y)\in{\Bbb F}_q[Y]$. In particular, both $1+a+b$ and $1-a+b$ are squares in ${\Bbb F}_q$. By , we may write $1+a+b=u^2$ and $1-a+b=u^{-2}$ for some $u\in{\Bbb F}_q^*$. Then $$-b=u^2-2+u^{-2}=(u-u^{-1})^2,$$ which is a square in ${\Bbb F}_q^*$.
Proof of Theorem \[T3.1\], Case 2
=================================
Assume that $a$ is not a square in ${\Bbb F}_{q^2}$ and $n$ is even. In this case, $q\equiv 1\pmod 4$ and hence $\text{gcd}((q+1)/2,q-1)=1$. Let $a=\gamma^i$ and write $i=u(q+1)/2+v(q-1)$ for some $u,v\in\Bbb Z$. Then $f(\gamma^vX)=\gamma^vX(1+a'X^{q(q-1)}+b'X^{2(q-1)})$, where $a'=\gamma^{u(q+1)/2}$ and $b'=b\gamma^{2v(q-1)}$. Therefore we may assume that $a^2\in{\Bbb F}_q$ but $a\notin{\Bbb F}_q$. Hence $a^q=-a$.
Case 2.1 {#case-2.1 .unnumbered}
--------
Assume that $b\notin{\Bbb F}_q$. Let $b_1=(b+b^q)/2\in{\Bbb F}_q$, $z=(b-b^q)/2\in{\Bbb F}_{q^2}\setminus{\Bbb F}_q$, and $k=z^2$. Then $k$ is a nonsquare in ${\Bbb F}_q^*$, and $z^q=-z$, $b=b_1+z$, $b^q=b_1-z$. Since both $a^2$ and $z^2$ are nonsquares in ${\Bbb F}_q^*$, $(a/z)^2$ is a square in ${\Bbb F}_q^*$, whence $a/z\in{\Bbb F}_q^*$. Write $a=a_1z$, where $a_1\in{\Bbb F}_q^*$. Now and become $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.29}
A(X)\,&=(1+b_1-z-a_1z)X^3-zX^2-kX+k(-k+a_1k+z+b_1z),\\
\label{3.30}
B(X)\,&=(1+b_1+z+a_1z)X^3+zX^2-kX+k(-k+a_1k-z-b_1z),\end{aligned}$$ and , after multiplication by $z^{-1}$, becomes , where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.31}
C_0(Y)\,&=k(-1+b_1-b_1^2+k-a_1^2k)Y+k^2a_1(1+b_1),\\
\label{3.32}
C_1(Y)\,&=k(1+a_1)Y+k(1+b_1),\\
\label{3.33}
C_2(Y)\,&=(1+b_1)Y+k(1+a_1),\\
\label{3.34}
C_3\kern 1.7em &=-(1+b_1)^2+(1+a_1)^2k.\end{aligned}$$ We claim that $C_2(Y)\ne 0$ and $C_3\ne 0$, i.e., $(a_1,b_1)\ne (-1,-1)$. Otherwise, $C_0(Y)$, $C_1(Y)$, $C_2(Y)$, $C_3$ are all 0, which is impossible since has a unique solution $x\in{\Bbb F}_q$ for any given $y\in{\Bbb F}_q$. We have $$\label{3.35}
k^{-2}E(Y)=e_0+e_1Y+e_2Y^2+e_3Y^3+e_4Y^4,$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.36}
e_0=\,&-(b_1+1) k^2 (a_1^4 k^2+a_1^2 b_1^2 k+a_1^2 b_1 k- a_1 b_1^2 k- a_1 b_1 k\\
&+a_1 k^2- b_1^4- b_1^3+b_1^2 k+b_1 k- b_1-1), \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.37}
e_1=\,& (a_1+1) k^2 (a_1^4 k^2- a_1^3 k^2+a_1^2 b_1^2 k+a_1^2 b_1 k- a_1 b_1^2 k\\
&- a_1 b_1 k+a_1 k^2- b_1^3+b_1^2 k+b_1 k- k^2-1),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\label{3.38}
e_2= k C_3^2,$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.39}
e_3=\,& -k (a_1^5 k^2- a_1^4 k^2- a_1^3 b_1^2 k- a_1^3 b_1 k+a_1^3 k^2+a_1^2 k^2+a_1 b_1^4\\
&- a_1 b_1^3+a_1 b_1- a_1 k^2- a_1+b_1^3- b_1^2 k- b_1 k+k^2+1),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\label{3.40}
e_4= (b_1+1)^2 (a_1^2 b_1 k- a_1^2 k- a_1 k+b_1^3- b_1 k+1).$$ Moreover, $$\label{3.41}
e_0e_3^2-e_1^2e_4=k^4a_1(1+b_1)((1+b_1)^2-k(1+a_1)^2)^3h_1,$$ $$\label{3.42}
e_3^3-e_1e_4^2-e_2e_3e_4=-k^2((1+b_1)^2-k(1+a_1)^2)^3h_2,$$ where $h_1$ and $h_2$ are given in Appendix and .
Recall that $(a_1,b_1)\ne (-1,-1)$. We claim that $a_1\ne -1$ and $b_1\ne -1$. In fact, if $a_1=-1$, then $h_1=-(1+b_1)^6$, whence $b_1=-1$; if $b_1=-1$, then $h_2=-k^4(1+a_1)^9$, whence $a_1=-1$. Now it follows from and that $h_1=h_2=0$. We find that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.44}
\text{Res}(h_1,h_2;k)\,&=a_1^3(1+a_1)^{18}(1+b_1)^{17}(1-a_1+a_1b_1)(1+a_1^2-a_1b_1+a_1b_1^2)^3,\\
\label{3.45}
\text{Res}(h_1,h_2;b_1)\,&=k^{17}a_1^5(1+a_1)^{33}(-1+a_1^2k)(1+a_1-a_1k+a_1^2k+a_1^2k^2+a_1^3k^2)^3.\end{aligned}$$ By , $$\label{3.45.0}
0=1+a_1-a_1k+a_1^2k+a_1^2k^2+a_1^3k^2=(1+a_1k)^2+a_1(1-a_1k)^2,$$ so $$\label{3.46}
a_1=-\Bigl(\frac{1+a_1k}{1-a_1k}\Bigr)^2.$$ Assume that in , $1+a_1^2-a_1b_1+a_1b_1^2= 0$, i.e., $(1+a_1)^2+a_1(1+b_1)^2=0$, i.e., $$\label{3.47}
a_1=-\Bigl(\frac{1+a_1}{1+b_1}\Bigr)^2.$$ Then $$\label{3.48}
\frac{1+a_1k}{1-a_1k}=\pm \frac{1+a_1}{1+b_1}.$$
First assume that the “$+$” sign holds in the above. Then $$\label{3.49}
k=\frac{a_1-b_1}{a_1(a_1+b_1-1)}.$$ (Note that $a_1+b_1-1\ne0$ since otherwise we also have $a_1-b_1=0$ and hence $(a_1,b_1)=(-1,-1)$.) Using in gives $$e_4=\frac{(1+b_1)^2(-a_1+a_1b_1+b_1^2)(1+a_1^2-a_1b_1+a_1b_1^2)}{a_1(a_1+b_1-1)}=0.$$ It follows, as we saw before (at the end of Section 4, Case 1.1), that $e_2$ is a square in ${\Bbb F}_q$, which contradicts .
Therefore the “$-$” sign holds in . Then $$\label{3.51}
k=\frac{a_1+b_1-1}{a_1(a_1-b_1)}.$$ Using in gives $$\label{3.52}
h_1=\frac T{a_1^3(a_1-b_1)^3},$$ where $T$ is given in Appendix . Moreover, $$\text{Res}(T,1+a_1^2-a_1b_1+a_1b_1^2;a_1)=(1+b_1)^{18}.$$ Thus $b_1=-1$, which is a contradiction.
Therefore, we have proved that in , $1+a_1^2-a_1b_1+a_1b_1^2\ne 0$. Thus $1-a_1+a_1b_1=0$, i.e., $b_1=(a_1-1)/a_1$. Using this substitution in and gives $$\label{3.53}
h_1=\frac{(1+a_1)^5}{a_1^5}S_1,$$ $$\label{3.54}
h_2=-\frac{(1+a_1)^7}{a_1^7}S_2,$$ where $$\label{3.55}
S_1= a_1^7 k^3- a_1^6 k^3+a_1^5 k^3+a_1^5 k^2+a_1^4 k^2+a_1^3 k^2- a_1^3 k+a_1^2 k+a_1 k- a_1-1,$$ $$\label{3.56}
S_2= a_1^9 k^4- a_1^8 k^4+a_1^7 k^4- a_1^4 k^2- a_1 k- a_1-1.$$ Let $L=(1+a_1k)^2+a_1(1-a_1k)^2$, which is the polynomial in . We find useful information by computing the following resultants: $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Res}(S_1,L;a_1)\,&=-k^8(-1+k+k^2+k^3)(1-k^2+k^3+k^5),\cr
\text{Res}(S_2,L;a_1)\,&=-k^{10}(-1-k+k^3)(-1+k+k^2+k^3)(-1-k-k^2+k^3).\end{aligned}$$ The factors in the above are irreducible polynomials in $k$ over ${\Bbb F}_3$. Hence we must have $-1+k+k^2+k^3=0$. Then $k\in{\Bbb F}_{3^3}$. Since $[{\Bbb F}_q:{\Bbb F}_3]$ is even, $k$ is a square in ${\Bbb F}_q$, which is a contradiction.
Case 2.2 {#case-2.2 .unnumbered}
--------
Assume that $b\in{\Bbb F}_q$. Let $z=a$ and $k=a^2$. Now and become $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.57}
A(X)\,&=(1-a+b)X^3-aX^2-kX+k(a+ab+k),\\
\label{3.58}
B(X)\,&=(1+a+b)X^3+aX^2-kX-k(a+ab-k),\end{aligned}$$ and , after multiplication by $a^{-1}$, becomes , where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.60}
C_0(Y)&=k(-1+b-b^2-k)Y+k^2(1+b),\\ \label{3.61}
C_1(Y)&=kY+k(1+b),\\ \label{3.62}
C_2(Y)&=(1+b)Y+k,\\ \label{3.63}
C_3\hspace{1.5em}&=-(1+b)^2+k\ne 0.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, $$\label{3.64}
k^{-2}E(Y)=e_0+e_1Y+e_2Y^2+e_3Y^3+e_4Y^4,$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.65}
e_0\,&=-k^2(1+b)(-1-b-b^3-b^4+bk+b^2k+k^2),\\
\label{3.66}
e_1\,&=k^2(-1-b^3+bk+b^2k+k^2),\\
\label{3.67}
e_2\,&=kC_3^2,\\
\label{3.68}
e_3\,&=-k(-1+b-b^3+b^4-bk-b^2k+k^2),\\
\label{3.69}
e_4\,&=(1+b)^2(1+b^3-k+bk).\end{aligned}$$ We have $$\label{3.70}
e_0e_3^2-e_1^2e_4=k^4(1+b)((1+b)^2+k)^2((1+b)^2-k)^3(b+b^2+k).$$ In , $1+b\ne 0$. (Otherwise, $e_4=0$, and as we saw before, this implies that $e_2$ is a square in ${\Bbb F}_2$, which is impossible.) Since $-1$ is a square in ${\Bbb F}_q$, we also have $(1+b)^2+k\ne 0$. Therefore by , $b+b^2+k=0$, i.e., $b+b^2+a^2=0$; this is the first condition in . Since $k=-b-b^2$, gives $e_4=(1+b)^3$. Since $e_4$ is a square in ${\Bbb F}_q$, $1+b$ is a square in ${\Bbb F}_q^*$. Now we have $$1-\Bigl(\frac ba\Bigr)^{q+1}=1+\frac{b^2}{a^2}=\frac{a^2+b^2}{a^2}=\frac{-b}{-b(1+b)}=\frac 1{1+b},$$ which is a square in ${\Bbb F}_q^*$.
Proof of Theorem \[T3.1\], Case 3
=================================
Assume that $a$ is not a square in ${\Bbb F}_{q^2}$ and $n$ is odd. Let $z\in{\Bbb F}_{q^2}$ be such that $z^2=-1$. Then $o(1+z)=8$. Since $q^2-1\equiv 8\pmod{16}$, we may write $a=u(1+z)$, where $u$ is a square in ${\Bbb F}_{q^2}^*$. By the first paragraph of Section 4, we may further assume that $u\in{\Bbb F}_q^*$. Write $b=v+wz$, where $v,w\in{\Bbb F}_q$. We have $z^q=-z$, $a^q=u(1-z)$, and $b^q=v-wz$. Then and become $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.74}
A(X)\,&=(1+u+v-uz-wz)X^3-zX^2+X+u-w-z(1-u+v),\\
\label{3.75}
B(X)\,&=(1+u+v+uz+wz)X^3+zX^2+X+u-w+z(1-u+v),\end{aligned}$$ and , after multiplication by $z^{-1}$, becomes , where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.76}
C_0(Y)&=(1+u^2-v+v^2+w^2)Y+u(1+v-w),\\ \label{3.77}
C_1(Y)&=-(u+w)Y-(1+u+v),\\ \label{3.78}
C_2(Y)&=(1+u+v)Y-(u+w),\\ \label{3.79}
C_3\hspace{1.5em}&=-(1+u+v)^2-(u+w)^2.\end{aligned}$$ We claim that $C_3\ne 0$ and $C_2(Y)\ne 0$. Otherwise, $1+u+v=u+w=0$, and hence $C_1(Y)=0$. Then cannot have a unique solution for $x$, which is a contradiction.
We now compute $E(Y)$ in with $k=-1$: $$\label{3.80}
E(Y)=e_0+e_1Y+e_2Y^2+e_3Y^3+e_4Y^4,$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.81}
e_0=\,& -(-1 + u - u^2 + u^3 + u^5 + v + u v - u^2 v - u^4 v - v^2 +
u^2 v^2 - u^3 v^2 \\
&- v^3 + u v^3 + u^2 v^3 + v^4 + u v^4 - v^5 + u^2 w - u^3 w + u v w + u^2 v w \cr
&- u v^2 w + u v^3 w - u w^2 + u^2 w^2 - u^3 w^2 - v w^2 - u v w^2 + v^2 w^2 \cr
&- v^3 w^2 + u w^3 + u v w^3 - u w^4), \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.82}
e_1=\,& -(u + w) (1 + u^4 + u^2 v + u^2 v^2 + v^3 + u^2 w - u^3 w - u v w - u v^2 w \\
&- u w^2 - u^2 w^2 + v w^2 + v^2 w^2 - u w^3 + w^4), \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\label{3.83}
e_2=-C_3^2,$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.84}
e_3=\,& -(u + u^5 - u v - u^3 v - u^3 v^2 + u v^3 - u v^4 - w +
u w - u^3 w \\
&- u^4 w - v^3 w + u v^3 w - u^3 w^2 - u w^3 +
u^2 w^3 - v w^3 + u v w^3 \cr
&- v^2 w^3 + u w^4 - w^5), \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\label{3.85}
e_4=(1 + u + v)^2 (1 + u + u^3 - u v + u^2 v + u v^2 + v^3 + u w +
u w^2 + v w^2).$$ We have $e_4\ne 0$, in particular, $1+u+v\ne 0$. (Otherwise, as we saw before, $e_2$ is a square in ${\Bbb F}_q$, which is impossible.) We find that $$\label{3.86}
e_0e_3^2-e_1^2e_4=uC_3^3h_1,$$ $$\label{3.87}
e_3^3-e_1e_4^2-e_2e_3e_4=-C_3^3h_2,$$ where $h_1$ and $h_2$ are given in Appendix and . Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.88}
\text{Res}(h_1,h_2;u)=\,&v^6w(1+v-w)^{42}K_1(v,w)^3K_2(v,w),\\
\label{3.89}
\text{Res}(h_1,h_2;v)=\,&-u^3(1+u)^2(1+u^2)(u+w)^{42}\\
&\cdot(-1-u+u^2+w+w^2)^2(u^2+w+w^2)L(u,w)^3,\cr
\label{3.90}
\text{Res}(h_1,h_2;w)=\,& -u^5(1+u)^2(1+u^2)v^6(1+u+v)^{42}M(u,v)^3,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{3.91}
K_1= v^5- v^4 w+v^4+v^3 w^2- v^3- v^2 w^3+v^2 w^2- v^2- v w^2+v w- v+w-1,$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.92}
K_2=\,& v^7+v^6 w^2+v^6+v^5 w^2- v^5 w- v^4 w^3- v^4 w^2+v^4 w- v^4\\
&- v^3 w^4- v^3 w^3- v^3 w^2+v^2 w^5- v^2 w^4+v^2 w^3- v^2 w^2- v^2 w\cr
&- v w^6- v w^4+v w+v+w^8- w^7+w^6- w^3+w^2-1, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\label{3.93}
L= u^5+u^4 w+u^3 w^2+u^3 w+u^2 w^3+u^2 w^2+u^2 w- u^2- u w^2+u w- u- w,$$ $$\label{3.94}
M= u^3 v^2+u^2 v^3+u^2 v^2+u^2 v+u v^2- u v- u- v-1.$$
Case 3.1 {#case-3.1 .unnumbered}
--------
Assume that $v\ne0$. We claim that $1+u\ne 0$. If, to the contrary, $u=-1$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.95}
h_1\,&=(v^2+(w-1)^2)^2H_1,\\
\label{3.96}
h_2\,&=(v^2+(w-1)^2)H_2,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{3.97}
H_1=v^3- v^2 w+v^2+v w^3- v w^2- v w+v-w^4+w^3+w-1,$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.98}
H_2=\,& v^5 w+v^5+v^4 w^3- v^4+v^3 w^3- v^3 w^2- v^3 w+v^3- v^2 w^5- v^2 w^4\\
&+v^2 w^3+v^2 w^2+v^2 w- v^2+w^7- w^6+w^4- w^3+w-1. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.99}
\text{Res}(H_1,H_2;v)\,&=(1+w)^6(2+w)^{19},\\
\label{3.100}
\text{Res}(H_1,H_2;w)\,&=v^{19}(1+v)^6.\end{aligned}$$ By , $w=\pm1$. If $w=1$, then $h_1=v^7\ne 0$, which is a contradiction. If $w=-1$, then $h_1=(1+v)(1+v^2)^2(2+v+v^2)$, whence $v=-1$. However, $e_4|_{(u,v,w)=(-1,-1,-1)}=0$, which is a contradiction. Therefore, we have proved that $1+u\ne 0$. It follows from that $$\label{3.101}
M=0.$$
In , note that $-1-u+u^2+w+w^2=(1+u)^2+(1-w)^2\ne 0$. We further claim that $u+w\ne 0$. If, to the contrary, $w=-u$, then $h_1=-u(1+u+v)^7\ne 0$, which is a contradiction. Now gives $$\label{3.102}
(u^2+w+w^2)L=0.$$
In , we claim that $w\ne 0$. Otherwise, $$\label{3.103}
\text{Res}(h_1,h_2;v)=-u^{50}(1+u)^2(1+u^2)(-1-u+u^2)^2(-1-u+u^4)^3\ne 0,$$ which is a contradiction. We further claim that $1+v-w\ne 0$. Otherwise, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.104}
h_1\,&=(1+u+v)^6(-1+u^2-v),\\
\label{3.105}
h_2\,&=-(1+u+v)^6v(1+u-v+v^2).\end{aligned}$$ However, $$\text{Res}(-1+u^2-v,1+u-v+v^2;v)=u(1+u)^3\ne 0,$$ which is a contradiction. Now gives $$\label{3.106}
K_1K_2=0.$$
To recap, we have $$\label{3.107}
K_1K_2=0,\quad (u^2+w+w^2)L=0,\quad M=0.$$
First assume that $u^2+w+w^2=0$. We find that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.108}
S:=\,&\text{Res}(u^2+w+w^2,M;u)\\
=\,& v^6 w^4- v^6 w^3+v^6 w^2- v^5 w^4+v^5 w^3- v^5 w^2+v^4 w^6+v^4 w^4+v^4 w^2\cr
&+v^3 w^4-v^3 w^3- v^3 w+v^2+v w^2+v w- v+w^2+w+1. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
If $K_1=0$, we compute the following resultants: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.109}
\text{Res}(S,K_1;v)\,&=w(1+w)(-1+w)(1+w^2-w^3+w^4)P_{21}(w),\\
\label{3.110}
\text{Res}(S,K_1;w)\,&=v^{13}(1+v)^2(-1+v+v^4)Q_{21}(v),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.111}
P_{21}(X)=\,& X^{21}- X^{19}- X^{18}- X^{17}+X^{16}+X^{14}- X^{13}+X^{11}\\
&- X^{10}- X^7+X^6- X^3+X^2-1, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.112}
Q_{21}(X)=\,& X^{21}+X^{20}- X^{18}- X^{17}- X^{16}+X^{15}+X^{12}- X^{11}\\
&+X^{10}- X^9- X^8- X^6+X^5+X^4- X^3+X-1, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and all factors in and are irreducible polynomials over ${\Bbb F}_3$. We claim that in , $(1+w)(-1+w)\ne 0$. Otherwise, $w=\pm 1$ and $u^2=-w-w^2=0$ or $1$. Since $u\ne 0,-1$, we must have $u=1$ and $w=1$. However, $$h_1|_{(u,w)=(1,1)}=-v(1-v+v^4-v^5+v^6)\ne 0,$$ which is a contradiction. Moreover, we claim that in , $1+v\ne 0$. Otherwise, $M=u(1+u)^2\ne 0$. Therefore, and give that $P_{21}(w)=0$ and $Q_{21}(v)=0$. Since $u^2=-w-w^2$, we have $u\in{\Bbb F}_q\cap{\Bbb F}_{3^{2\cdot 21}}={\Bbb F}_{3^{21}}$. It follows that $(-w-w^2)^{(3^{21}-1)/2}=1$ and hence $$\label{u^2}
u^2=-w-w^2=(-w-w^2)^{(3^{21}+1)/2}.$$ Therefore $u=\pm u_0$, where $$\begin{aligned}
u_0=(-w-w^2)^{(3^{21}+1)/4}=\,&w^{20}+w^{19}- w^{18}- w^{17}- w^{15}- w^{14}+w^{12}- w^{11}\\
&+w^{10}+w^9+w^8+w^7-w^6+w^5- w-1.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We find that $$\label{res-u0}
\text{Res}(h_1|_{u=u_0},h_2|_{u=u_0},w)\quad \text{and}\quad \text{Res}(h_1|_{u=-u_0},h_2|_{u=-u_0},w)$$ are polynomials over ${\Bbb F}_3$ in $v$ which are not divisible by $Q_{21}(v)$; see and . Thus the resultants in are nonzero, which is a contradiction.
If $K_2=0$, we compute similar resultants: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.113}
\text{Res}(S,K_2;v)\,&=-w^3(-1+w)^2\Pi_1(w)P_{15}(w),\\
\label{3.114}
\text{Res}(S,K_2;w)\,&=-v^2(1+v)^3\Pi_2(v)Q_9(v)^2Q_{15}(v),\end{aligned}$$ where $\Pi_1$ and $\Pi_2$ (given in Appendix and ) are products of irreducible polynomials of even degree over ${\Bbb F}_3$, and $$\label{3.115}
P_{15}(X)=X^{15}- X^{13}- X^{11}+X^{10}- X^9- X^7+X^6- X^3- X^2+X+1,$$ $$\label{3.116}
Q_9(X)=X^9+X^8+X^7+X^6+X^4- X^3- X^2- X-1,$$ $$\label{3.117}
Q_{15}(X)=X^{15}+X^{14}- X^{13}- X^{11}+X^9- X^7- X^6+X^3-1,$$ which are irreducible over ${\Bbb F}_3$. It follows that $P_{15}(w)=0$ and $Q_9(v)Q_{15}(v)=0$. Same as , we have $$u^2=(-w-w^2)^{(3^{15}+1)/2}.$$ Thus $u=\pm u_1$, where $$u_1=(-w-w^2)^{(3^{15}+1)/4}= -w^{14}+w^{12}- w^{11}+w^{10}+w^7+w^6+w^5- w^4- w^3- w^2+w-1.$$ We find that $$\label{res-u1}
\text{Res}(h_1|_{u=u_1},h_2|_{u=u_1};w)\quad \text{and}\quad \text{Res}(h_1|_{u=-u_1},h_2|_{u=-u_1};w)$$ are polynomials over ${\Bbb F}_3$ in $v$ which are divisible by neither $Q_9(v)$ nor $Q_{15}(v)$; see and . Thus the resultants in are nonzero, which is a contradiction.
Now assume that $u^2+w+w^2\ne 0$. Then by , $L=0$. We find that $$\label{3.118}
\text{Res}(L,M;u)=K_1Q,$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.119}
Q=\,& v^{10} w^2- v^9 w^3- v^9 w^2- v^9 w- v^8 w^4+v^8 w^3- v^8- v^7 w^5\\
&- v^7 w^3+v^7
w^2+v^7 w+v^6 w^6+v^6 w^4+v^6 w^2- v^6 w- v^6- v^5 w^6\cr
&+v^5 w^4- v^5 w^3+v^4 w^6-
v^4 w^4- v^4 w^3- v^4 w- v^4+v^3 w^5\cr
&+v^3 w^4+v^3 w^3- v^2 w^4- v^2 w^2+v^2- v
w^3+w^2- w+1. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ If $K_1\ne 0$, then $K_2=0$ and $Q=0$. We compute the following resultants: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.120}
\text{Res}(Q,K_2;v)\,&=\Gamma_1(w)P_7(w)P_{21}(w),\\
\label{3.121}
\text{Res}(Q,K_2;w)\,&=\Gamma_2(v)Q_7(v)Q_{21}(v),\end{aligned}$$ where $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$ (given in Appendix and ) are products of irreducible polynomials of even degree over ${\Bbb F}_3$ and $$\label{3.122}
P_7(X)=X^7- X^5-1,$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.123}
P_{21}(X)=\,&X^{21}+X^{20}+X^{19}+X^{17}+X^{16}- X^{15}- X^{13}- X^{12}\\
&+X^{11}- X^{10}- X^9- X^8- X^6- X^5- X^2-1, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\label{3.124}
Q_7(X)=X^7- X^6+X^3- X^2+X+1,$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.125}
Q_{21}(X)=\,&X^{21}+X^{20}+X^{19}+X^{18}+X^{16}- X^{15}+X^{14}- X^{13}+X^{11}\\
&- X^{10}- X^9- X^8+X^6- X^5- X^2+X-1, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ which are irreducible over ${\Bbb F}_3$. It follows that $P_7(w)P_{21}(w)=0$ and $Q_7(v)Q_{21}(v)=0$. We claim that either $P_7(w)=Q_7(v)=0$ or $P_{21}(w)=Q_{21}(v)=0$. In fact, $$\begin{aligned}
&\text{Res}(P_7(w),K_2;w)\cr
=\,&Q_7(v)(v^7+v^6+v^5- v^4+v^2- v-1)\cr
&\cdot (v^7- v^6+v^4- v^3- v^2-1)
(v^{14}- v^8- v^6- v^2+1)\cr
&\cdot (v^{14}+v^{13}+v^{12}- v^{11}- v^{10}-
v^9- v^8- v^7+v^6+v^5+v^4- v^2- v-1),\end{aligned}$$ which is not divisible by $Q_{21}(v)$. Hence $P_7(w)=0$ implies $Q_7(v)=0$. Similarly, $$\begin{aligned}
&\text{Res}(Q_7(v),K_2;v)\cr
=\,&P_7(w) (w^7- w^5+1) (w^7+w^6+w^5- w^4+w^3+w^2+1)\cr
&\cdot (w^7-
w^6+w^5+w^4+w^3- w^2-1)\cr
&\cdot (w^{14}+w^{13}+w^{12}- w^{11}+w^{10}+w^8+w^7-
w^3+w-1)\cr
&\cdot (w^{14}+w^{13}- w^{12}- w^{11}+w^{10}- w^9- w^5+w^4-
w^3+w^2+1),\end{aligned}$$ which is not divisible by $P_{21}(w)$. Hence $Q_7(v)=0$ implies $P_7(w)=0$. Therefore the claim is proved.
First assume that $P_7(w)=Q_7(v)=0$. From $Q_7(v)=0$, we have $v^{-2}=v^6+v^5+v^4+v^2+v-1$ and $$\label{v-2M}
v^{-2}M=u^3+u^2 (-v^6+v^5- v^2- v)+u (v^5- v^4+v)+v^5- v^4+v-1,$$ which is a monic cubic in $u$. Using the relations $v^{-2}M=0$, $P_7(w)=0$ and $Q_7(v)=0$ to reduce $h_1$ and $h_2$, we get $$\label{redp7q7}
h_i=h_{i0}+h_{i1}u+h_{i2}u^2,\quad i=1,2,$$ where $h_{ij}=h_{ij}(v,w)$ are given in – . We have $$\label{A0A1}
h_{22}h_1-h_{12}h_2\equiv A_0+A_1u\pmod{(P_7(w),Q_7(v))},$$ where $A_i=A_i(v,w)$ are given in and . The resultant $\text{Res}(K_2,A_1;v)$ is a polynomial in $w$ such that $$\text{Res}(K_2,A_1;v)\equiv w^6+w^2- w \not\equiv 0\pmod{P_7(w)},$$ so $A_1\ne 0$. By , $u=-A_0/A_1$. We now compute $h_1|_{u=-A_0/A_1}$ from ; the result, after reduction modulo $P_7(w)$ and $Q_7(v)$, is $$\label{U/V}
h_1|_{u=-A_0/A_1}=\frac UV,$$ where $U=U(v,w)$ and $V=V(v,w)$ are given in and . Thus $U=0$. However, $\text{Res}(K_2,U;v)$ is a polynomial in $w$ such that $$\text{Res}(K_2,U;v)\equiv w^6+w^5+w^2 \not\equiv 0\pmod{P_7(w)}.$$ Hence $\text{Res}(K_2,U;v)\ne 0$, which is a contradiction.
Next, Assume that $P_{21}(w)=Q_{21}(v)=0$. We reach a contradiction by similar but lengthier computations. From $Q_{21}(v)=0$, we have $$v^{-2}= v^{20}- v^{19}- v^{18}- v^{17}+v^{16}+v^{15}- v^{11}+v^{10}+v^8+v^7- v^6+v^5- v^3-
v$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
v^{-2}M=\,& u^3+u^2 (v^{20}+v^{19}+v^{18}+v^{17}+v^{15}- v^{14}+v^{13}- v^{12}+v^{10}- v^9- v^8-
v^7\cr
&+v^5- v^4-1)+u (v^{20}- v^{16}+v^{15}+v^{14}-
v^{13}+v^{12}+v^{11}+v^{10}+v^9\cr
&+v^6+v^5+v^4+v^3- v)+v^{20}- v^{16}+v^{15}+v^{14}-
v^{13}+v^{12}+v^{11}+v^{10}\cr
&+v^9+v^6+v^5+v^4+v^3- v-1,\end{aligned}$$ which is a monic cubic in $u$. Reducing $h_1$ and $h_2$ using the relations $v^{-2}M=0$, $P_{21}(w)=0$ and $Q_{21}(v)=0$ gives $$\label{redp21q21}
h_i=h_{i0}+h_{i1}u+h_{i2}u^2,\quad i=1,2,$$ where $h_{ij}=h_{ij}(v,w)$ are given in – . Moreover, $$\label{A0A1-1}
h_{22}h_1-h_{12}h_2\equiv A_0+A_1u\pmod{(P_{21}(w),Q_{21}(v))},$$ where $A_i=A_i(v,w)$ are given in and . The resultant $\text{Res}(K_2,A_1;v)$ is a polynomial in $w$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Res}(K_2,A_1;v)\equiv\,& -w^{20}+w^{19}+w^{18}+w^{15}+w^{14}+w^{13}+w^{12}+w^{11}\cr
&+w^{10}+w^7- w^6+w^5- w^4+w^3- w^2+1\cr
\not\equiv\,& 0\pmod{P_{21}(w)}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus $A_1\ne 0$ and hence $u=-A_0/A_1$ by . We compute $h_1|_{u=-A_0/A_1}$ from ; the result, after reduction modulo $P_{21}(w)$ and $Q_{21}(v)$, is $$\label{U/V-1}
h_1|_{u=-A_0/A_1}=\frac UV,$$ where $U=U(v,w)$ and $V=V(v,w)$ are given in and . Thus $U=0$. However, $\text{Res}(K_2,U;v)$ is a polynomial in $w$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Res}(K_2,U;v)\,&\equiv w^{20}+w^{16}- w^{15}+w^{14}- w^{13}+w^{12}- w^{10}- w^9- w^6+w^3+w^2+w\cr
& \not\equiv 0\pmod{P_{21}(w)}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence $\text{Res}(K_2,U;v)\ne 0$, which is a contradiction.
Now assume that $K_1=0$. In this case we solve the system $$\begin{cases}
K_1(v,w)=0,\cr
L(u,w)=0
\end{cases}$$ for $w$ in terms of $u$ and $v$. We find that $$\label{3.126}
\alpha K_1+\beta L=\lambda w-\eta,$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.127}
\alpha=\,& -u^2 (u^3 v^3+u^3 v^2 w- u^3 v^2- u^3 v+u^2 v^4+u^2 v^3 w+u^2 v^3- u^2 v^2 w\\
&- u^2 v^2- u^2 v w+u^2 v- u^2- u v^3- u v^2 w- u v^2+u v- v^2), \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.128}
\beta=\,& v^2 (u^4 v^2+u^3 v^3- u^3 v^2 w- u^3 v^2- u^3 v- u^2 v^3 w+u^2 v^2 w\\
&+u^2 v^2+u^2 v w+u^2 v- u^2- u v^3+u v^2 w+u v- v^2), \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.129}
\lambda=\,& u^7 v^4+u^6 v^5- u^6 v^4- u^6 v^2+u^5 v^6- u^5 v^4- u^5 v^3- u^5 v^2+u^5 v\\
&+u^4 v^7- u^4 v^6- u^4 v^5- u^4 v^3- u^4 v+u^4- u^3 v^5- u^3 v^4+u^3 v^2\cr
&- u^3 v- u^2 v^6- u^2 v^5+u^2 v^3- u^2 v^2+u v^5- u v^4- u v^3+v^4, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.130}
\eta=\,& -u (u^8 v^4+u^7 v^5- u^7 v^4- u^7 v^3+u^6 v^4+u^6 v^3- u^6 v^2- u^5 v^5\\
&- u^5 v^4+u^5 v^3- u^4 v^8+u^4 v^4+u^4 v^2- u^4 v- u^3 v^9+u^3 v^8\cr
&+u^3 v^7- u^3 v^6- u^3+u^2 v^8- u^2 v^7- u^2 v^6+u^2 v^5+u^2 v^4\cr
&+u^2 v^2+u^2 v+u v^7+u v^6+u v^3- u v^2+v^4). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ If $\lambda\ne 0$, we have $w=\eta/\lambda$, and more importantly, by , $$\label{3.131}
e_4|_{w=\eta/\lambda}=\lambda^{-2}(1+u+v)^2MN,$$ where $N$ is a polynomial in $u$ and $v$ which is given in Appendix . Therefore, $e_4=0$, which is a contradiction. Hence we have $\lambda=\eta=0$. We find that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.132}
\text{Res}(M,\lambda;u)\,&=v^6(1+v)^4P_{11}(v)Q_{11}(v),\\
\label{3.133}
\text{Res}(M,\lambda;v)\,&=u^6(1+u)^4P_{11}(u)Q_{11}(u),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{3.134}
P_{11}(X)=X^{11}- X^{10}+X^8+X^7+X^5+X^4- X^3+X^2+X-1,$$ $$\label{3.135}
Q_{11}(X)=X^{11}- X^{10}+X^9+X^8+X^4- X^2+X+1$$ are irreducible over ${\Bbb F}_3$. We already showed that $1+u\ne0$ and $1+v\ne 0$. Therefore $P_{11}(v)Q_{11}(v)=0$ and $P_{11}(u)Q_{11}(u)=0$. We claim that either $P_{11}(u)=Q_{11}(v)=0$ or $Q_{11}(u)=P_{11}(v)=0$. In fact, $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Res}(P_{11}(u),M;u)=\,&-Q_{11}(v) (v^{11}- v^9- v^8- v^7- v^6+v^5+v^2-1)\cr
&\cdot (v^{11}- v^{10}+v^9- v^8+v^6+v^5-
v^4+v^3+v^2- v-1),\end{aligned}$$ which is not divisible by $P_{11}(v)$. Hence $P_{11}(u)=0$ implies $Q_{11}(v)=0$. Similarly, $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Res}(Q_{11}(u),M;u)=\,&-P_{11}(v) (v^{11}+v^{10}- v^9+v^8+v^7+v^6+v^5+v^3-1)\cr
&\cdot (v^{11}- v^{10}- v^8+v^7-
v^5+v^2+v+1) ,\end{aligned}$$ which is not divisible by $Q_{11}(v)$. Hence $Q_{11}(u)=0$ implies $P_{11}(v)=0$. Therefore the claim is proved.
First assume that $P_{11}(u)=Q_{11}(v)=0$. Solving the equation $Q_{11}(v)=0$ in ${\Bbb F}_3(u)$ by exhaustive search gives $v=v_0^{3^i}$, $0\le i\le 10$, where $$\label{v0}
v_0=-1+u^3+u^5-u^7+u^9-u^{10}.$$ Thus $M|_{v=v_0^{3^i}}$ can be computed in ${\Bbb F}_3(u)$. We find that $M|_{v=v_0^{3^i}}=0$ only when $i=0$. Hence $v=v_0$. We compute $h_i|_{v=v_0}$ ($i=1,2$) and reduce the results modulo $P_{11}(u)$; the outcomes are $$\label{hibar}
h_i|_{v=v_0}\equiv\bar h_i\pmod{P_{11}(u)},\quad i=1,2,$$ where $\bar h_1$ and $\bar h_2$ are polynomials in $u$ and $w$ given in and . We further compute $$\label{Ri}
R_i=\text{Res}(\bar h_i,L;u),\quad i=1,2,$$ as polynomials in $w$, which are given in and . It follows that $$\text{gcd}(R_1,R_2)=(1+w)^2(1-w+w^3-w^7+w^8+w^{11}).$$ We have $1+w\ne 0$ since $L|_{w=-1}=1+u^2-u^4+u^5\ne 0$. Hence $$1-w+w^3-w^7+w^8+w^{11}=0.$$ Solving the above equation (by exhaustive search) in ${\Bbb F}_3(u)$ gives $w=w_0^{3^i}$, $0\le i\le 10$, where $$w_0=1+u^3-u^4+u^6+u^9-u^{10}.$$ Moreover, $L|_{w=w_0^{3^i}}=0$ only if $i=0$. Hence we must have $w=w_0$. Now we compute $e_4|_{v=v_0,w=w_0}$ as a polynomial in $u$, which turns out to be $\equiv 0\pmod{P_{11}(u)}$. Thus $e_4=0$, which is a contradiction.
Next assume that $Q_{11}(u)=P_{11}(v)=0$. The computation procedure is identical to the above. Since $M$ is symmetric in $u$ and $v$, the only solution $u_0$ of $Q_{11}(u)=0$ in ${\Bbb F}_3(v)$ satisfying $M|_{u=u_0}=0$ is the expression in with $u$ replaced by $v$, i.e., $$\label{u0}
u_0=-1+v^3+v^5-v^7+v^9-v^{10}.$$ We compute $$\label{hibar1}
h_i|_{u=u_0}\equiv\bar h_i\pmod{P_{11}(v)},\quad i=1,2,$$ where $\bar h_1$ and $\bar h_2$ are polynomials in $v$ and $w$ given in and . Let $\bar L=\bar L(v,w)$ be the reduction of $L|_{u=u_0}$ modulo $P_{11}(v)$. Then $$\label{Ri-1}
R_i=\text{Res}(\bar h_i,\bar L;v),\quad i=1,2,$$ are polynomials in $w$, which are given in and . Moreover, $$\text{gcd}(R_1,R_2)=w(1-w+w^2+w^3+w^4-w^5+w^7-w^8+w^9+w^{10}+w^{11}).$$ Recall that $w\ne 0$; see . Hence we have $$1-w+w^2+w^3+w^4-w^5+w^7-w^8+w^9+w^{10}+w^{11}=0.$$ Solving the above equation (by exhaustive search) in ${\Bbb F}_3(v)$ gives $w=w_0^{3^i}$, $0\le i\le 10$, where $$w_0=-v^3+v^4-v^6-v^9+v^{10}.$$ Moreover, $L|_{u=u_0,w=w_0^{3^i}}=0$ only if when $i=0$. Hence we must have $w=w_0$. We find that $$e_4|_{u=u_0,w=w_0}\equiv 0\pmod{P_{11}(v)}.$$ Thus $e_4=0$, which is a contradiction.
Case 3.2 {#case-3.2 .unnumbered}
--------
Assume that $v=0$. In this case we find that $$\label{3.136}
h_1=((1+u)^2+(1-w)^2)^2((u+w)^2+(1-w)^2)(u^2+w+w^2).$$ In the above, we claim that $(1+u)^2+(1-w)^2\ne 0$ and $(u+w)^2+(1-w)^2\ne 0$. Otherwise, $w=1$ and $u=-1$. Then $1+u+v=0$, which is not possible. Therefore we have $u^2+w+w^2=0$; this is the first condition in . It remains to show that $$1-\Bigl(\frac ba\Bigr)^{q+1}=1+\frac{w^2}{u^2}=\frac{-w}{u^2}$$ is a square in ${\Bbb F}_q^*$, i.e., $-w$ is a square in ${\Bbb F}_q^*$. We find that $$e_4|_{v=0}=(1+u)^2(1+u+u^3+uw+uw^2)=(1+u)^3.$$ Hence $1+u$ is a square in ${\Bbb F}_q^*$. Since $$(u+w)^2=u^2+w^2-uw=-w-uw=-w(1+u),$$ we conclude that $-w$ is a square in ${\Bbb F}_q^*$.
Now the proof of Theorem \[T3.1\] is complete.
Final Remarks
=============
The sufficiency of the condition is actually implied by the proof in this paper. To see this, one only has to take a small portion of the proof and reverse the arguments there; we leave this task for interested readers.
The method of our proof is likely to work for a few more small characteristics. However, to prove that the conditions in Theorem \[T1.1\] (iii) are necessary for an arbitrary characteristic $p>3$, additional techniques might be needed.
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
In and , $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A1}\tag{A1}
h_1=\,& a^6- a^5 b_1+a^4 b_1^2+a^4 b_1+a^4 k- a^4+a^3 b_1^3+a^3 b_1^2- a^3 b_1 k+a^3 b_1\\
&+a^3- a^2 b_1^4- a^2 b_1- a^2 k^2- a^2 k+a b_1^5+a b_1^4+a b_1^3 k- a b_1^3+a b_1^2\cr
&+a b_1 k^2+a b_1 k+a b_1- a k^2- a k- a+b_1^5- b_1^4 k+b_1^4- b_1^2 k^2\cr
&- b_1^2 k+b_1^2- b_1 k^2+b_1- k^3- k, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A2}\tag{A2}
h_2=\,& a^7- a^6 b_1+a^6 k+a^5 b_1+a^5- a^4 b_1^3- a^4 b_1^2- a^4 b_1 k+a^4 b_1- a^4 k\\
&+a^4+a^3 b_1^4- a^3 b_1^3 k+a^3 b_1^3- a^3 b_1^2 k+a^3 b_1 k+a^3 b_1- a^3 k^2+a^3 k\cr
&+a^3+a^2 b_1^4+a^2 b_1^3+a^2 b_1+a^2 k^2+a^2+a b_1^6- a b_1^5- a b_1^4 k+a b_1^4\cr
&- a b_1^3 k+a b_1^3- a b_1^2- a b_1 k^2- a b_1 k+a b_1- a k^2- a k- b_1^7\cr
&+b_1^6 k+b_1^6- b_1^5 k+b_1^4 k+b_1^4- b_1^3 k^2+b_1^3 k- b_1^3+b_1^2 k^2- b_1^2 k\cr
&- b_1 k^2+b_1 k- b_1- k^4+1. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In and , $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A3}\tag{A3}
h_1=\,& a_1^7 k^3+a_1^6 k^3- a_1^5 b_1 k^2- a_1^5 k^2- a_1^4 b_1^2 k^2+a_1^4 b_1 k^2- a_1^4 k^3- a_1^4 k^2\\
&+a_1^3 b_1^3 k+a_1^3 b_1^2 k^2- a_1^3 k^3- a_1^3 k^2+a_1^3 k+a_1^2 b_1^4 k- a_1^2 b_1 k^2+a_1^2 b_1 k\cr
&- a_1^2 k^2+a_1 b_1^6- a_1 b_1^5- a_1 b_1^4 k+a_1 b_1^4+a_1 b_1^3- a_1 b_1^2 k^2- a_1 b_1^2\cr
&+a_1 b_1 k^2- a_1 b_1 k+a_1 b_1+a_1 k^3- a_1 k^2- b_1^5+b_1^4 k+b_1^4+b_1^3 k\cr
&- b_1^3+b_1^2 k^2- b_1^2+b_1 k+b_1+k^3- k^2+k-1, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A4}\tag{A4}
h_2=\,& -a_1^9 k^4+a_1^5 b_1^3 k^2+a_1^5 b_1^2 k^2- a_1^5 b_1 k^2- a_1^5 k^2- a_1^4 b_1^2 k^2+a_1^4 b_1 k^2- a_1^4 k^2\\
&- a_1^3 b_1^6 k- a_1^3 b_1^5 k+a_1^3 b_1^4 k- a_1^3 b_1^3 k^2+a_1^3 b_1^2 k^2- a_1^3 b_1^2 k- a_1^3 b_1 k^2\cr
&+a_1^3 b_1 k+a_1^3 k- a_1^2 b_1^5 k+a_1^2 b_1^4 k+a_1^2 b_1^3 k^2- a_1^2 b_1^3 k+a_1^2 b_1^2 k^2- a_1^2 b_1^2 k\cr
&- a_1^2 b_1 k^2+a_1^2 b_1 k- a_1^2 k^2- a_1^2 k+a_1 b_1^7- a_1 b_1^5 k+a_1 b_1^4 k- a_1 b_1^4\cr
&- a_1 b_1^3 k- a_1 b_1^2 k^2- a_1 b_1^2 k+a_1 b_1 k^2+a_1 b_1 k+a_1 b_1- a_1 k^2- a_1 k\cr
&- b_1^7+b_1^6 k+b_1^6- b_1^5 k+b_1^4 k+b_1^4- b_1^3 k^2+b_1^3 k- b_1^3+b_1^2 k^2- b_1^2 k\cr
&- b_1 k^2+b_1 k- b_1- k^4+1. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In , $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A6}\tag{A5}
T=\,& a_1^{10}- a_1^9 b_1+a_1^8 b_1^3+a_1^8 b_1^2-
a_1^8 b_1- a_1^8+a_1^7 b_1^6- a_1^7
b_1^5+a_1^7 b_1^4+a_1^7 b_1^3\\
&+a_1^7 b_1^2-
a_1^6 b_1^3+a_1^6 b_1+a_1^5 b_1^4- a_1^5
b_1^3- a_1^5 b_1^2- a_1^5 b_1+a_1^5-
a_1^4 b_1^9\cr
&+a_1^4 b_1^8- a_1^4 b_1^6+a_1^4
b_1^3+a_1^4 b_1+a_1^4+a_1^3 b_1^8+a_1^3
b_1^7+a_1^3 b_1^6- a_1^3 b_1^5\cr
&- a_1^3
b_1^4- a_1^3 b_1^3+a_1^3 b_1^2+a_1^2
b_1^7+a_1^2 b_1^3+a_1^2 b_1^2+a_1^2 b_1-
a_1^2- a_1 b_1^5\cr
&- a_1 b_1^4+a_1
b_1^3+a_1 b_1^2+a_1 b_1- a_1+b_1^3-1. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In and , $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A7}\tag{A6}
h_1=\,& u^8+u^7 v- u^7 w+u^7+u^6 v w- u^6 w^2+u^5 v^3- u^5 v^2 w- u^5 v w^2\\
&- u^5 v w- u^5 v+u^5 w^2+u^5 w- u^4 v^3 w+u^4 v^3+u^4 v^2 w^2+u^4 v^2 w\cr
&- u^4 v^2- u^4 v w^2- u^4 v w+u^4 v+u^4 w^3- u^4 w^2- u^3 v^5- u^3 v^3\cr
&+u^3 v^2 w^2- u^3 v^2 w- u^3 v^2+u^3 v w^4+u^3 v w- u^3 w^4- u^3 w^3\cr
&- u^3 w^2- u^3 w- u^3+u^2 v^6- u^2 v^5 w- u^2 v^5- u^2 v^4 w^2- u^2 v^4 w\cr
&- u^2 v^4+u^2 v^3 w^3- u^2 v^3 w^2- u^2 v^3 w- u^2 v^3+u^2 v^2 w^3- u^2 v^2 w\cr
&- u^2 v^2- u^2 v w^2- u^2 v w- u^2 v+u^2 w^6- u^2 w^5- u^2 w^4- u^2 w^2\cr
&- u^2 w+u^2- u v^7- u v^6 w+u v^5 w^2+u v^5 w+u v^4 w^2+u v^4 w+u v^4\cr
&- u v^3 w^4- u v^3 w^3+u v^3 w^2+u v^3 w- u v^2 w^3+u v^2 w^2+u v^2 w\cr
&+u v w^5+u v w^4+u v w^3+u v w^2+u v w- u v- u w^7- u w^6+u w^5\cr
&+u w^3+u w^2- u w+v^6 w+v^5 w^3- v^5 w^2- v^4 w^4- v^4 w^3- v^4 w^2\cr
&- v^3 w^5+v^3 w^3- v^3 w+v^2 w^6- v^2 w^5- v^2 w^4+v^2 w^3- v^2 w^2\cr
&+v w^7+v w^6+v w^5- v w^3- v w^2- w^8+w^7+w^5- w^4+w^3+w, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A8}\tag{A7}
h_2=\,& u^7 v+u^7 w- u^7+u^6 v^3- u^6 v^2- u^6 v w+u^6 v+u^6 w^3- u^6 w\\
&+u^5 v^3- u^5 v^2 w+u^5 v w^2- u^5 v w- u^5 w^3+u^5- u^4 v^2 w^2\cr
&- u^4 v^2 w- u^4 v w^3- u^4 v w^2+u^4 v w+u^4 w^3- u^4 w- u^3 v^6\cr
&- u^3 v^5- u^3 v^3 w^3- u^3 v^3- u^3 v^2 w^3- u^3 v^2 w^2- u^3 v^2\cr
&- u^3 v w^3+u^3 v w^2+u^3 w^5+u^3 w^4- u^3 w^3- u^3 w^2+u^2 v^6\cr
&- u^2 v^5 w+u^2 v^5+u^2 v^4 w^2- u^2 v^4- u^2 v^3 w^3+u^2 v^3 w^2+u^2 v^3 w\cr
&- u^2 v^2 w^3- u^2 v^2 w+u^2 v^2- u^2 v w^4+u^2 v w^3+u^2 v w^2- u^2 v\cr
&- u^2 w^5- u^2 w^4+u^2 w^3+u^2 w^2+u^2 w- u^2- u v^7- u v^6 w\cr
&- u v^5 w^2+u v^5 w- u v^4 w^3+u v^4 w^2- u v^4 w+u v^4- u v^3 w^3\cr
&- u v^3 w^2- u v^3 w+u v^2 w^4- u v^2 w^2+u v^2 w+u v w^5- u v w^4\cr
&- u v w^3+u v w^2- u v w- u v+u w^5+u w^4- u w^3- u w^2\cr
&+v^7 w+v^6 w^3- v^6 w- v^5 w^3+v^4 w^3- v^4 w+v^3 w^5+v^3 w^3\cr
&+v^3 w- v^2 w^5- v^2 w^3+v w^5+v w^3+v w+w^9- w. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In , $$\begin{aligned}
\label{app-res-u0}\tag{A8}
&\text{Res}(h_1|_{u=u_0},h_2|_{u=u_0},w)\equiv\\
&v^{18}- v^{17}- v^{16}- v^{15}- v^{14}- v^{13}- v^{12}- v^{11}- v^{10}+v^9-
v^8+v^6+v^3-1\cr
&\pmod{Q_{21}(v)}, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{app-res-u0-}\tag{A9}
&\text{Res}(h_1|_{u=-u_0},h_2|_{u=-u_0},w)\equiv\\
&v^{20}- v^{18}+v^{17}- v^{15}+v^{14}+v^{12}+v^{10}+v^9- v^6- v^5+v^4- v^2+v \cr
&\pmod{Q_{21}(v)}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In and , $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Pi1}\tag{A10}
&\Pi_1(w)=\\
& (w^8+w^7+w^5- w^4- w^3- w^2+w+1)^2 \cr
&\cdot(w^{16}+w^{15}- w^{13}+w^{12}+w^8+w^5- w^4+w^2- w-1)\cr
&\cdot (w^{18}+w^{16}- w^{15}+w^{14}- w^{13}- w^{12}- w^{11}- w^7- w^6- w^5- w^2- w+1), \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\label{Pi2}\tag{A11}
\Pi_2(v)=(v^8+v^6+v^4- v^2-1)^2 (v^{16}- v^{15}- v^{13}+v^{11}+v^9+v^8- v^7+v^6+v^5+1).$$ In , $$\begin{aligned}
\label{app-res-u1}\tag{A12}
&\text{Res}(h_1|_{u=u_1},h_2|_{u=u_1},w)=\\
&v^{28} (v^3+v^2+v-1) (v^4+v^3- v^2- v-1) (v^5- v^4-
v-1)\cr
&\cdot (v^{10}+v^9+v^8+v^6+v^5- v^4- v^2-1)\cr
&\cdot (v^{12}+v^{11}+v^{10}- v^9+v^8- v^5- v^4+v^3+v+1)\cr
&\cdot (v^{46}-
v^{45}- v^{44}- v^{43}- v^{42}- v^{41}+v^{40}- v^{39}- v^{38}- v^{36}-
v^{35}+v^{34}+v^{33}- v^{32}\cr
&\kern1em +v^{30}- v^{29}- v^{28}+v^{27}- v^{26}+v^{25}+v^{24}-
v^{23}- v^{22}+v^{21}- v^{20}+v^{19}- v^{18}\cr
&\kern1em -v^{15}+v^{14}+v^{12}+v^{11}+v^{10}+v^9- v^8+v^7+v^6- v^5+v^2+1)\cr
&\cdot
(v^{88}+v^{86}- v^{84}- v^{82}- v^{78}+v^{77}+v^{75}+v^{73}+v^{72}- v^{71}-
v^{70}- v^{69}- v^{68}+v^{67}\cr
&\kern1em +v^{66}+v^{65}- v^{62}+v^{60}+v^{58}- v^{56}-
v^{54}- v^{53}+v^{52}+v^{51}- v^{50}+v^{48}+v^{46}\cr
&\kern1em - v^{44}- v^{43}-
v^{42}+v^{41}- v^{38}- v^{36}+v^{35}- v^{31}+v^{29}+v^{28}+v^{27}+v^{26}+v^{25}\cr
&\kern1em -v^{23}- v^{22}+v^{21}+v^{20}- v^{19}- v^{17}+v^{16}+v^{15}- v^{14}+v^{13}+v^{12}-
v^{10}- v^8\cr
&\kern1em - v^6- v^5- v^4+v^3+1) , \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{app-res-u1-}\tag{A13}
&\text{Res}(h_1|_{u=-u_1},h_2|_{u=-u_1},w)=\\
&v^{31} (v^2+1)^4 (v^4+v^3+v^2+1) (v^{10}+v^8- v^7+v^6-
v^5+v^4+v^3-1)\cr
&\cdot (v^{18}- v^{15}- v^{14}- v^{12}+v^{10}+v^5- v^2-
v+1)\cr
&\cdot (v^{125}+v^{121}+v^{120}+v^{116}+v^{115}+v^{113}-
v^{111}+v^{110}+v^{108}+v^{107}+v^{105}+v^{103}\cr
&\kern1em - v^{99}- v^{98}- v^{95}+v^{94}-
v^{93}- v^{92}+v^{91}- v^{90}- v^{89}+v^{88}+v^{87}- v^{86}- v^{85}\cr
&\kern1em -v^{79}+v^{78}- v^{72}+v^{70}- v^{69}+v^{68}- v^{67}- v^{66}+v^{64}+v^{62}-
v^{60}+v^{59}- v^{58}\cr
&\kern1em - v^{57}+v^{56}- v^{55}- v^{54}+v^{53}+v^{52}-
v^{51}+v^{50}- v^{49}- v^{46}- v^{45}- v^{44}+v^{42}\cr
&\kern1em +v^{41}+v^{40}+v^{39}+v^{38}-
v^{36}- v^{35}+v^{34}- v^{33}- v^{32}+v^{31}- v^{30}- v^{29}-
v^{28}\cr
&\kern1em +v^{26}+v^{24}- v^{21}+v^{20}- v^{19}- v^{17}-
v^{16}+v^{15}+v^{14}+v^{13}+v^{12}+v^6- v^5\cr
&\kern1em +v^4+v^3+v^2+v+1) . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The factors in and are irreducible over ${\Bbb F}_3$. In and , $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Gamma1}\tag{A14}
&\Gamma_1(w)=\\
&-(w^4+w^3+w^2+1) (w^4+w^3+w^2- w-1)\cr
& (w^4- w^3+w^2+1)(w^8- w^6- w^4+w^3+1)\cr
& (w^{18}+w^{17}+w^{16}+w^{15}- w^{14}- w^{12}- w^8- w^7- w^6- w^3- w^2+1)\cr
& (w^{22}- w^{19}- w^{17}- w^{15}- w^{14}- w^{13}+w^{11}- w^8+w^5- w^4- w^3+w^2+w+1), \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Gamma2}\tag{A15}
&\Gamma_2(v)=\\
& -(v^4+v^3-1) (v^4+v^3- v^2- v-1)^2 (v^8- v^7- v^6- v^5+v^4- v^2- v+1)\cr
& (v^{18}- v^{16}- v^{14}+v^{13}- v^{11}+v^9- v^5- v^4+v^3-1)\cr
& (v^{22}- v^{21}+v^{20}- v^{19}- v^{18}+v^{17}+v^{15}+v^{14}- v^{13}- v^{12}- v^{10}+v^9+v^7\cr
&+v^6- v^5+v^3+v^2+v+1). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In $$\begin{aligned}
\label{app-hij-1}\tag{A16}
h_{10}=\,& -v^6 w^4- v^6 w^3- v^6 w^2- v^6 w- v^5 w^4+v^5 w^3+v^5 w- v^5+v^4 w^4+v^4
w^3 \\
&- v^4 w^2+v^4 w- v^3 w^5+v^3 w^2- v^3 w+v^3+v^2 w^6- v^2 w^5+v^2 w^4- v^2
w^2\cr
&- v^2+v w^6- v w^5- v w^4- v w^3- v w^2- v w- v- w^6- w^5+w^4+w^3\cr
&+w^2+1, \cr
\label{app-hij-2}\tag{A17}
h_{11}=\,& -v^6 w^4+v^6 w^3+v^6 w- v^6- v^5 w^4- v^5 w^2+v^5- v^4 w^4+v^4 w^2+v^4 w+v^4\\
&- v^3
w^4+v^3 w^3+v^3 w^2+v^3 w- v^2 w^4- v^2 w+v^2+v w^5- v w^4- v w^3- w^6, \cr
\label{app-hij-3}\tag{A18}
h_{12}=\,& -v^6
w^4+v^6 w^3- v^6 w^2+v^6 w- v^6+v^5 w^4- v^5 w^2+v^5 w+v^5- v^4 w^3\\
&+v^4 w^2+v^4
w+v^3 w^3+v^3+v^2 w^4+v^2 w^2+v^2 w+v^2+v w^4- v w^2+w^6\cr
&- w^5+w^4+w, \cr
\label{app-hij-4}\tag{A19}
h_{20}=\,& -v^6 w^2+v^6 w+v^6- v^5 w^5- v^5 w^4+v^5 w^2- v^5 w- v^5+v^4 w^5+v^4 w^4+v^4
w^2\\
&+v^4 w+v^4+v^3 w^5+v^3 w^3- v^3 w^2+v^3 w- v^2 w^5+v^2 w^2- v w^4- v w^3- v
w\cr
&+v- w^5+w^4- w^3 \cr
\label{app-hij-5}\tag{A20}
h_{21}=\,& v^6- v^5 w^5- v^5 w^4+v^5 w^3+v^5 w+v^4 w^5+v^4 w^4- v^4
w^3+v^4 w^2+v^4 w- v^4\\
&- v^3 w^2- v^3 w+v^2 w^4- v^2 w^3+v^2 w^2+v^2+v w^4- v
w^3+w^5+w^4+w^3- w, \cr
\label{app-hij-6}\tag{A21}
h_{22}=\,& v^6 w^5+v^6 w^4+v^6 w^2- v^6 w- v^5 w^5- v^5 w^4- v^5 w^3-
v^5 w^2- v^5 w+v^5+v^4 w^3\\
&- v^4 w^2+v^4 w- v^4- v^3 w^3- v^3 w^2- v^3 w+v^2
w^5+v^2 w^4+v^2 w^3- v^2 w^2+v^2\cr
&+v w^5- v w^3+v w^2- v w- w^5- w^4- w^3- w^2-
w-1. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In , $$\begin{aligned}
\label{app-A0}\tag{A22}
A_0=\,& v^6 w^6- v^6 w^5- v^6 w^2- v^6 w- v^6+v^5 w^6+v^5 w^4+v^5 w^3+v^5 w^2+v^5+v^4 w^6\\
&- v^4 w^5+v^4 w^4- v^4 w^3+v^4 w- v^4- v^3 w^5+v^3 w^4- v^3 w^3+v^3 w^2+v^3 w+v^3\cr
&- v^2 w^5- v^2 w^3+v^2 w^2- v^2- v w^6+v w^5+v w^4- v w^2+v+w^5- w^3- w, \cr
\label{app-A1}\tag{A23}
A_1=\,& -v^6 w^5+v^6 w^2+v^6- v^5 w^6+v^5 w^4- v^5 w^3- v^5 w^2+v^5 w- v^4 w^6- v^4 w^5\\
&- v^4 w^4- v^4 w^3+v^3 w^6- v^3 w^5- v^3 w^3+v^3 w^2+v^3 w- v^2 w^6+v^2 w^5+v^2 w^4\cr
&+v^2 w^2- v^2+v w^6+v w^5- v w^4- v w^3- v w^2- v w+v+w^5+w+1. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In , $$\begin{aligned}
\label{app-U}\tag{A24}
U=\,& v^6 w^5+v^6 w^4+v^6 w^3- v^6 w^2+v^6 w+v^6+v^5 w^6- v^5 w^5- v^5 w^4+v^5- v^4 w^6\\
&+v^4 w^5+v^4 w^4- v^4 w^2- v^4 w+v^3 w^6- v^3 w^2+v^3 w- v^3- v^2 w^6- v^2 w^5\cr
&- v^2 w^4- v^2- v w^5- v w^2- w^6+w^5+w^4+w, \cr
\label{app-V}\tag{A25}
V=\,& v^6 w^6+v^6 w^4+v^6 w^3+v^6 w+v^5 w^5+v^5 w^4- v^5 w^3- v^5 w^2+v^5 w+v^5+v^4 w^6\\
&- v^4 w^5+v^4 w^4- v^4+v^3 w^6- v^3 w^5+v^3 w^4+v^3 w^3- v^3 w^2+v^3 w- v^2 w^6\cr
&+v^2 w^3+v^2 w^2+v^2- v w^4- v w^3+v w^2- v w+v+w^6- w^5+w^4- w^3\cr
&+w-1. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In , $$\begin{aligned}
\label{app-Hij-1}\tag{A26}
h_{10}=\,& -w^4 v^{20}- w^2 v^{20}+v^{20}+w^4 v^{19}- w^3 v^{19}- w^2 v^{19}+w v^{19}- v^{19}+w^4
v^{18}\\
&+w^3 v^{18}- w v^{18}+w^4 v^{17}+w^3 v^{17}- w^2 v^{17}+w v^{17}- w^4 v^{16}+w^3 v^{16}-
w v^{16}\cr
&+v^{16}- w^4 v^{15}- w^3 v^{15}- w^2 v^{15}- w v^{15}+v^{15}- w^3 v^{14}- w v^{14}-
w v^{13}+v^{13}\cr
&- w^2 v^{12}+w^4 v^{11}- w^2 v^{11}- w v^{11}- w^4 v^{10}+w^3 v^{10}+w
v^{10}+v^{10}- w^3 v^9\cr
&- w^2 v^9- w v^9- w^4 v^8- w^2 v^8- v^8- w^4 v^7- w^3 v^7- w^2 v^7-
w v^7+v^7\cr
&+w^4 v^6- w^3 v^6+w v^6- v^6- w^4 v^5- w^3 v^5+w^2 v^5+v^5- w^4 v^4+w^3 v^4\cr
&+w^2 v^4-
v^4- w^5 v^3+w^4 v^3+w^3 v^3+w^2 v^3+w v^3+v^3+w^6 v^2- w^5 v^2\cr
&- w^4 v^2- w^3 v^2- w^2 v^2-
v^2+w^7 v+w^6 v+w^5 v+w^4 v- w^3 v- w v- w^8\cr
&+w^7+w^5+w^3+w^2+1, \cr
\label{app-Hij-2}\tag{A27}
h_{11}=\,& -w^4 v^{20}+w^2 v^{20}- w
v^{20}+w^4 v^{19}+w^2 v^{19}+w^4 v^{18}- w^3 v^{18}+v^{18}+w^4 v^{17}\\
&- w^3 v^{17}+w v^{17}-
v^{17}- w^4 v^{16}- w^3 v^{16}- w^2 v^{16}- v^{16}- w^4 v^{15}- w^3 v^{15}\cr
&- w
v^{15}+v^{15}- w^2 v^{14}- w v^{14}+v^{14}- w^3 v^{13}+v^{13}+w^3 v^{12}+w v^{12}+w^4 v^{11}\cr
&-w^3 v^{11}- w^2 v^{11}- w v^{11}+v^{11}- w^4 v^{10}+w^3 v^{10}- w^2 v^{10}- v^{10}- w^2 v^9\cr
&+w
v^9+v^9- w^4 v^8- w^3 v^8+w^2 v^8- v^8- w^4 v^7+w^3 v^7+v^7+w^4 v^6+w^3 v^6\cr
&+w^2 v^6+w v^6- w^4
v^5+w^3 v^5- w v^5- w v^4+v^4+w^3 v^3+w^2 v^3+v^3+w^2 v^2\cr
&- w v^2+w^5 v+w^4 v- w^3 v+w^2 v+w v-
v- w^7- w^6+w^5- w^4- w^3+w^2- 1, \cr
\label{app-Hij-3}\tag{A28}
h_{12}=\,& w^4 v^{20}+w^2 v^{20}- w v^{20}- v^{20}+w^4 v^{19}- w^3
v^{19}- w^2 v^{19}- w v^{19}- v^{19}+w^4 v^{18}\\
&- w^3 v^{18}- w^2 v^{18}- v^{18}+w^4 v^{17}-
w^3 v^{17}- v^{17}- w^3 v^{16}- w^2 v^{16}- v^{16}+w^4 v^{15}\cr
&- w^2 v^{15}- w v^{15}-
v^{15}- w^4 v^{14}- w^3 v^{14}+w^2 v^{14}+v^{14}+w^4 v^{13}+w^3 v^{13}- w v^{13}\cr
&- v^{13}- w^4
v^{12}- w^3 v^{12}+w^2 v^{12}- v^{12}+w^3 v^{11}+w^2 v^{11}- v^{11}+w^4 v^{10}- w^2 v^{10}\cr
&- w
v^{10}+v^{10}- w^4 v^9- w^3 v^9- w^2 v^9- v^9- w^4 v^8+w^3 v^8+w^2 v^8- w^4 v^7\cr
&+w^3 v^7- w^2
v^7+w^3 v^6+w^2 v^6+w v^6+w^4 v^5- v^5- w^4 v^4- w^3 v^4- w^2 v^4\cr
&+w v^4- w^3 v^3- w^2 v^3+w
v^3- w^4 v^2- w^3 v^2- w^2 v^2- w v^2- v^2- w^4 v+w^2 v\cr
&+w v+v+w^6- w^5+w^3+w+1, \cr
\label{app-Hij-4}\tag{A29}
h_{20}=\,& - w^5 v^{20}- w^4 v^{20}+w^2 v^{20}+w v^{20}- w^3 v^{19}- w^2 v^{19}- v^{19}- w^3
v^{18}+w^2 v^{18}\\
&+w v^{18}- v^{18}+w^2 v^{17}+w v^{17}+w^5 v^{16}+w^4 v^{16}- w v^{16}- w^5
v^{15}- w^4 v^{15}\cr
&+w^3 v^{15}- v^{15}- w^5 v^{14}- w^4 v^{14}- w v^{14}+v^{14}+w^5 v^{13}+w^4
v^{13}+w^3 v^{13}\cr
&- w^2 v^{13}+w v^{13}- v^{13}- w^5 v^{12}- w^4 v^{12}+w^2 v^{12}- w
v^{12}+v^{12}- w^5 v^{11}\cr
&- w^4 v^{11}+w^2 v^{11}+w v^{11}- w^5 v^{10}- w^4 v^{10}+w^3 v^{10}-
w^2 v^{10}- v^{10}- w^5 v^9\cr
&- w^4 v^9+w^3 v^9+w v^9+w^3 v^8+w v^8- v^8- w^3 v^7- w^2 v^7+w
v^7+v^7- w^5 v^6\cr
&- w^4 v^6+w^3 v^6+w v^6- w^5 v^5- w^4 v^5+w^3 v^5- w^2 v^5+v^5- w^5 v^4- w^4
v^4\cr
&- w^3 v^4- w v^4- w^4 v^3- w^3 v^3+w^2 v^3- v^3- w^5 v^2+w^3 v^2+w v^2+v^2- w^5 v\cr
&+w^4
v+w^2 v- v+w^9+w^5+w^4- w^3- w^2+w+1, \cr
\label{app-Hij-5}\tag{A30}
h_{21}=\,& - w^5 v^{20}- w^4 v^{20}+w^3 v^{20}+w^2 v^{20}+v^{20}+w^3
v^{19}+w^2 v^{19}- v^{19}- v^{18}- w v^{17}\\
&- v^{17}+w^5 v^{16}+w^4 v^{16}- w^3 v^{16}- w^2
v^{16}+w v^{16}+v^{16}- w^5 v^{15}- w^4 v^{15}- v^{15}\cr
&- w^5 v^{14}- w^4 v^{14}- w^3 v^{14}-
w^2 v^{14}+v^{14}+w^5 v^{13}+w^4 v^{13}+w v^{13}+v^{13}\cr
&- w^5 v^{12}- w^4 v^{12}+w v^{12}+v^{12}-
w^5 v^{11}- w^4 v^{11}- w^3 v^{11}- w^2 v^{11}- v^{11}\cr
&- w^5 v^{10}- w^4 v^{10}- w^3 v^{10}-
w^2 v^{10}- w v^{10}- v^{10}- w^5 v^9- w^4 v^9- w^3 v^9\cr
&- w^2 v^9+w v^9- v^9+w^3 v^8+w^2
v^8- v^8- v^7- w^5 v^6- w^4 v^6+w^3 v^6+w^2 v^6\cr
&- w v^6+v^6- w^5 v^5- w^4 v^5- w^3 v^5+w^2
v^5- w v^5+v^5- w^5 v^4- w^4 v^4+w^3 v^4\cr
&+w v^4+v^4- w^5 v^3- w^4 v^3- w^2 v^3- w v^3-
v^3+w^4 v^2- w^2 v^2+v^2- w^5 v\cr
&+w^2 v+w v+w^5+w^4- w^3+w^2- w- 1, \cr
\label{app-Hij-6}\tag{A31}
h_{22}=\,& - w^5 v^{20}- w^4 v^{20}- w^2
v^{20}+w v^{20}- v^{20}- w^5 v^{19}- w^4 v^{19}- w^3 v^{19}- w^2 v^{19}\\
&- w v^{19}+v^{19}-
w^5 v^{18}- w^4 v^{18}- w^3 v^{18}- w^2 v^{18}+w v^{18}- v^{18}- w^5 v^{17}- w^4 v^{17}\cr
&+w^3
v^{17}- w^2 v^{17}- w v^{17}+w^3 v^{16}- w v^{16}- w^5 v^{15}- w^4 v^{15}- w^3 v^{15}- w^2
v^{15}\cr
&- w v^{15}+w^5 v^{14}+w^4 v^{14}+w^3 v^{14}+w^2 v^{14}- w v^{14}- w^5 v^{13}- w^4
v^{13}+w^3 v^{13}\cr
&- w^2 v^{13}+w^5 v^{12}+w^4 v^{12}+w^3 v^{12}+w^2 v^{12}- w v^{12}- w^3
v^{11}+w v^{11}- w^5 v^{10}\cr
&- w^4 v^{10}- w^3 v^{10}- w^2 v^{10}- w v^{10}+w^5 v^9+w^4 v^9+w^2
v^9+v^9+w^5 v^8\cr
&+w^4 v^8+w^3 v^8+w^2 v^8- w v^8+v^8+w^5 v^7+w^4 v^7+w^2 v^7+v^7- w^3 v^6- v^6\cr
&-w^5 v^5- w^4 v^5+w^3 v^5- w^2 v^5+w v^5+v^5+w^5 v^4+w^4 v^4- w^3 v^4+v^4\cr
&- w^2 v^3+v^3+w^3
v^2+w^2 v^2- w v^2+v^2- w^4 v+w^3 v- w v+v+w^3+1. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In , $$\begin{aligned}
\label{app-A0-1}\tag{A32}
A_0=\,& - w^{11} v^{20}- w^7 v^{20}+w^6 v^{20}+w^5 v^{20}+w^3 v^{20}+w^2 v^{20}- w v^{20}+w^{12} v^{19}+w^{11} v^{19}\\
&- w^{10} v^{19}- w^9 v^{19}+w^7 v^{19}- w^6 v^{19}- w^5 v^{19}- w^3 v^{19}- v^{19}+w^{12} v^{18}+w^{11} v^{18}\cr
&- w^9 v^{18}+w^7 v^{18}+w^6 v^{18}- w^5 v^{18}+w^3 v^{18}+w v^{18}- v^{18}+w^{12} v^{17}+w^{11} v^{17}\cr
&- w^{10} v^{17}+w^6 v^{17}- w^5 v^{17}- w^4 v^{17}+w^2 v^{17}- w v^{17}- v^{17}+w^{12} v^{16}- w^{11} v^{16}\cr
&- w^8 v^{16}- w^5 v^{16}- w^4 v^{16}- w^3 v^{16}+w^2 v^{16}- v^{16}- w^{11} v^{15}+w^{10} v^{15}- w^8 v^{15}\cr
&+w^7 v^{15}- w^6 v^{15}+w^4 v^{15}+w^3 v^{15}- w^2 v^{15}+w v^{15}- v^{15}+w^{12} v^{14}- w^{10} v^{14}\cr
&- w^9 v^{14}- w^8 v^{14}- w^7 v^{14}- w^5 v^{14}+w^4 v^{14}- w^3 v^{14}- w^2 v^{14}+w v^{14}- v^{14}\cr
&- w^{12} v^{13}- w^8 v^{13}- w^6 v^{13}+w^3 v^{13}+w^2 v^{13}- w v^{13}+v^{13}+w^{12} v^{12}- w^9 v^{12}\cr
&+w^6 v^{12}- w^5 v^{12}- w^2 v^{12}- w v^{12}- v^{12}- w^{12} v^{11}+w^{11} v^{11}+w^{10} v^{11}- w^8 v^{11}\cr
&+w^7 v^{11}- w^6 v^{11}+w^5 v^{11}- w^4 v^{11}- w^3 v^{11}- w^2 v^{11}+w v^{11}+v^{11}- w^{11} v^{10}\cr
&+w^8 v^{10}+w^6 v^{10}- w^4 v^{10}- w^3 v^{10}- w^2 v^{10}+v^{10}+w^{12} v^9+w^{10} v^9- w^9 v^9\cr
&- w^8 v^9- w^7 v^9- w^6 v^9- w^5 v^9- w^4 v^9- w^3 v^9- w^2 v^9- w v^9- v^9- w^{12} v^8\cr
&- w^{11} v^8+w^{10} v^8+w^8 v^8- w^7 v^8- w^6 v^8+w^5 v^8+w^4 v^8+w^3 v^8+w^2 v^8- w v^8\cr
&- v^8- w^{12} v^7- w^{11} v^7- w^{10} v^7- w^8 v^7+w^7 v^7- w^6 v^7+w^5 v^7- w^4 v^7- w^2 v^7\cr
&+v^7- w^{12} v^6+w^{11} v^6- w^{10} v^6- w^8 v^6- w^7 v^6- w^6 v^6+w^5 v^6+w v^6+v^6\cr
&- w^{11} v^5- w^9 v^5- w^8 v^5- w^4 v^5- w^2 v^5+w^{12} v^4+w^{11} v^4- w^9 v^4- w^8 v^4\cr
&- w^7 v^4+w^5 v^4+w^4 v^4- w^3 v^4+w v^4+w^{12} v^3- w^9 v^3+w^8 v^3- w^6 v^3+w^2 v^3\cr
&- w v^3+v^3+w^{13} v^2- w^{11} v^2- w^{10} v^2- w^8 v^2+w^7 v^2+w^5 v^2+w^4 v^2+w^3 v^2\cr
&+w v^2+w^{13} v- w^{12} v- w^{11} v+w^{10} v- w^9 v+w^7 v- w^6 v+w^5 v+w^3 v- w v\cr
&- w^{15}+w^{14}+w^{12}- w^{11}+w^{10}- w^8- w^7- w^6- w^3+w^2+w, \cr
\label{app-A1-1}\tag{A33}
A_1=\,& w^{12} v^{20}- w^8 v^{20}- w^7 v^{20}- w^3 v^{20}+w^2 v^{20}- w v^{20}- v^{20}+w^{12} v^{19}- w^{11} v^{19}\\
&+w^{10} v^{19}+w^9 v^{19}- w^8 v^{19}+w^7 v^{19}+w^6 v^{19}+w^5 v^{19}+w^3 v^{19}- w^2 v^{19}- v^{19}\cr
&+w^{12} v^{18}- w^{11} v^{18}+w^{10} v^{18}- w^9 v^{18}- w^8 v^{18}+w^7 v^{18}- w^6 v^{18}+w^4 v^{18}\cr
&- w v^{18}+v^{18}+w^{12} v^{17}- w^{11} v^{17}- w^{10} v^{17}- w^8 v^{17}- w^7 v^{17}+w^6 v^{17}+w^4 v^{17}\cr
&+w^3 v^{17}+w^2 v^{17}- w v^{17}- v^{17}- w^{11} v^{16}- w^{10} v^{16}- w^8 v^{16}- w^5 v^{16}+w^4 v^{16}\cr
&+w^3 v^{16}+w^2 v^{16}+w^{12} v^{15}+w^{10} v^{15}- w^9 v^{15}+w^8 v^{15}+w^7 v^{15}- w^6 v^{15}\cr
&- w^5 v^{15}+w^4 v^{15}- w^3 v^{15}- w v^{15}- w^{12} v^{14}- w^{11} v^{14}- w^{10} v^{14}- w^9 v^{14}- w^7 v^{14}\cr
&- w^5 v^{14}+w^4 v^{14}- w^3 v^{14}- w v^{14}- v^{14}+w^{12} v^{13}+w^{11} v^{13}- w^{10} v^{13}+w^8 v^{13}\cr
&+w^7 v^{13}+w^4 v^{13}- w^3 v^{13}+w^2 v^{13}- v^{13}- w^{12} v^{12}- w^{11} v^{12}- w^{10} v^{12}+w^9 v^{12}\cr
&+w^8 v^{12}- w^7 v^{12}- w^5 v^{12}- w^4 v^{12}+w^3 v^{12}- w v^{12}+w^{11} v^{11}+w^{10} v^{11}- w^9 v^{11}\cr
&- w^8 v^{11}+w^6 v^{11}- w^5 v^{11}+w^2 v^{11}- w v^{11}- v^{11}+w^{12} v^{10}+w^{10} v^{10}+w^7 v^{10}\cr
&- w^6 v^{10}+w^5 v^{10}- w^4 v^{10}- w^2 v^{10}+v^{10}- w^{12} v^9- w^{11} v^9+w^7 v^9- w^6 v^9\cr
&- w^5 v^9- w^4 v^9+w^2 v^9+w v^9- v^9- w^{12} v^8+w^{11} v^8- w^{10} v^8- w^8 v^8- w^3 v^8\cr
&+w v^8- w^{12} v^7+w^{11} v^7- w^9 v^7+w^8 v^7+w^7 v^7+w^3 v^7+v^7+w^{11} v^6+w^{10} v^6\cr
&- w^8 v^6- w^7 v^6- w^5 v^6- w^3 v^6+w^2 v^6+w v^6+v^6+w^{12} v^5- w^{10} v^5+w^9 v^5\cr
&- w^8 v^5- w^7 v^5- w^6 v^5+w^4 v^5- w^2 v^5- v^5- w^{12} v^4- w^{11} v^4+w^{10} v^4+w^9 v^4\cr
&+w^6 v^4+w^5 v^4+w^4 v^4+w^{11} v^3+w^9 v^3- w v^3- v^3+w^9 v^2+w^8 v^2+w^6 v^2\cr
&+w^4 v^2- w^2 v^2- v^2- w^{11} v- w^8 v+w^6 v- w^4 v+w^3 v- w^2 v- w v- w^{11}\cr
&+w^{10}- w^9- w^8+w^7+w^6+w^4+w^3- w^2+w+1. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In , $$\begin{aligned}
\label{app-U-1}\tag{A34}
U=\,& w^{20} v^{20}- w^{19} v^{20}+w^{18} v^{20}+w^{17} v^{20}- w^{14} v^{20}- w^{13} v^{20}+w^{12} v^{20}+w^{11} v^{20}\\
&- w^{10} v^{20}+w^9 v^{20}- w^8 v^{20}- w^6 v^{20}- w^5 v^{20}+w^3 v^{20}- w^{20} v^{19}- w^{17} v^{19}\cr
&+w^{16} v^{19}- w^{12} v^{19}+w^{11} v^{19}- w^9 v^{19}- w^8 v^{19}- w^6 v^{19}- w^5 v^{19}+w^4 v^{19}\cr
&- w^3 v^{19}+w^2 v^{19}+v^{19}- w^{19} v^{18}- w^{15} v^{18}+w^{14} v^{18}+w^{12} v^{18}- w^{11} v^{18}\cr
&+w^9 v^{18}- w^7 v^{18}- w^6 v^{18}+w^5 v^{18}+w^4 v^{18}- w^3 v^{18}+w v^{18}- w^{20} v^{17}- w^{17} v^{17}\cr
&+w^{15} v^{17}- w^{12} v^{17}- w^{10} v^{17}+w^9 v^{17}- w^7 v^{17}- w^6 v^{17}- w^5 v^{17}+w^4 v^{17}\cr
&+w^3 v^{17}+w^2 v^{17}+w v^{17}- v^{17}- w^{20} v^{16}+w^{19} v^{16}+w^{18} v^{16}+w^{17} v^{16}+w^{16} v^{16}\cr
&- w^{14} v^{16}+w^{13} v^{16}+w^{12} v^{16}+w^{11} v^{16}+w^{10} v^{16}+w^7 v^{16}+w^6 v^{16}+w^4 v^{16}\cr
&+w^2 v^{16}+w^{20} v^{15}+w^{19} v^{15}- w^{18} v^{15}+w^{17} v^{15}+w^{15} v^{15}+w^{14} v^{15}- w^{13} v^{15}\cr
&+w^{12} v^{15}- w^{10} v^{15}+w^8 v^{15}+w^5 v^{15}+w^3 v^{15}- w^2 v^{15}- v^{15}- w^{20} v^{14}+w^{18} v^{14}\cr
&+w^{17} v^{14}- w^{16} v^{14}+w^{15} v^{14}- w^{14} v^{14}+w^{11} v^{14}+w^9 v^{14}- w^7 v^{14}- w^6 v^{14}\cr
&+w^5 v^{14}+w^4 v^{14}- w^3 v^{14}+v^{14}+w^{20} v^{13}- w^{19} v^{13}- w^{17} v^{13}+w^{16} v^{13}+w^{15} v^{13}\cr
&- w^{14} v^{13}+w^{13} v^{13}- w^{11} v^{13}+w^9 v^{13}+w^8 v^{13}+w^6 v^{13}- w^5 v^{13}- w^3 v^{13}\cr
&+w^2 v^{13}- v^{13}- w^{20} v^{12}- w^{19} v^{12}- w^{17} v^{12}+w^{16} v^{12}+w^{14} v^{12}+w^{12} v^{12}\cr
&+w^9 v^{12}+w^8 v^{12}+w^7 v^{12}+w^6 v^{12}+w^5 v^{12}- w^2 v^{12}+w v^{12}- v^{12}- w^{20} v^{11}\cr
&+w^{19} v^{11}+w^{18} v^{11}+w^{16} v^{11}+w^{15} v^{11}+w^{12} v^{11}- w^{10} v^{11}- w^9 v^{11}+w^8 v^{11}\cr
&- w^7 v^{11}- w^6 v^{11}+w^5 v^{11}- w^4 v^{11}- w^3 v^{11}- w^2 v^{11}- v^{11}- w^{20} v^{10}+w^{19} v^{10}\cr
&+w^{16} v^{10}+w^{15} v^{10}- w^{14} v^{10}- w^{13} v^{10}- w^{12} v^{10}- w^{11} v^{10}+w^{10} v^{10}- w^9 v^{10}\cr
&- w^8 v^{10}+w^7 v^{10}+w^6 v^{10}+w^5 v^{10}+w^3 v^{10}+w^2 v^{10}+w v^{10}+v^{10}- w^{19} v^9\cr
&- w^{18} v^9+w^{16} v^9+w^{14} v^9+w^{13} v^9+w^{11} v^9+w^{10} v^9- w^9 v^9- w^7 v^9- w^6 v^9\cr
&- w^3 v^9- w^2 v^9+w v^9- w^{19} v^8+w^{17} v^8+w^{16} v^8- w^{15} v^8- w^{14} v^8- w^{13} v^8\cr
&+w^{12} v^8+w^{11} v^8- w^{10} v^8- w^9 v^8- w^8 v^8- w^4 v^8+w^2 v^8+w^{20} v^7+w^{19} v^7\cr
&+w^{17} v^7- w^{15} v^7+w^{14} v^7+w^{13} v^7- w^{11} v^7- w^9 v^7- w^8 v^7+w^7 v^7+w^4 v^7\cr
&+w^2 v^7- w v^7- v^7- w^{19} v^6- w^{17} v^6- w^{16} v^6+w^{15} v^6- w^{13} v^6- w^{12} v^6+w^{10} v^6\cr
&- w^6 v^6+w^5 v^6+w^3 v^6- v^6+w^{20} v^5+w^{18} v^5+w^{17} v^5- w^{15} v^5- w^{14} v^5- w^{12} v^5\cr
&- w^{11} v^5+w^{10} v^5- w^7 v^5+w^6 v^5- w^4 v^5+w^3 v^5+w^2 v^5+v^5- w^{19} v^4+w^{18} v^4\cr
&+w^{17} v^4- w^{15} v^4+w^{14} v^4+w^9 v^4+w^7 v^4- w^6 v^4+w^5 v^4- w^2 v^4- w v^4- v^4\cr
&- w^{20} v^3+w^{18} v^3+w^{15} v^3+w^{14} v^3- w^{13} v^3+w^{12} v^3+w^{10} v^3- w^9 v^3+w^7 v^3\cr
&+w^6 v^3- w^5 v^3+w^4 v^3- w^3 v^3- w^2 v^3- w v^3- w^{20} v^2+w^{19} v^2- w^{18} v^2- w^{17} v^2\cr
&+w^{12} v^2+w^{11} v^2- w^{10} v^2- w^9 v^2- w^4 v^2- w^3 v^2- w^2 v^2+w v^2+w^{19} v- w^{18} v\cr
&- w^{17} v- w^{16} v+w^{15} v- w^{14} v- w^{13} v- w^{11} v+w^{10} v- w^9 v+w^7 v+w^6 v\cr
&+w^5 v+w^2 v- v+w^{19}+w^{18}- w^{16}+w^{13}- w^{12}- w^9- w^8+w^7- w^6- w^5\cr
&+w^4- w^3+w^2-1, \cr
\label{app-V-1}\tag{A35}
V=\,& w^{19} v^{20}- w^{18} v^{20}- w^{16} v^{20}+w^{15} v^{20}+w^{14} v^{20}+w^{13} v^{20}+w^{12} v^{20}+w^{11} v^{20}\\
&- w^{10} v^{20}+w^9 v^{20}- w^8 v^{20}- w^7 v^{20}- w^5 v^{20}+w^3 v^{20}- w^2 v^{20}- w v^{20}- w^{20} v^{19}\cr
&- w^{18} v^{19}+w^{17} v^{19}- w^{16} v^{19}- w^{15} v^{19}- w^{14} v^{19}- w^{13} v^{19}- w^{12} v^{19}- w^{11} v^{19}\cr
&+w^9 v^{19}- w^8 v^{19}+w^7 v^{19}+w^6 v^{19}+w^5 v^{19}- w^3 v^{19}+w^2 v^{19}+w v^{19}- v^{19}\cr
&- w^{17} v^{18}- w^{16} v^{18}+w^{14} v^{18}+w^{13} v^{18}- w^{10} v^{18}+w^9 v^{18}+w^8 v^{18}- w^5 v^{18}\cr
&+w^3 v^{18}+w^2 v^{18}- w v^{18}+v^{18}- w^{20} v^{17}- w^{18} v^{17}- w^{17} v^{17}- w^{16} v^{17}+w^{12} v^{17}\cr
&- w^{11} v^{17}+w^{10} v^{17}- w^8 v^{17}- w^6 v^{17}- w^5 v^{17}+w^4 v^{17}+w^3 v^{17}- w v^{17}+w^{20} v^{16}\cr
&- w^{19} v^{16}- w^{18} v^{16}+w^{15} v^{16}- w^{14} v^{16}- w^{12} v^{16}- w^{10} v^{16}+w^8 v^{16}+w^7 v^{16}\cr
&+w^6 v^{16}- w^5 v^{16}+w^4 v^{16}+w^3 v^{16}+w^2 v^{16}+w v^{16}+v^{16}- w^{18} v^{15}- w^{15} v^{15}\cr
&+w^{13} v^{15}+w^{11} v^{15}+w^{10} v^{15}- w^8 v^{15}- w^7 v^{15}- w^6 v^{15}+w^5 v^{15}+w^3 v^{15}+w v^{15}\cr
&- v^{15}+w^{19} v^{14}+w^{15} v^{14}- w^{13} v^{14}- w^{11} v^{14}- w^9 v^{14}- w^7 v^{14}- w^6 v^{14}- w^4 v^{14}\cr
&+w^2 v^{14}- w v^{14}- w^{20} v^{13}+w^{19} v^{13}+w^{17} v^{13}+w^{16} v^{13}- w^{15} v^{13}+w^{14} v^{13}\cr
&+w^{13} v^{13}- w^{12} v^{13}+w^{11} v^{13}+w^{10} v^{13}- w^9 v^{13}- w^4 v^{13}+w^2 v^{13}+w v^{13}- v^{13}\cr
&+w^{20} v^{12}+w^{18} v^{12}- w^{17} v^{12}- w^{15} v^{12}- w^{13} v^{12}- w^9 v^{12}+w^8 v^{12}- w^7 v^{12}\cr
&- w^6 v^{12}- w^5 v^{12}- w^4 v^{12}- w^3 v^{12}- w v^{12}+v^{12}- w^{20} v^{11}+w^{19} v^{11}- w^{18} v^{11}\cr
&- w^{17} v^{11}- w^{16} v^{11}+w^{14} v^{11}- w^{12} v^{11}+w^9 v^{11}+w^8 v^{11}+w^7 v^{11}+w^6 v^{11}\cr
&- w^5 v^{11}+w^4 v^{11}- w^3 v^{11}- w v^{11}+v^{11}+w^{20} v^{10}- w^{19} v^{10}- w^{17} v^{10}+w^{16} v^{10}\cr
&+w^{13} v^{10}- w^{11} v^{10}- w^{10} v^{10}- w^9 v^{10}- w^8 v^{10}- w^6 v^{10}- w^5 v^{10}+w^4 v^{10}- w^3 v^{10}\cr
&- w^2 v^{10}- w v^{10}+v^{10}- w^{18} v^9- w^{17} v^9- w^{16} v^9- w^{15} v^9- w^{13} v^9- w^{12} v^9\cr
&+w^9 v^9- w^7 v^9+w^3 v^9+v^9+w^{20} v^8- w^{18} v^8+w^{17} v^8- w^{16} v^8+w^{15} v^8+w^{14} v^8\cr
&+w^{13} v^8+w^{12} v^8- w^{11} v^8- w^9 v^8- w^6 v^8+w^5 v^8- w^4 v^8+w^3 v^8- w^2 v^8+w^{20} v^7\cr
&+w^{19} v^7- w^{18} v^7+w^{17} v^7- w^{16} v^7- w^{15} v^7+w^{11} v^7- w^{10} v^7- w^7 v^7- w^5 v^7\cr
&+w^4 v^7+w^2 v^7+w v^7- w^{20} v^6- w^{18} v^6+w^{17} v^6- w^{16} v^6+w^{15} v^6- w^{13} v^6\cr
&- w^{11} v^6- w^8 v^6- w^7 v^6- w^6 v^6+w^5 v^6- w^4 v^6+w^3 v^6+w^2 v^6+w v^6+v^6\cr
&- w^{19} v^5+w^{18} v^5- w^{17} v^5- w^{15} v^5- w^{14} v^5+w^{12} v^5- w^{11} v^5+w^{10} v^5- w^9 v^5\cr
&- w^8 v^5- w^6 v^5- w^5 v^5+w^4 v^5- w^3 v^5- w^2 v^5- w v^5- v^5+w^{19} v^4+w^{18} v^4\cr
&- w^{17} v^4+w^{16} v^4+w^{15} v^4+w^{14} v^4- w^{12} v^4+w^{10} v^4+w^8 v^4- w^7 v^4- w^6 v^4\cr
&- w^5 v^4+w^4 v^4+w^2 v^4- w v^4+w^{20} v^3- w^{19} v^3+w^{18} v^3+w^{14} v^3+w^{12} v^3\cr
&- w^{11} v^3- w^9 v^3+w^8 v^3- w^7 v^3+w^6 v^3+w^4 v^3+w^3 v^3- w v^3+v^3+w^{18} v^2\cr
&- w^{17} v^2+w^{16} v^2- w^{11} v^2+w^9 v^2- w^8 v^2- w^7 v^2+w^4 v^2+w^3 v^2- w v^2- v^2\cr
&- w^{20} v- w^{19} v- w^{18} v+w^{17} v- w^{16} v+w^{14} v+w^{13} v+w^{12} v+w^{11} v- w^9 v\cr
&- w^8 v- w^7 v- w^5 v+w^4 v- w^3 v+w^2 v- w v+v- w^{20}- w^{19}- w^{18}+w^{17}\cr
&- w^{15}- w^{14}- w^{12}+w^{10}- w^8+w^6- w^5+w^4- w^2+w- 1. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In , $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A9}\tag{A36}
N=\,& v^6 u^{16}- v^7 u^{15}+v^8 u^{14}- v^6 u^{14}- v^5 u^{14}+v^5 u^{13}+v^4 u^{13}- v^3
u^{13}\\
&+v^{10} u^{12}+v^8 u^{12}- v^7 u^{12}- v^6 u^{12}- v^5 u^{12}- v^4
u^{12}+v^3 u^{12}\cr
&- v^{11} u^{11}- v^9 u^{11}- v^8 u^{11}+v^7 u^{11}+v^6 u^{11}+v^4
u^{11}- v^3 u^{11}\cr
&- v^2 u^{11}+v^{12} u^{10}+v^{10} u^{10}- v^9 u^{10}+v^8
u^{10}+v^5 u^{10}+v u^{10}\cr
&- u^{10}- v^{11} u^9- v^{10} u^9+v^9 u^9- v^8 u^9+v^7
u^9- v^6 u^9+v^5 u^9\cr
&- v^4 u^9- v^3 u^9+v^2 u^9- v u^9+u^9+v^{14} u^8+v^{12} u^8-
v^{11} u^8\cr
&+v^{10} u^8- v^9 u^8- v^8 u^8+v^7 u^8- v^6 u^8- v^5 u^8- v^4 u^8- v^3
u^8\cr
&- v^2 u^8- u^8- v^{15} u^7- v^{12} u^7+v^{11} u^7+v^9 u^7+v^8 u^7- v^6 u^7\cr
&+v^5
u^7- v^3 u^7+v^2 u^7- v u^7+v^{16} u^6- v^{14} u^6- v^{12} u^6+v^{11} u^6\cr
&- v^9
u^6- v^8 u^6- v^7 u^6- v^6 u^6- v^5 u^6- v^4 u^6+v^2 u^6- v^{14} u^5\cr
&+v^{13}
u^5- v^{12} u^5+v^{10} u^5+v^9 u^5- v^8 u^5+v^7 u^5- v^6 u^5+v^5 u^5\cr
&+v^4 u^5+v^{13}
u^4- v^{12} u^4+v^{11} u^4- v^9 u^4- v^8 u^4- v^6 u^4+v^5 u^4\cr
&+v^4 u^4- v^{13}
u^3+v^{12} u^3- v^{11} u^3- v^9 u^3- v^8 u^3- v^7 u^3- v^{11} u^2\cr
&+v^9 u^2- v^8
u^2+v^7 u^2+v^6 u^2+v^{10} u- v^9 u- v^7 u- v^{10}+v^9- v^8. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In , $$\begin{aligned}
\label{app-h1-v0}\tag{A37}
\bar h_1=\,& -u^{10} w^7+u^{10} w^5- u^{10} w^4+u^{10} w+u^9 w^7- u^9 w^5+u^9 w^2+u^9 w+u^9+u^8 w^6\\
&- u^8
w^4+u^8 w^3- u^7 w^7+u^7 w^6- u^7 w^3+u^7 w+u^7- u^6 w^6+u^6 w^4+u^6 w^3\cr
&- u^6 w^2- u^6 w+u^5
w^7+u^5 w^5- u^5 w^4+u^5 w^3+u^5 w^2+u^5- u^4 w^6- u^4 w^5\cr
&+u^4 w^3+u^4 w^2- u^4 w+u^3 w^7+u^3
w^6- u^3 w^5+u^3 w^4+u^3 w^2- u^3 w- u^3\cr
&+u^2 w^5- u^2 w^4- u^2 w^3+u^2 w^2- u^2 w- u w^7- u
w^6+u w^5+u w^4- u w^2\cr
&- u w- w^8- w^6- w^5- w^4+1, \cr
\label{app-h2-v0}\tag{A38}
\bar h_2=\,& u^{10} w^5- u^{10} w^3- u^{10} w+u^{10}-
u^9 w^5+u^9 w^4- u^9 w^3+u^9 w^2- u^9 w+u^8 w^5\\
&- u^8 w^3- u^8 w- u^8- u^7 w^5- u^7 w^4- u^7
w^2+u^7 w+u^6 w^5+u^6 w^3+u^6 w\cr
&- u^5 w^5+u^5 w^4- u^5 w^3+u^5 w^2+u^4 w^5+u^4 w^4- u^4 w^3- u^4
w- u^3 w^5\cr
&+u^3 w^4+u^3 w^3+u^3 w^2- u^3 w+u^2 w^5- u^2 w^3+u^2 w^2- u^2+u w^5+u w^4\cr
&+u w^2- u
w+w^9+w^5- w^4- w^3+w^2- 1.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In , $$\begin{aligned}
\label{app-res-h1-L}\tag{A39}
R_1=\,& -(w+1)^2 (w-1) (w^3+w^2- w+1) (w^7- w^6+w^5- w^4+w+1)\\
&\cdot (w^8-
w^7+w^5- w^4- w^3+w-1) (w^{11}+w^8- w^7+w^3- w+1)\cr
&\cdot (w^{17}+w^{16}-
w^{13}+w^7- w^6- w^5+w^3+w^2- w+1)\cr
&\cdot (w^{18}+w^{17}- w^{14}+w^{13}+w^{12}-
w^{11}+w^{10}- w^9- w^7- w^6+w^4+w^3+w^2+1), \cr
\label{app-res-h2-L}\tag{A40}
R_2=\,& (w+1)^2 (w^{11}+w^8- w^7+w^3-
w+1)\\
&\cdot (w^{19}- w^{17}- w^{13}- w^{12}+w^{11}+w^9- w^8+w^6- w^4+w^2+1)\cr
&\cdot
(w^{31}- w^{29}- w^{28}+w^{27}- w^{25}- w^{22}- w^{21}- w^{19}+w^{17}+w^{16}- w^{15}\cr
& \kern1em -w^{14}- w^{13}- w^{11}+w^{10}- w^9+w^8+w^7- w^6+w^4+w^2- w-1). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In , $$\begin{aligned}
\label{app-h1-u0}\tag{A41}
\bar h_1=\,& v^{10} w^7- v^{10} w^6+v^{10} w^5- v^{10} w^4- v^{10} w^3- v^{10} w^2+v^{10} w- v^9
w^7+v^9 w^6\\
&- v^9 w^5- v^9 w^4- v^9 w^3+v^9 w^2+v^9 w+v^9+v^8 w^6- v^8 w^5+v^8 w^3- v^8 w^2\cr
&+v^7
w^7+v^7 w^5- v^7 w^4- v^6 w^6- v^6 w^5+v^6 w+v^6- v^5 w^7+v^5 w^6- v^5 w^4\cr
&- v^5 w^3+v^5
w^2+v^5 w+v^5- v^4 w^6+v^4 w^4+v^4 w^3+v^4 w- v^3 w^7- v^3 w^6\cr
&- v^3 w^5+v^3 w^4+v^3 w^3- v^3
w^2- v^3 w+v^3+v^2 w^5- v^2 w^4+v^2 w- v^2+v w^7\cr
&+v w^6+v w^5- v w^3+v w^2- v w- v- w^8-
w^7+w^6- w^5+w^4- w^3+w^2- w, \cr
\label{app-h2-u0}\tag{A42}
\bar h_2=\,& v^{10} w^5+v^{10} w^4- v^{10} w^2+v^{10} w- v^9 w^5+v^9 w^4- v^9
w^3+v^9+v^8 w^5+v^8 w^4\\
&- v^8 w^2+v^8 w- v^8- v^7 w^5+v^7 w^3- v^7 w^2- v^7 w- v^7+v^6 w^5+v^6
w^4- v^6 w^3\cr
&- v^6 w^2- v^5 w^5+v^5 w^4- v^5 w^3+v^5 w+v^4 w^5+v^4 w^3- v^4 w^2- v^4 w- v^3
w^5\cr
&+v^3 w^4+v^3 w^3- v^3+v^2 w^5+v^2 w^4+v^2 w^2+v^2 w+v w^5- v w^3+v w^2+v w\cr
&+v+w^9+w^5- w^4-
w^3+w^2. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In , $$\begin{aligned}
\label{app-res-h1-Lbar}\tag{A43}
R_1=\,& w (w^6+w^5+w^4+w^3- w+1)\\
&\cdot (w^{11}+w^{10}+w^9- w^8+w^7- w^5+w^4+w^3+w^2-
w+1)\cr
&\cdot (w^{21}- w^{20}- w^{19}+w^{18}- w^{17}+w^{16}+w^{15}- w^{13}- w^{12}-
w^{11}+w^{10}- w^9\cr
&\kern1em - w^7+w^6+w^5+w^4- w^3+w+1)\cr
&\cdot (w^{71}+w^{70}+w^{68}- w^{67}+w^{66}-
w^{65}- w^{64}- w^{63}+w^{61}+w^{59}- w^{57}- w^{56}\cr
&\kern1em - w^{53}+w^{51}- w^{50}-
w^{48}+w^{47}+w^{46}+w^{45}+w^{43}- w^{42}+w^{40}- w^{38}\cr
&\kern1em - w^{37}- w^{36}- w^{35}+w^{33}-
w^{32}+w^{29}- w^{27}+w^{26}- w^{25}- w^{24}+w^{21}\cr
&\kern1em +w^{20}-
w^{18}+w^{17}+w^{13}+w^{12}+w^{10}+w^9+w^8+w^7+w^6- w^5+w^3- w-1), \cr
\label{app-res-h2-Lbar}\tag{A44}
R_2=\,& w^2 (w^2-
w-1) (w^{11}+w^{10}+w^9- w^8+w^7- w^5+w^4+w^3+w^2- w+1)\\
&\cdot (w^{105}-
w^{104}+w^{103}- w^{101}+w^{100}- w^{99}- w^{97}- w^{96}+w^{95}- w^{94}- w^{93}\cr
&\kern1em - w^{92}-
w^{91}- w^{90}+w^{89}+w^{87}+w^{86}+w^{85}- w^{84}- w^{83}+w^{82}-
w^{80}\cr
&\kern1em +w^{79}+w^{78}+w^{77}+w^{76}- w^{74}- w^{73}- w^{72}+w^{70}+w^{69}+w^{68}+w^{67}\cr
&\kern1em -w^{66}+w^{65}+w^{64}+w^{63}- w^{62}+w^{60}- w^{59}+w^{58}+w^{57}- w^{56}- w^{55}\cr
&\kern1em -w^{54}+w^{53}- w^{51}- w^{50}+w^{47}+w^{44}+w^{43}- w^{42}+w^{38}- w^{37}- w^{36}\cr
&\kern1em +w^{32}-
w^{31}+w^{29}- w^{28}+w^{27}- w^{23}+w^{22}+w^{21}- w^{20}- w^{19}- w^{18}\cr
&\kern1em -w^{17}+w^{13}+w^{11}+w^9- w^8+w^7- w^6- w^4- w^3- w^2- w-1). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
[99]{}
D. Bartoli, [*On a conjecture about a class of permutation trinomials*]{}, Finite Fields Appl. [**52**]{} (2018), 30 – 50.
D. Bartoli and M. Giulietti, [*Permutation polynomials, fractional polynomials, and algebraic curves*]{}, Finite Fields Appl. [**51**]{} (2018), 1 – 16.
D. Bartoli and L. Quoos, [*Permutation polynomials of the type $x^rg(x^s)$ over $\Bbb F_{q^{2n}}$*]{}, Des. Codes Cryptogr. [**86**]{} (2018),1589 – 1599.
C. Ding, L. Qu, Q. Wang, J. Yuan, P. Yuan, [*Permutation trinomials over finite fields with even characteristic*]{}, SIAM J. Discrete Math. [**29**]{} (2015), 79 – 92.
R. Gupta and R. K. Sharma, [*Some new classes of permutation trinomials over finite fields with even characteristic*]{}, Finite Fields Appl. [**41**]{} (2016), 89 – 96.
X. Hou, [*Determination of a type of permutation trinomials over finite fields, II*]{}, Finite Fields Appl. [**35**]{} (2015), 16 – 35.
X. Hou, [*On a class of permutation trinomials in characteristic 2*]{}, arXiv:1803.04071.
J. B. Lee and Y. H. Park, [*Some permuting trinomials over finite fields*]{}, Acta Math. Sci. (English Ed.) [**17**]{} (1997), 250 – 254.
N. Li, T. Helleseth, [*New permutation trinomials from Niho exponents over finite fields with even characteristic*]{}, arXiv:1606.03768.
N. Li and T. Helleseth, [*Several classes of permutation trinomials from Niho exponents*]{}, Cryptogr. Commun. [**9**]{} (2017), 693 – 705.
Y. H. Park and J. B. Lee, [*Permutation polynomials and group permutation polynomials*]{}, Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. [**63**]{} (2001), 67 – 74.
H. Stichtenoth, [*Algebraic Function Fields and Codes*]{}, Springer, Berlin, 1993.
Z. Tu and X. Zeng, [*A class of permutation trinomials over finite fields of odd characteristic*]{}, Cryptography and Communications, available online May 1, 2018.
Z. Tu and X. Zeng, [*Two classes of permutation trinomials with Niho exponents*]{}, Finite Fields Appl. [**53**]{} (2018), 99 – 112.
Z. Tu, X. Zeng, C. Li, T. Helleseth, [*A class of new permutation trinomials*]{}, Finite Fields Appl. [**50**]{} (2018), 178 – 195.
Q. Wang, [*Cyclotomic mapping permutation polynomials over finite fields*]{}, in [*Sequences, Subsequences, and Consequences*]{}, S.W. Golomb, G. Gong, T. Helleseth, H.-Y. Song, (Eds.), pp. 119 – 128, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci., vol. 4893, Springer, Berlin, 2007.
K. S. Williams, [*Note on cubics over $\text{\rm GF}(2^n)$ and $\text{\rm GF}(3^n)$*]{}, J. Number Theory [**7**]{} (1975), 361 – 365.
M. E. Zieve, [*On some permutation polynomials over $\Bbb F_q$ of the form $x^r h(x^{(q-1)/d})$*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**137**]{} (2009), 2209 – 2216.
[^1]: $\dagger$ Research partially supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China under grant No. 61761166010.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present our results from the Southern Galactic Plane Survey, an effort to map the fourth quadrant of the Milky Way in linear polarization at a frequency of 1.4 GHz and at a resolution of 1–2 arcmin. These data are a powerful probe of both the turbulence and large-scale structure of magneto-ionic gas, and have revealed a variety of new features in the interstellar medium.'
address: |
$^1$Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge MA 02138, USA\
$^2$University of Minnesota, Minnesota MN 55455, USA\
$^3$Australia Telescope National Facility, Epping NSW 1710, Australia\
$^4$Boston University, Boston MA 02215, USA\
$^5$University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
author:
- |
Bryan M. Gaensler$^1$, J. M. Dickey$^2$, N. M. McClure-Griffiths$^3$,\
N. S. Bizunok$^4$, A. J. Green$^5$
bibliography:
- 'journals.bib'
- 'modrefs.bib'
- 'psrrefs.bib'
title: High Resolution Polarimetry of the Inner Galaxy
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
The Milky Way was the first celestial radio source discovered, and was subsequently one of the first sources to be detected in linear polarization. There are two sources of this polarization: discrete objects such as supernova remnants (SNRs), and a diffuse polarized background produced by the relativistic component of the interstellar medium (ISM). All of this emission undergoes Faraday rotation as it propagates towards us, either in the source itself or in intervening material. With sufficiently high angular and frequency resolution, we can use the properties of this polarized emission to map out the distribution of ionized gas and magnetic fields in individual sources and in the ambient ISM. Only recently have instruments and techniques advanced to a point where such studies are feasible [@gld+99; @hkd00; @wdj+93].
Motivated by the spectacular single-dish polarization surveys of Duncan et al [@dhjs97; @drrf99], we have made polarimetric images of the entire fourth quadrant of the Galaxy with the Australia Telescope Compact Array (ATCA). These data have been taken as part of the Southern Galactic Plane Survey (SGPS; [@mgd+01]). While the primary focus of the SGPS is to study the Galactic distribution of , the ATCA simultaneously receives full polarimetric continuum data, which have allowed us to map out the distribution of linearly polarized emission in the survey region.
While the full survey has now been completed, a detailed analysis has only been carried out on a 28-deg$^2$ test region, covering the range $325\fdg5 < l < 332\fdg5$, $-0\fdg5 < b < +3\fdg5$. We here summarize the main results of this analysis; this work is described in more detail by Gaensler et al [@gdm+00].
Observations and Reduction {#observations-and-reduction .unnumbered}
==========================
The ATCA is a 6-element synthesis telescope, located near Narrabri, NSW, Australia. Observations of the test region of the SGPS were carried out in nine observing runs in 1997 and 1998, and comprised 190 separate telescope pointings (see [@mgd+01] for details). Data were recorded in nine spectral channels spread across 96 MHz of bandwidth and centered at a frequency of 1384 MHz. The two sources MRC B1438–481 and MRC B1613–586 were observed over a wide range in parallactic angle in order to solve for the instrumental polarization characteristics of each antenna [@shb96]. For each spectral channel, images of the field in Stokes $I$, $Q$, $U$ and $V$ were deconvolved jointly using the maximum entropy algorithm [PMOSMEM]{} [@sbd99] and then smoothed to a resolution of $\sim$1 arcmin. The final sensitivity in each image is $\la0.5$ mJy beam$^{-1}$.
Images of linearly polarized intensity, $L = (Q^2 +
U^2)^{1/2}$, linearly polarized position angle, $\Theta = \frac{1}{2}
\tan^{-1}(U/Q)$, and uncertainty in position angle, $\Delta\Theta =
\sigma_{Q, U}/2L$, were then formed from each pair of $Q$ and $U$ images. The nine $L$ maps (one per spectral channel) were then averaged together to make a final image of $L$ for the entire test region, while the nine $\Theta$ and $\Delta\Theta$ maps were used to derive an image of the rotation measure (RM) over the field.
Results {#results .unnumbered}
=======
In Figure \[fig\_field\] we show images of $I$ and $L$ from both our 1.4-GHz ATCA observations and from the 2.4-GHz Parkes survey of Duncan et al [@dhjs97] (resolution $10\farcm4$). The total intensity images show the presence of SNRs and regions (see [@mgd+01] for further discussion). Although the interferometric ATCA observations are not sensitive to the diffuse emission seen by Parkes, it is clear that the same features are present in both data-sets.
At first glance it seems that the $L$ images have very little in common with the Stokes $I$ emission. In particular, the ATCA $L$ image is dominated by diffuse polarization spread all over the field of view, composed of discrete patches separated by narrow “canals” of reduced polarization. While none of this emission is correlated with total intensity, there does seem to be a good match between the brightest polarized regions of the ATCA and Parkes data, despite the differing frequencies and resolutions of these data-sets. Using the images of $\Theta$ and $\Delta\Theta$, we can determine the variation of polarization position angle with frequency wherever we detect polarized emission. The resulting RMs are generally small and negative, with a mean RM for the entire field of $-12.9\pm0.1$ rad m$^{-2}$; 50% of the RMs have magnitudes smaller than $\pm$25 rad m$^{-2}$ and 98% are smaller than $\pm$100 rad m$^{-2}$.
The ATCA $L$ image reveals two large voids of reduced polarization, each elliptical and several degrees in extent. One void is centered on $(l, b) = (332\fdg4,
+1\fdg4)$ (“void 1”) and the other on $(328\fdg2,
-0\fdg5)$ (“void 2”); both voids are also seen in the 2.4-GHz Parkes polarization map. The RMs around the edges of these voids range up to $\pm400$ rad m$^{-2}$, in distinction to the low RMs seen over the rest of the field.
A careful examination shows one marked correspondence between the ATCA Stokes $I$ and $L$ images: at $(326.3, +0.8)$, the bright region RCW 94 shows reduced polarization towards its interior, and is further surrounded by a halo in which no polarization at all is seen. This is shown in more detail in Figure \[fig\_rcw\].
Finally, of the numerous unresolved sources distributed across the field, 21 of these sources show detectable linear polarization. The RMs for these sources fall in the range –1400 rad m$^{-2}$ to +200 rad m$^{-2}$.
Discussion {#discussion .unnumbered}
==========
Diffuse Emission {#diffuse-emission .unnumbered}
----------------
We first note that the incomplete $u-v$ coverage of an interferometer affects images of polarization in complicated ways. While it is physically required that $L \le I$, and we generally expect that structures seen in $L$ might correspond to similar structures in $I$, neither situation will be generally observed in interferometric data. This is because an interferometer can not detect structures larger than a certain size, corresponding to the closest spacings between its antenna elements (in the case of the ATCA, this maximum scale of $\sim35'$). A source larger than this maximum scale will not be seen in Stokes I; if it is also a uniformly polarized source, it will not be detected in polarization either. However, magnetic field structure within the source, plus variations in the Faraday rotation along different lines-of-sight, can introduce power in Stokes $Q$ and $U$ on smaller scales, to which the interferometer is sensitive. We thus can often observe complicated structures in polarization which have no counterpart in total intensity [@gldt98; @gld+99; @hkd00; @wdj+93].
Clearly such an effect is occurring here, and is producing virtually all the linear polarization seen in Figure \[fig\_field\]. We can crudely divide up the diffuse polarization we see into two components.
The brightest polarization seen with the ATCA matches well the bright polarized structures seen with Parkes. Since the amount of Faraday-induced polarization is very strongly dependent on both resolution and frequency, the fact that two such disparate data-sets show similar structures implies that these bright polarized structures are intrinsic to the emitting regions. By comparing the RMs observed for this emission to those observed for pulsars in this part of the sky, we can conclude that the distance to this emission is in the range 1.3–4.5 kpc. The depolarizing effects of RCW 94 (discussed further below) imply that the polarized emission is $>$3 kpc distant, while the lack of depolarization against other regions gives an upper limit of $6.5$ kpc. Dickey [@dic97] has made absorption measurements against this emission to derive a lower limit on its distance of 2 kpc. Taking into account all these constraints, we argue that the mean distance to the source of polarized emission is $3.5\pm1.0$ kpc, corresponding to the Crux spiral arm of our Galaxy.
The rest of the ATCA field is filled with fainter diffuse polarization, which does not have any counterpart in the Parkes data. This emission is best explained as being due to Faraday rotation in foreground material. The RMs measured for this emission imply that they are caused by foreground clouds of RM $\sim 5$ rad m$^{-2}$, consistent with the conclusions made by Wieringa et al [@wdj+93].
Voids in Polarization {#voids-in-polarization .unnumbered}
---------------------
To the best of our knowledge, voids in polarization such as those described here have not been previously reported. There are two possible explanations to account for these structures: either they represent regions where the level of intrinsic polarization is low, or they are the result of propagation through a foreground object, whose properties have depolarized the emission at both 1.4 and 2.4 GHz.
If the voids are intrinsic to the emitting regions, then the distance of 3.5 kpc inferred above implies that they are hundreds of parsecs across — it is hard to see what could produce such uniformly low polarized intensity across such large regions. We thus think it unlikely that the voids are intrinsic to the emitting regions.
We thus favor the possibility that the voids are caused by depolarizing effects in foreground material. We have considered in detail the various ways in which foreground Faraday rotation can produce the observed structure, and can rule out bandwidth and gradient depolarization as possible mechanisms (see [@gdm+00] for details).
The only remaining possibility is that depolarization in the voids is due to beam depolarization, in which the RM varies randomly on small scales. We have developed a detailed model for “void 1” to confirm this. We consider void 1 to be a caused by a sphere of uniform electron density $n_e$ cm$^{-3}$, centered on $(332\fdg5, +1\fdg2)$ with a radius of $1\fdg4$ and at a distance to us of $d$ kpc. Within the sphere, we suppose that there are random and ordered components to the magnetic field, and that these two components have identical amplitudes $B$ $\mu$G. The ordered component is uniformly oriented at an angle $\theta$ to the line of sight. We assume that the random component is coherent within individual cells of size $l$ pc, but that the orientation from cell to cell is random. Uniformly polarized rays which propagate through a different series of cells will experience differing levels of Faraday rotation, resulting in beam depolarization when averaged over many different paths.
By calculating the properties of the polarized signal which emerges after propagating through this source, we find that we can account for the observed properties of void 1 if $n_e \sim 20$ cm$^{-3}$, $B
\sim 5$ $\mu$G, $\theta \ga 80^\circ$, $d \sim 300$ pc and $l \sim
0.2$ pc (see [@gdm+00] for details). These properties are consistent with those of an region of comparatively low emission measure. Indeed Figure \[fig\_halpha\] demonstrates that H$\alpha$ emission fills void 1, its morphology and perimeter matching exactly to that of the void. It is interesting to note that the O9V star HD 144695 is very close to the projected center of void 1, and is at a distance of $300\pm160$ pc. The radius of the Strömgren sphere which this star would produce is consistent with the extent of the void. It is thus reasonable to propose that the star is embedded in and powers the surrounding ionized bubble.
Two properties of the voids which our simple model cannot account for are the requirement that the uniform component of the magnetic field be largely oriented in the plane of the sky, but that we generally observe coherent regions of large RM (of the order of a few hundred rad m$^{-2}$) around the edges of the voids. We suggest that both these results can be explained by the field geometry which arises during the expansion phase of an region as it interacts with surrounding material. This produces a magnetic field perpendicular to the line of sight over most of the void, but which is parallel to the line of sight (and can thus potentially produce high RMs) around the perimeter.
Depolarization seen towards RCW 94 {#depolarization-seen-towards-rcw94 .unnumbered}
----------------------------------
The reduced polarization seen coincident with RCW 94 in Figure \[fig\_rcw\] presumably results from beam depolarization, just as for the region argued to produce void 1. However, the effects of beam depolarization are expected to be weakest around the edges of the source, and thus cannot account for the halo of complete depolarization surrounding RCW 94. We rather account for this depolarization halo by requiring the electron density to be approximately constant across RCW 94, but to fall off rapidly beyond the boundaries of the source. This produces a sharp gradient in RM around the edges of the source, resulting in complete depolarization.
The presence of significant CO emission at the same position and systemic velocity as for RCW 94 [@bact89] suggests that the region is interacting with a molecular cloud. This possibility is supported by observations of the region, which show that RCW 94 is embedded in a shell of emission, which is further surrounded by a ring of decreased emission [@mdg+00b]. McClure-Griffiths et al [@mdg+00b; @mgd+01] argue that this structure in confirms that RCW 94 is embedded in a molecular cloud, the shell of emission resulting from H$_2$ molecules dissociated by the region, and the surrounding region of reduced corresponding to regions of undisturbed molecular material. Simulations of regions evolving within molecular clouds ([@rtf95] and references therein) show that for certain forms of the density profile within the parent cloud, the shock driven into the cloud by the embedded expanding region can produce a halo of partially ionized material around the latter’s perimeter, which would produce the fall-off in $n_e$ required to produce the depolarization halo observed.
Point Sources {#point-sources .unnumbered}
-------------
With the exception of one source known to be a pulsar, the polarized point sources in our field are presumably extragalactic, and their RMs thus probe the entire line-of-sight through the Galaxy. When combined with information from pulsar RMs, we can use these data to constrain the geometry of the overall Galactic magnetic field. So far we have compared the RMs in our test region to those expected for a bisymmetric spiral configuration, and have found that pitch angles in the lower end of the range allowed by pulsars ($p\sim-4.5^\circ$) are favored [@dom+01]. We are in the process of carrying out a more detailed study using the RMs of 163 background sources from the entire SGPS, in which we are comparing these measurements to the distributions expected for a wider variety of geometries and model parameters (Bizunok et al, in preparation).
Conclusions {#conclusions .unnumbered}
===========
The ATCA’s sensitivity, spatial resolution and spectral flexibility have allowed us to study linear polarization and Faraday rotation from the inner Galaxy in an unprecedented detail. Even though the test region we have considered covers less than 7% of the full survey, we have been able to identify a variety of distinct polarimetric phenomena, and have used these to map out both global and turbulent structures in the magneto-ionized ISM. We anticipate that our analysis of the full SGPS will result in a comprehensive study of magnetic fields and turbulence in the inner Galaxy.
The Australia Telescope is funded by the Commonwealth of Australia for operation as a National Facility managed by CSIRO. H$\alpha$ data were taken from the Southern H-Alpha Sky Survey Atlas (SHASSA), which is supported by the National Science Foundation. B.M.G. is supported by a Clay Fellowship awarded by the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, while J.M.D. acknowledges the support of NSF grant AST-9732695 to the University of Minnesota.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study and compare equilibrium and aging dynamics on both sides of the ideal glass transition temperature $T_{MCT}$. In the context of a mean field model, we observe that all dynamical behaviors are determined by the energy distance $\epsilon$ to threshold - i.e. marginally stable - states. We furthermore show the striking result that after eliminating age and temperature at the benefit of $\epsilon$, the scaling behaviors above and below $T_{MCT}$ are identical, reconciling [*en passant*]{} the mean field results with experimental observations. In the vicinity of the transition, we show that there is an exact mapping between equilibrium dynamics and aging dynamics. This leads to very natural interpretations and quantitative predictions for several remarkable features of aging dynamics: waiting time-temperature superposition, interrupted aging, dynamical heterogeneity.'
author:
- Alexandre Lefèvre
title: 'Aging is - almost - like equilibrium'
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
Glassy systems are characterized by very slow relaxations and non-equilibrium behavior. In general, there is however a high temperature (or low density, pressure, etc) equilibrium phase where all quantities relax to their equilibrium value in finite time. Between the two is the putative glass transition, which has been identified as a true singularity in the free energy in spin glasses or in the dynamic free energy in mean field models of glass formers. The main predictions of mean field models concerning the glass phase are the existence of an effective temperature $T_{eff}$ at which the slowest degrees of freedom are “thermalized” and a specific form for the decay of the correlators at long times. Although effective temperatures have been reported in experiments and numerical simulations [@makse; @kob], the time evolution predicted by mean field models is in general not observed. There is thus still a deep challenge in interpreting the measurements of slow relaxations in the glass phase as well as in describing the crossover between aging and equilibrium dynamics which take place when one is patient enough to wait for the system to reach equilibrium. Among many interesting features of glassy materials, waiting time-temperature superposition (WTTS) has been reported in various glass formers [@struick; @oconnell; @lunk].
The aim of this Letter is, in the context of a mean field model, to answer the following important questions. Are mean field predictions compatible with experimental observations ? Are slow dynamics in the glass phase intrinsically different from slow dynamics in the equilibrium phase ? How does the crossover from aging to equilibrium occur at the critical point ? What is the origin of the observed WTTS ? The answer to these questions we will shed new light on the central role played by the relaxation of the energy.
The Letter is organized as follows: we first describe the model and the old solution of its dynamics, and then improve it with some new results. Next, we establish a correspondence between slow dynamics at equilibrium close to $T_{MCT}$ and aging dynamics below $T_{MCT}$, which becomes an exact mapping at $T_{MCT}$. The consequences of this correspondence, WTTS, interrupted aging and dynamical heterogeneity, are then discussed. Some results presented here follow from long and technical derivations, which will not be given here and will be detailed somewhere else [@companion].
The mean field picture of aging
===============================
We start discussing the dynamics of the spherical p-spin model, where exact statements can be made [@cuku]. It can be seen as a ground for establishing rigorous results within the landscape approach following Goldstein [@goldstein], and developed by many authors - see [@cavagna; @sastry] for instance. The model consists of $N$ variables $S_i$ subject to the constraint $\sum_i S_i^2=N$, with Hamiltonian $H=\sum_{i_1,\cdots,i_p}J_{i_1,\cdots,i_p}S_{i_1}\cdots S_{i_p}$, where the $J$’s are quenched Gaussian random variables. Explicit equations can be written for the dynamics of correlators $C(t,t')=\langle S_i(t)S_i(t')\rangle$ and response functions $R(t,t')=\langle\delta S_i(t)/\delta h_i(t')\rangle$ to an external field. The solution of these equations, which can be found in [@cuku], captures the features of glassy dynamics, where two well separated times scale emerge, corresponding to different kinds of degrees of freedom, some - ”local” - responding as in equilibrium, and others - ”structural” - being out of equilibrium. In the equilibrium time sector, fluctuation dissipation theorem (FDT) holds. In the long time aging sector, FDT does not hold, but instead a modified form of it, where the bath temperature $T$ has to be replaced by an effective temperature $T_{eff}>T$ which can be computed explicitly. A fine analysis shows that slow degrees of freedom are indeed thermalized at $T_{eff}$ rather than $T$, coming from the contribution of the structural degrees of freedom to the entropy at some energy $E_{Th}$. The threshold energy $E_{Th}$ is the energy separating unstable and stable states, and corresponds to the asymptotic energy: at long times, a glassy system is close to marginal stability. In the equilibrium phase, the energy is $E_{eq}(T)$ is above $E_{Th}(T_{MCT})$, and at the approach of $T_{MCT}$, the system gets closer to the threshold and slows down, almost trapped by marginally stable states. Similarly, in the glass phase, where the equilibrium energy is below the threshold, the system loses equilibrium when it gets close to $E_{Th}(T)$ and thus ages. In both cases, the closer the system is from the threshold level, the slower it is [@laloux]. Before making this more precise, we briefly recall the known scalings for the correlator $C(t,t_w)$ and the response function $R(t,t_w)$, using as usual $\tau=t-t_w$, in the equilibrium and glass phases [@cuku].
The old results
---------------
In the equilibrium phase, i.e. $T=T_{MCT}+\epsilon$, there are two characteristic time scales, the $\beta$-decay around the plateau and the $\alpha$-relaxation [@goetze]: $\tau_\beta(\epsilon)=\epsilon^{-1/2a}$ and $\tau_\alpha(\epsilon)=\epsilon^{-\gamma}$, $\gamma=1/2a+1/2b$, where $a$ and $b$ are well known MCT exponents. There, the scalings for $C$ are, in order: $C(t,t_w)=q_c+\sqrt{\epsilon}c_\beta(\tau/\tau_\beta)$ and $C(t,t_w)=q_cc_\alpha(\tau/\tau_\alpha)$, where $q_c$ is the non-ergodicity parameter at $T_{MCT}$.
In the glass phase $T<T_{MCT}$, two characteristic time sectors have also been identified [@cuku]. The first time sector is stationary: when $\tau\ll t_w$, there is time translation invariance (TTI): $C(t,t_w)=C_{ST}(\tau)$ and FDT is still valid: $R(t,t_w)=\frac{1}{T}\frac{\partial C(t,t_w)}{\partial t_w}$. The second - aging - time sector corresponds to $\tau\sim t_w$ [@incorrect]. There, FDT must be modified: $R(t,t_w)=\frac{1}{T_{eff}}\frac{\partial C(t,t_w)}{\partial t_w}$ and the scaling is $C(t,t_w)={{\cal C}}(h(t_w)/h(t))$. An interesting but unpleasant feature is that the analysis of the aging equations at infinite $t_w$ is not sufficient to determine $h(t)$ [@cuku], which has remained unknown until recently. From this point of view, equilibrium and aging dynamics seem to differ strongly. We now improve an analysis made recently of the dynamical equations at large but finite $t_w$ [@andreanov] and show that in fact both phases are very similar.
New results about the aging regime
----------------------------------
Recently, it was shown that for $T<T_{MCT}$, aging actually sets in around the plateau [@kim; @andreanov], a time sector which is usually just considered as the matching point of the TTI and aging sectors. It was shown that in this regime, the correlators have a scaling form $C(t,t_w)=q+t_w^{-\alpha}g(\tau/t_w^\beta)$, where the exponents are related through $\alpha=\beta a$. In addition, matching with the aging regime, the uncertainty on the function $h(t)$ was considerably reduced to $h(t)=\exp\left(A\frac{t^{1-\mu}}{1-\mu}\right)$, where $A$ is a constant which can be safely absorbed into the relaxation time and set to $1$, while the aging exponent $\mu\leq 1$ verifies $\mu b=\alpha+b \beta$ and now $a$ and $b$ are aging MCT exponents. Remark that $\mu\leq 1$ is required for this solution to be consistent. Situations where this occurs have been reported in various experiments, e.g. [@viasnoff]. Values of $\mu$ exceeding $1$ (super-aging, see e.g. [@ronsin]) are the signature of a different relaxation mechanism. After this analysis, the complete solution is still to be found, as the exponents are unknown although all determined by $\alpha$. However, interestingly, in the same time the energy was shown to relax as $E(t)=E_{Th}+E_2 t^{-2\alpha}$, meaning that the whole slowness of the correlators is actually encoded in the energy relaxation towards the threshold level. This is remarkable and will lead to the striking correspondence between equilibrium and aging dynamics, which we shall establish below. Last, but not least, the scaling of the response function is $R(t,t_w)=-t_w^{-\alpha-\beta}w'(\tau/t_w^\beta)/T$ and the ratio $X(y)=w(y)/g(y)$ interpolates smoothly between $X(-\infty)=1$ and $X(\infty)=X=T/T_{eff}$, showing that all interesting features of the aging regime already occur in the plateau regime, which corresponds to the time scales where motion propagates from local to structural degrees of freedom.
Aging is like equilibrium
=========================
We now analyze further and improve these results, in order to obtain a unified picture of equilibrium and glass phases. First, we recall the simplest of the two equations verified by the scaling functions $g$ and $w$ around the plateau [@andreanov] (where $x_0$ is such that $g(x_0)=0$): $$\label{eq:g}
\begin{split}
\psi(x)+\int_{x_0}^xdy\, \frac{w'(y) g(y)}{T_{eff}}=\psi(x_0), \\
\psi(x)=w(x)^2+\int_0^x dy\,w'(y)\left(w(x-y)-w(x)\right)
\end{split}$$ When $T=T_{MCT}$, $T=T_{eff}$, and Eq. (\[eq:g\]) reduces to the equation for the scaling function $c_\beta$ of equilibrium dynamics [@goetze]. Second, writing $h(t)=\exp\phi(t)$, it is easy to verify that in order to have ${{\cal C}}(h(t_w)/h(t))$ be of order $1$, one needs that $\tau\sim \phi'(t_w)=t_w^\mu$. This has an important consequence: the scaling ${{\cal C}}(h(t_w)/h(t))$ with a stretched exponential $h(t)$ is in general very hard to observe except in the p-spin model [@kim], and in the large $t_w$ limit it differs only through tiny asymptotic corrections to the observed scaling $C(t,t_w)=\tilde{{{\cal C}}}(\tau/t_w^\mu)$. This explains the many reported discrepancies between mean field predictions and measurements [@makse; @kob]. Third, and more strikingly, the aging relaxation can also be related to the scaling function of the $\alpha$-regime in the equilibrium phase, [*at all temperatures*]{}. Indeed, the scaling function ${{\cal C}}$ was found in [@cuku] to verify $$\label{eq:cag}
\begin{split}
qX \int_\lambda^1d\lambda'\,\frac{d }{d\lambda'}{{\cal C}}(\lambda')^{p-1}{{\cal C}}\left(\frac{\lambda}{ \lambda'}\right)=\\
(p-1)(1-q){{\cal C}}(\lambda)-{{\cal C}}(\lambda)^{p-1}(1-q+qX).
\end{split}$$ We now show that the solution of this equation is in fact a familiar function of the equilibrium phase. Writing $\lambda=\exp(-\tau)$, one gets, after a bit of algebra: $$\label{eq:ag2}
{{\cal D}}(t)+\frac{pq_c^{p-1}}{2T_{MCT}^2}\int_0^\tau dt \,{{\cal D}}^{p-1}(t){{\cal D}}'(\tau-t)=0,$$ with ${{\cal D}}(x)={{\cal C}}(\exp(-x))$, which is exactly the equation verified by $c_\alpha$ [@goetze; @remark]. Using $h(t)\approx\exp\left(\tau/t_w^\mu\right)$, and remarking that the small $\tau$ behavior must match the $\beta$-regime, we can determine unambigously ${{\cal D}}$, leading to: $C(t,t_w)=q c_\alpha\left(\tau/\tau_\alpha(t_w)\right)$, where $\tau_\alpha(t_w)\propto t_w^\mu$.
Mapping equilibrium onto aging
------------------------------
The interpretation of the preceding paragraph will be central result. We introduce $\epsilon(T,t_w)=E(t_w)-E_{Th}(T)$ and obtain for $T<T_{MCT}$: $\tau_\beta(t_w)=\epsilon(T,t_w)^{-1/2a}$ and $\tau_\alpha(t_w)=\epsilon(T,t_w)^{-1/2a-1/2b}$. Added to the above scalings, this leads us to the conclusion that [*once temperature and $t_w$ dependences are expressed in terms of $\epsilon(T,t_w)$ only, equilibrium and aging dynamics almost map onto each other.*]{} Almost, because $a$, $b$ and the scaling functions in the $\beta$-regime explicitly depend on $T$ below $T_{MCT}$. However, the mapping becomes exact at the transition, and is very accurate close to it (see Fig. \[fig\]). This is a rather unexpected and spectacular result, as it gives a route to studying aging dynamics from the knowledge of the deeply supercooled equilibrium phase - calculations in both phases are not intrinsically different. In addition, it incorporates in a natural way the WTTS reported in experiments.
Interrupted aging
-----------------
An immediate consequence of that is interrupted aging. Indeed, the glass transition temperature $T_g$ is where a glass former seems to lose equilibrium, but where, with a bit of patience, it is still possible to have it equilibrate. More precisely, there is a crossover waiting time ${t_{cross}}$ such that for $t_w<{t_{cross}}$ aging occurs, while for $t_w>{t_{cross}}$, the system has reached equilibrium and its dynamics is TTI. By definition of $T_g$, ${t_{cross}}$ is large. A naïve guess for the value of ${t_{cross}}$ would be ${t_{cross}}=\tau_{\alpha_c}$, the equilibrium relaxation time. However, this is too naïve, as this is the time for the system to have visited several equilibrium states, while ${t_{cross}}$ is the time where aging stops and is in principe much smaller. In our model, it is possible to compute ${t_{cross}}$ using the previous analysis, from the following gedanken experiment: quench the system from $T=2T_{MCT}$ down to $T=T_{MCT}+\varepsilon$, $\varepsilon\ll T$. During the first stage of the dynamics, the energy is close but not enough to its equilibrium value and thus relaxes as a power law: $E(t_w)-E_{Th}(T_d)\approx t_w^{-2\alpha_c}$ and the system ages. This ends when the energy reaches its equilibrium value $E(T)$, which gives: ${t_{cross}}\sim |T-T_{MCT}|^{-1/2\alpha_c}$. This leads to the following scaling form for the $\alpha$-relaxation time: $\tau_\alpha=\tau_{\alpha_c}^{Eq}(T){\cal T}(t_w/{t_{cross}})$, where ${\cal T}(x)\sim x^{\mu_c}$ at $x\ll 1$ and ${\cal T}(\infty)=1$. Remark that ${t_{cross}}$ may also be expressed as $|T-T_{MCT}|^{\gamma/\mu_c}$, that is the exponent is the ratio of the ones of the relaxation time in both phases, which gives an easier way to measure it in the MCT regime.
Dynamical heterogeneity
-----------------------
Using the previous results, it is possible to describe the general behavior of correlation functions generally used for describing dynamical heterogeneities (DH). We start with the now widely studied $\chi_4(t,t_w)=\int dy \left(\langle \delta C(x,t,t_w)\delta C(x+y,t,t_w)\rangle-{\langle \delta C(x,t,t_w)\rangle}^2\right)$, where $\delta C(x,t,t_w)$ is a local correlator at position $x$. It is possible [@companion] to extend the field-theoretic approach to $\chi_4$ used by Biroli and Bouchaud [@biroli] to the aging regime. It results that $\chi_4(t,t_w)$ is a sum of ladder diagrams built with the full correlator $\delta C(x,t,t_w)$, which time dependence follows that of the previous paragraphs. This has several immediate consequences. First, all scaling results given in previous analysis of $\chi_4$ in the equilibrium phase can be directly applied to the glass phase, provided we replace $\epsilon$ by $\epsilon(T,t_w)$, providing MCT predictions for DH in he glassy phase. Second, it was reported in [@castillo] that, once $\chi_4(t,t_w)/\underset{\tau}{\mathrm{max}}\chi_4(t,t_w)$ is plotted versus $1-C(t,t_w)$, all data - i.e. for all $t_w$’s - collapse onto a single master curve. This could be obtained from general scaling considerations, but interestingly, it comes out naturally from the fact that all $t_w$-dependance of both quantities plotted is through $\epsilon(T,t_w)$, which gives the natural parameterization of the master curve. In addition, close to $T_{MCT}$, the full master curve should coïncide with the one of the equilibrium phase. Another quantity which has been shown to be interesting above $T_{MCT}$ is $\chi_T(\tau)=\frac{\partial C(\tau)}{\partial T}$, which has been shown to have the same critical behavior as $\chi_4(\tau)$, and which is more easily accessed experimentally [@chiT]. It is very simple to generalize this quantity to the glass phase, as $\partial/\partial T$ is identical to $\partial/\partial E$, up to the non-singular multiplying factor $\partial E/\partial T$. It is thus natural to generalize $\chi_T$ to: $$\label{eq:chiw}
\chi_w(\tau+t_w,t_w)=\frac{\partial C(\tau+t_w,t_w)}{\partial \epsilon(T,t_w)}.$$ In the equilibrium phase, $\chi_w(t,t_w)$ reduces to $\chi_T(\tau)$, while in the glass phase, it becomes $\left(\frac{\partial \epsilon(T,t_w)}{\partial t_w}\right)^{-1}\frac{\partial C(\tau+t_w,t_w)}{\partial t_w}$. This expression makes $\chi_w$ as easy to measure in experiments as $\chi_T$. In Fig. \[fig\], $\chi_w$ at $T=T_{MCT}+10^{-3}$ and $\chi_T$ at $T=.5\approx T_{MCT}-0.125$, with approximately the same value of $\epsilon$ are plotted versus $\tau$. Clearly, the peaks of the $\alpha$-relaxation coïncide very well, while the $\beta$-regime slightly differ, having two different exponents, respectively $a\approx 0.396$ and $a\approx 0.448$. When the same procedure is made at $T=T_{MCT}$ for $\chi_w$, the curves fall on top of each other.
![\[fig\] Comparison of $\chi_T(\tau)$ above $T_{MCT}$ (straight line) and $\chi_w(\tau)$ well below $T_{MCT}$ (dashed line), with the same value of $\epsilon$. The Curves have been rescaled vertically, as the factor $\partial \epsilon(T,t_w)/\partial t_w$ occurring in $\chi_w$ is not known.](chiTchiw.png){width=".4\textwidth"}
Conclusion
==========
In this Letter, we have shown that, within a mean field model, dynamics in the ideal glass phase are essentially identical to equilibrium dynamics just above the glass transition, and that all important features in both phases may be absorbed in a single function $\epsilon(T,t_w)$, with important physical significance, being the distance in energy to threshold states. This is a remarkable result, as it opens the door to interpreting the aging data obtained in the glass phase of molecular or colloïdal glass formers. In particular, it provides general scaling laws for multipoint correlation functions - relaxation, dynamical heterogeneities - as well as the natural parameterization to seek, $\epsilon(T,t_w)$, which may alternatively be an enthalpy difference. It also naturally predicts WTTS, which was reported in aging measurements [@lunk]. On the conceptual aspect, it is very unexpected, because it shows that aging dynamics is actually very similar from equilibrium dynamics in the deeply supercooled regime, which is rather far from common thinking about aging. But this is not so surprising, and reflects the fact that both in liquid and glass phases, slow dynamics occurs because of the roughness of the energy landscape, which shape does not change qualitatively more than static quantities when crossing the glass transition. Here, several strong predictions have been made, which should be tested in experiments and numerical simulations. Doing so, one must keep in mind that in general, the exponents $a$ and $b$ both depend on temperature, and thus the predictions made here should in general be tested at close temperatures. This would also be of valuable help for determining situations where the energy landscape approach gives a qualitatively correct picture. On this prospect, and more speculatively, one may ask whether the effect of activation at low temperature may be also reabsorbed in the same way. It would be also worth coming back to data from previous experiments, where disagreement with former mean field predictions where found, and reinterpret them using the predictions given in this Letter.
Aknowledgements {#aknowledgements .unnumbered}
===============
This work is supported by the ANR grant DynHet. The author thanks G. Biroli and J.-P. Bouchaud for stimulating discussions and careful reading of the manuscript, as well as J. Kurchan. This article was written during a stay at the Columbia University, NY, and D. Reichman is warmly thanked for his hospitality. The numerical checks have been made using a code provided by K. Miyazaki.
[99]{} L. F. Cugliandolo and J. Kurchan, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**71**]{}, 173 (1993); L. F. Cugliandolo, in ”Slow relaxations and nonequilibrium dynamics in condensed matter”, Les Houches, J.-L. Barrat, M. Feigelman, J. Kurchan and J. Dalibard editors, EDP Sciences: Les Ulis, Springer: Berlin (2002). P. Wang, C. Song and H. A. Makse, [*Nature Physics*]{} [**2**]{}, 526 (2006). W. Kob and J.-L. Barrat, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**78**]{}, 4581 (1997). L. C. E. Struick, [*Physical aging in amorphous polymers and other materials*]{}, Elsevier: Houston (1978). P. A. O’Connell and G. B. Mc Kenna, [*Polym. Eng. Sci.*]{} [**37**]{}, 1485 (1997). P. Lunkenheimer et al., [*Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids*]{}, [**352**]{} 4941 (2006). A. Lefèvre, [*unpublished*]{}. M. J. Goldstein, [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{} [**51**]{}, 3728 (1969). A. Cavagna, I. Giardinia and G. Parisi, [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**34**]{}, 5317 (2001). S. Sastry, [*Nature*]{} [**409**]{}, 164 (2001). J. Kurchan and L. Laloux, [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**29**]{}, 1929 (1996). W. Goetze in ”Liquid, freezing and the Glass transition”, Les Houches, J. P. Hansen, D. Levesque, J. Zinn-Justin editors, North Holland (1989). This was also noticed in [@ledou], but not the exact connexion to equilibrium dynamics. L. F. Cugliandolo, J. Kurchan and P. Le Doussal, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**76**]{}, 2390 (1996). This is actualy not correct when $\mu<1$, as shown later in the text, but we recall it from Ref. [@cuku]. A. Andreanov and A. Lefèvre [*Europhys. Lett.*]{} [**76**]{}, 919 (2006). B. Kim and A. Latz, [*Europhys. Lett.*]{} [**53**]{}, 660 (2001). V. Viasnoff, F. Lequeux, and D. Pine, [*Rev. Scien. Inst*]{} [**73**]{}, 2336 (2002); El Masri D. et al, [*J. Stat. Mech.*]{}, P07015 (2009). O. Ronsin, C. Caroli and T. Baumberger, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**103**]{}, 138302 (2009); R. Paul, G. Schehr and H. Rieger, [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**75**]{}, 030104 (2007). G. Biroli and J.-P. Bouchaud, [*Europhys. Lett.*]{}[**67**]{}, 21 (2004). A. Parsaeian and H. E. Castillo, arXiv: 0811.3190. L. Berthier et al., [*Science*]{} [**310 (5755)**]{}, 1797 (2005); L. Berthier et al., [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{}, [**126**]{}, 184503 and 184504 (2007).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper proposes a new mean-field framework for over-parameterized deep neural networks (DNNs), which can be used to analyze neural network training. In this framework, a DNN is represented by probability measures and functions over its features (that is, the function values of the hidden units over the training data) in the continuous limit, instead of the neural network parameters as most existing studies have done. This new representation overcomes the degenerate situation where all the hidden units essentially have only one meaningful hidden unit in each middle layer, and further leads to a simpler representation of DNNs, for which the training objective can be reformulated as a convex optimization problem via suitable re-parameterization. Moreover, we construct a non-linear dynamics called *neural feature flow*, which captures the evolution of an over-parameterized DNN trained by Gradient Descent. We illustrate the framework via the standard DNN and the Residual Network (Res-Net) architectures. Furthermore, we show, for Res-Net, when the neural feature flow process converges, it reaches a *global* minimal solution under suitable conditions. Our analysis leads to the first global convergence proof for over-parameterized neural network training with more than $3$ layers in the mean-field regime.'
author:
- Cong Fang
- 'Jason D. Lee'
- Pengkun Yang
- Tong Zhang
bibliography:
- 'overbib2.bib'
date: 'June 30, 2020'
title: |
Modeling from Features: a Mean-field Framework\
for Over-parameterized Deep Neural Networks
---
Conclusions and Future Directions {#sec:conclu}
=================================
This paper proposed a new mean-field framework for DNNs where features in hidden layers have non-vanishing variance. We constructed a continuous dynamic called neural feature flow that captures the evolution of sufficiently over-parametrized DNNs trained by Gradient Descent. We study both the standard DNN and the Res-Net architectures. Furthermore, for Res-Net, we show that the neural feature flow reaches a globally optimal solution after it converges. We hope that our new analytical tool pioneers better understandings for DNN training.
In this paper, we propose a new mean-field framework which is based on features to model over-parameterized DNNs. We study both DNNs and Res-Nets and show that the evolutional processes of properly initialized DNNs and Res-Nets can be captured by a special kind of dynamics equations named as neural feature flow. We prove the existence and uniqueness of their solutions under mild conditions. Furthermore, we show that the global minimum is achievable for the Res-Net architecture under suitable conditions.
There are many interesting questions under this framework to be further investigated:
(A) It is not clear whether the dynamics of DNNs trained by Gradient Descent can be characterized by PDEs of Mckean-Vlason type. Recently [@araujo2019mean] pointed out the difficulty lied in the potential discontinuity of the conditional distribution under Wasserstein metric. From the viewpoint of our framework, the features of the hidden units potentially collide with others along the evolution.
(B) It is not answered in this paper how to analyze the evolution of DNN with special regularizers such as relative entropy regularizer. Can we prove that Gradient Descent find a global minimum under such regularizers?
(C) The approximation error bounds established in Theorems \[theorm:app\] and \[theorm:appres\] follow the “propagation of chaos” technique. Such type of analyses result in complexities with exponential dependency on time $T$. It is still not known how to sharpen the complexities even under simple settings.
(D) It would be encouraging to conduct a deeper analysis on the strong universal approximation property in Assumption \[ass:8\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Peter Benner
- Martin Köhler
- 'Jens Saak[^1]'
bibliography:
- 'mor.bib'
- 'csc.bib'
- 'software.bib'
- 'mess-2.bib'
title: 'Matrix Equations, Sparse Solvers: -2.0.1 — Philosophy, Features and Application for (Parametric) Model Order Reduction'
---
[^1]: Max Planck Institute for Dynamics of Complex Technical Systems, Sandtorstr. 1, 39106 Magdeburg, Germany, `{benner,koehlerm,saak}@mpi-magdeburg.mpg.de`
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Extremely high deuteration of several molecules have been observed around low mass protostars since a decade. Among them, formaldehyde and methanol present particularly high deuteration, with observations of abundant doubly and triply deuterated forms. Both species are thought to be mainly formed on interstellar grains during the low temperature and dense pre-collapse phase by H and D atom additions on the iced CO. We present here a theoretical study of the formaldehyde and methanol deuteration obtained with our gas-grain model, GRAINOBLE. This model takes into account the multilayer nature of the mantle and explores the robustness of the results against the uncertainties of poorly constrained chemical and surface model parameters. The comparison of the model predictions with the observations leads to two major results: i) the observed high deuteration is obtained during the last phase of the pre-collapse stage, when the density reaches $\sim 5\times 10^6$ cm$^{-3}$, and this phase is fast, lasting only several thousands years. ii) D and H abstraction and substitution reactions are crucial in making up the observed deuteration ratios; This work shows the power of chemical composition as a tool to reconstruct the past history of protostars.'
author:
- 'V. Taquet$^1$ , C. Ceccarelli$^1$ , C. Kahane$^{1}$'
date: 'Received - ; accepted -'
title: 'Formaldehyde and methanol deuteration in protostars: fossiles from a past fast high density pre-collapse phase'
---
Introduction
============
Although the deuterium elemental abundance is $1.5 \times 10^{-5}$ relative to hydrogen [@Linsky2003], observations carried out during the last decade have revealed high abundances of singly, doubly, and even triply deuterated molecules in low mass pre-stellar cores and Class 0 protostars [@Ceccarelli2007]. In this work, we focus on formaldehyde and methanol, both species likely synthesized on the grain surfaces [[@Tielens1982; @Watanabe2002]]{} [as gas phase reactions are unable to reproduce the large observed abundances [@Roberts2004; @Maret2005]]{}.
In pre-stellar cores, HDCO/H$_2$CO and D$_2$CO/H$_2$CO abundance ratios up to 10% have been observed [[@Bacmann2003; @Bergman2011]]{}. The observed deuterium fractionations increase with the increasing CO depletion, suggesting that the latter is a key parameter. Analogously, several formaldehyde and methanol isotopologues have been detected in Class 0 low mass protostars [@Ceccarelli1998; @Ceccarelli2001; @Parise2002; @Parise2004; @Parise2006]. However, unlike in pre-stellar cores, no correlation between the CO depletion and deuterium fractionation is observed, so that the deuteration process is thought to occur in the previous pre-collapse phase. In general, methanol is more enriched in deuterium than formaldehyde. In most of the observed sources, the simply deuterated molecule HDCO shows a deuterium fractionation between 13 and 20% whereas CH$_2$DOH shows a fractionation between 37 and 65% [@Parise2006]. CHD$_2$OH also shows a higher fractionation than D$_2$CO, by a factor of $\sim 2$. Finally, the deuteration process occurs more efficiently on the methyl group than on the hydroxyl group of methanol, as the \[CH$_2$DOH\]/\[CH$_3$OD\] ratio has been observed to be between 10 and 20 in a sample of low- and intermediate- mass protostars by @Parise2006 and @Ratajczak2011.
Recent experimental works have confirmed the synthesis of formaldehyde and methanol by hydrogenation of iced CO [[@Watanabe2002; @Hidaka2007; @Fuchs2009]]{} and also highlighted the complex chemical evolution of H$_2$O-CO ices when they are exposed to D and H atoms. Indeed, @Nagaoka2005, @Nagaoka2007 and @Hidaka2009 have shown that formaldehyde and methanol can be efficiently deuterated into HDCO, D$_2$CO, CH$_2$DOH, CHD$_2$OH and CD$_3$OH, when they are irradiated by D atoms. [Conversely, abstractions of D can only occur on formaldehyde, and not on methanol. Therefore, formaldehyde isotopologues only can be hydrogenated to form back HDCO and H$_2$CO if they are exposed to H atoms. ]{} The relative reaction rates deduced from these works show that H and D abstractions and substitutions on formaldehyde and methanol are as efficient as addition reactions [see also the theoretical calculations by @Goumans2011a; @Goumans2011b]. These processes could, therefore, largely increase the deuterium fractionations of formaldehyde and methanol after the complete depletion of CO and their formation on the surfaces.
In the past, astrochemical models have struggled to reproduce the observed deuteration ratios of formaldehyde and methanol. While it is now clear that CO depletion plays a major role in increasing the atomic D/H ratio of the gas landing on the grain surfaces [@Roberts2004], a full model coupling the gas and grain chemistry that [*simultaneously*]{} reproduces the observed formaldehyde and methanol deuteration is still missing. A previous [attempt]{} was carried out by @Caselli2002 and @Stantcheva2003, who studied the formaldehyde and methanol deuteration as function of the atomic D/H ratio, taken as a free parameter. However, as also emphasised by @Parise2006, the use of a constant \[D\]/\[H\] ratio is i) unable to predict all the deuterium fractionations at the same time and ii) is not necessarily correct, as formaldehyde and methanol may be formed on the grains at different times. [@Cazaux2011 have studied the deuteration of water and formaldehyde (and not methanol) by coupling gas phase and grain mantle chemical networks.]{}
In this article, we re-consider the problem of the formaldehyde and methanol deuteration, using our gas-grain coupled model, GRAINOBLE, that takes into account D and H atoms addition, but also abstraction and substitution reactions. [Our goal is to simultaneously reproduce the formaldehyde and methanol deuteration observed towards Class 0 protostars by considering their formation on interstellar grains only. Note that, once sublimated from ices, the abundance of these species is only slightly affected by gas phase reactions, as the typical chemical timescale [$\sim 10^5$ yr, @Charnley1997] is larger than the typical age of these objects [$\sim 10^4$ yr, @Andre2000].]{} We will show that understanding how and when the observed deuteration occurs will also provide us with hints on the process itself and on the past history of the protostars.
Multilayer modeling of deuterated ices {#modeling}
======================================
Description of the GRAINOBLE model
----------------------------------
For this study we use the GRAINOBLE model [@Taquet2011 hereafter TCK11]. Briefly, it is a gas-grain chemical model, based on the rate equations approach introduced by @Hasegawa1992 for time-dependent grain surface chemistry modeling. It considers the following four processes:\
i) Accretion of gas phase species onto the grain surfaces as function of time.\
ii) Thermal diffusion of adsorbed species. The hopping rate follows a Boltzmann function which depends on the diffusion energy $E_d$.\
iii) Surface reactions via the Langmuir-Hinshelwood mechanism. The probability of the reaction is given by the exponential portion of the quantum mechanical probability for tunneling through a square barrier and therefore depends on the activation energy $E_a$ of the reaction.\
iv) Thermal evaporation caused by the thermal balance and by the cosmic-ray induced heating of the grains [@Hasegawa1993a]. [We ignored the photolytic process due to the cosmic-ray induced UV photons because they have a negligible influence on the abundance of formaldehyde and methanol in dark clouds [5% at maximum, @Cuppen2009].]{}
We follow the mantle formation on grains with a multilayer approach in which the outermost layer only is reactive, while the mantle bulk remains inert. Unlike @Hasegawa1993b and @Garrod2011 models, the trapping of particles into the bulk is performed one layer at a time, once the considered layer is filled.
Chemical network
----------------
[We consider the accretion of gaseous H, D, H$_2$, HD, D$_2$, O, and CO onto grains.]{}
We assume that formaldehyde, methanol and their deuterated isotopologues are formed via hydrogenation and deuteration addition reactions on molecules initiated by the accretion of CO. Based on experimental and theoretical works [@Hidaka2007; @Watanabe2008; @Andersson2011], the energy barriers of the D and H addition reactions [involving CO and formaldehyde]{} are very similar, so we assume them to be identical [($=E_a$)]{}. Note that, however, given the high uncertainty in the value of $E_a$ (see TCK11), this is taken as a free parameter. [In contrast, reactions involving a radical are barrierless.]{}
Following the experimental works of @Hidaka2009 and @Nagaoka2007, we also include the abstraction and substitution reactions of H and D on formaldehyde and methanol according the scheme proposed by @Watanabe2008 and @Hidaka2009, and shown in Fig. \[networks\]. We adopt the probability of each reaction following the relative rates deduced experimentally when they are available, as marked in the Figure. For the reactions that have not been derived by the experiments, we adopt the probability measured for the same isotopologue by analogy. For example, the reaction D$_2$CO + D $\rightarrow$ CD$_3$O has a reaction rate equal to the H + CO rate multiplied by 0.1 (D + CO) and 0.66 (D$_2$CO + H).
Even if most of water is likely formed during the translucent phase, and therefore before H$_2$CO and CH$_3$OH [see @Oberg2011], our model also takes into account its formation, as it is in competition with formaldehyde and methanol formation according to TCK11. With respect to TCK11, we added the deuteration reactions and the path\
H$_2$ + OH $\rightarrow$ H$_2$O + H
which seems to be the most efficient reaction in molecular clouds, as suggested by @Cuppen2007. Since the deuteration of formaldehyde and methanol on the grains depends on the atomic gas phase D/H ratio, we are here particularly interested in the chemical network leading to the formation of atomic deuterium in the gas phase. We use the fractionation reactions introduced by @Roberts2000 [@Roberts2004] to study the formation of H$_3^+$ isotopologues and atomic deuterium. The gas phase chemical network is shown in Figure \[networks\]. [As shown by @Flower2006, the ortho/para ratio (opr) of H$_2$ can influence the deuteration of H$_3^+$ and consequently the atomic D/H ratio, but only when it is $\geq 10^{-3}$. The available measures in cold gas indicate low H$_2$ opr values [$< 10^{-3} - 10^{-2}$, @Dislaire2012 and references therein]. We, therefore, did not consider this effect in this work.]{}
{width="180mm"}
The physical model
------------------
Rather than simulating the evolution from the diffuse cloud state to the pre-stellar core, we focus on the last stage of the evolution, when the material is already molecular and the density reaches the value $n_H$. [The initial abundance of gas phase species (H, D, HD, D$_2$, H$_3^+$ isotopologues, ...) are given by the steady-state abundance, obtained solving the gas phase chemical network presented in §2.2 and considering the recombination of H and D onto grains. The abundance relative to H nuclei of the deuterium and CO reservoirs are $1.5 \times 10^{-5}$ and $4.75 \times 10^{-5}$.]{}
We follow, then, the formation and evolution of the grain mantles during this phase, keeping the gas density $n_H$ constant. Briefly, as the time passes, CO freezes out onto the grain mantles, where it forms H$_2$CO and CH$_3$OH and their deuterated isotopologues. Therefore, the deuteration of the formaldehyde and methanol on the mantle primarily depends on the gaseous atomic D/H ratio.
Multi-parameter approach
------------------------
We use a multi-parameter approach as described in TCK11, to take into account the variation or the uncertainty of physical conditions and surface parameters.
Low mass pre-stellar cores are the place where most of formaldehyde and methanol are assumed to be formed. These objects show spatial distributions of densities of H nuclei between $10^4$ and $5\times 10^6$ cm$^{-3}$ and temperatures between 8 and 12 K [see @Crapsi2007]. Accordingly, we consider here four density values ($n_H = 10^4$, $10^5$, $10^6$, $5\times 10^6$ cm$^{-3}$) and three temperatures ($T_g = T_d = 8, 10, 12$ K). Besides, prestellar cores show an increase of the grain sizes caused by the coagulation process whose the efficiency increases with the density [@Flower2005; @Vastel2006]. We adopt three grain sizes $a_d = 0.1, 0.2, 0.3$ $\mu$m, which affect the depletion rates and therefore the density of H and D in the gas phase.
As discussed in TCK11, the diffusion to desorption energy $E_d/E_b$ ratio mainly depends on the ice properties. We, therefore, vary $E_d/E_b$ between 0.5 and 0.8, as suggested by experimental studies. The activation energy $E_a$ of the reactions [involving CO and formaldehyde]{} is also a free parameter. By comparing the model predictions with the observations of solid CO and methanol, we have deduced in TCK11 that $E_a$ must be lower than 1500 K, so that we restrain the value of $E_a$ between 400 and 1400 K. Light particles (H, D, H$_2$, HD, D$_2$) that accrete onto the ices have a binding energy distribution that depends on the ice properties, and the adsorption conditions of the adsorbate [see for example @Hornekaer2005]. We therefore consider the binding energies relative to amorphous water ice of these light species as a free parameter whose values are: 400, 500, 600 K.
As the abundance of the gaseous atomic oxygen in the pre-stellar cores is uncertain, we consider three values of oxygen abundance relative to H nuclei $X($O)$_{ini}$: $10^{-8}$, $10^{-6}$, $10^{-4}$.
Finally, in TCK11, we have shown that the site size $d_s$ and the porosity factor $F_{por}$ have a little impact on the chemical composition of the grain mantles, so we assume $d_s = 3.1$ $\AA$ [@Jenniskens1995], and $F_{por} = 0$.
We run a grid of 2916 models in which we vary the parameters described above and listed in Table \[table\_grid\]. For each density $n_H$, we compute the mean fractionation of each isotopologue with its [1 sigma]{} standard deviation, following @Wakelam2010.
Parameter Values
----------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------
Density $n_H$ $10^{4}$ - ${10^5}$ - $10^{6}$ - $5 \times 10^{6}$ cm$^{-3}$
Temperature $T_g = T_d$ 8 - [10]{} - 12 K
Grain size $a_{d}$ 0.1 - [0.2]{} - 0.3 $\mu$m
Energy ratio $E_d/E_b$ 0.5 - [0.65]{} - 0.8
Binding energy $E_{b,wat}$(H) 400 - [500]{} - 600 K
Activation energy $E_a$ 400 - [900]{} - 1400 K
Initial oxygen abundance $X$(O)$_{ini}$ $10^{-8}$ - ${10^{-6}}$ - $10^{-4}$
: List of parameters and the values range explored in this work.
\[table\_grid\]
Results
=======
The D/H gas phase ratio
-----------------------
At first approximation, the steady state densities of H and D, assumed as initial conditions, are roughly constant regardless the total density and their abundance relative to H nuclei, therefore, decrease with increasing $n_H$. At low densities, a significant fraction ($\sim$30%) of the deuterium reservoir is already in atomic form before the depletion of CO: the increase of the atomic D/H ratio with the CO depletion will therefore be low. On the contrary, at high densities, only a negligible fraction of deuterium is in the atomic form at the beginning, so that the atomic D/H ratio strongly increases with the CO depletion. The larger the density, the larger the gaseous atomic D/H ratio increase with the CO depletion, as highlighted in Figure \[comp\_ref\_addabst\_dXmantle\_Dratio\_COdepl\_multi\] which shows the evolution of the atomic D/H as function of CO depletion, for $n_H$ equal to $10^5$ and $5\times10^6$ cm$^{-3}$ respectively.
Model with addition reactions only
----------------------------------
In this section, only addition reactions are considered on grain mantles (see §2.2). In this case, the deuteration of formaldehyde and methanol primarily depends on two factors, as illustrated in Fig. \[comp\_ref\_addabst\_dXmantle\_Dratio\_COdepl\_multi\]: i) *The increase of the gas phase atomic D/H ratio with the CO depletion:* the ratio increases with increasing CO depletion, namely with time, and with increasing density (see above); ii) *When formaldehyde and methanol are formed:* as explained in detail in TCK11, the increase of $n_H$ delays the formation of formaldehyde and methanol. In general, the two effects results in a larger deuteration of formaldehyde and methanol for larger densities and larger evolutionary times.
![Normalized H$_2$CO (solid lines) and CH$_3$OH (dashed lines) formation rates (top panel) and gaseous atomic D/H ratio (bottom panel) as function of the CO depletion factor $f_D$(CO) = $n_{g}(\textrm{CO})/n_{g,ini}(\textrm{CO})$, for $n_H = 10^5$ (thin red lines), and $5\times 10^6$ (thick green lines) cm$^{-3}$. [The spikes are caused by the multilayer nature of the mantle.]{}[]{data-label="comp_ref_addabst_dXmantle_Dratio_COdepl_multi"}](comp_dens_dXmantle_Dratio_COdepl_multi.ps){width="88mm"}
This is illustrated in Fig. \[Fmantle\_time\_all\_nH\_2\_withoutabstract\], which shows the temporal evolution of the mean deuterium fractionations of iced formaldehyde and methanol along with their uncertainty, for different densities. The high density cases ($n_H \geq 10^6$ cm$^{-3}$) show large enhancements of the CH$_2$DOH/CH$_3$OH and HDCO/H$_2$CO ratios with time, reaching the unity for the singly deuterated forms. No increase of the deuterium fractionation is, on the contrary, observed at low densities ($n_H = 10^4 - 10^5$ cm$^{-3}$), the deuteration ratios never exceeding 0.02.
![Mean deuterium fractionation of methanol and formaldehyde (solid lines) with their [1 sigma]{} standard deviation (color levels) with time, obtained considering addition reactions only (§ 3.2). The hatched zones give the range of observed values [@Parise2006].[]{data-label="Fmantle_time_all_nH_2_withoutabstract"}](Fmantle_time_all_nH_3_withoutabstract_2.ps){width="70mm"}
On the same figure, we report the range of observed values [from @Parise2006]. No model can reproduce the full set of observations. Indeed, the high density cases predict CH$_2$DOH/CH$_3$OH and HDCO/H$_2$CO ratios in agreement with observations for times between $5\times 10^3$ and $10^6$ yr. However, they cannot predict the observed high abundances of the doubly deuterated molecules. In addition, observations show that methanol is three times more deuterated than formaldehyde whereas the models of Fig. \[Fmantle\_time\_all\_nH\_2\_withoutabstract\] predict a factor 1.5 at most. We conclude that this class of models fails to reproduce the observations.
Abstraction and substitution reactions {#sec:results_abstract}
--------------------------------------
Figure \[Fmantle\_time\_all\_nH\_2\_withabstract\] shows the temporal evolutions of formaldehyde and methanol deuterium fractionations when abstraction and substitution reactions are included. From Fig. \[Fmantle\_time\_all\_nH\_2\_withabstract\] it is clear that the inclusion of the addition and substitution reactions strongly increase the deuterium fractionations, especially at high densities. For densities $\sim 5 \times 10^6$ cm$^{-3}$, the model predicts fractionations of doubly-deuterated molecules compatible with observations, at time $\sim 5\times 10^3$ yr. Unlike CH$_2$DOH, which shows an increase of deuteration compared to Fig. \[Fmantle\_time\_all\_nH\_2\_withoutabstract\] and more particularly at longer timescales, the HDCO deuteration is not enhanced. This is due to the efficiency of deuterium abstraction on HDCO which allows the formation of H$_2$CO whereas deuterium abstraction reactions on CH$_2$DOH, leading to CH$_3$OH formation, are negligible. The observed \[CH$_2$DOH\]/\[HDCO\] ratio of 3 can now be predicted. Finally, because the abstraction reactions can only occur significantly on the methyl group of methanol and not on its hydroxyl group, the \[CH$_2$DOH\]/\[CH$_3$OD\] ratio in enhanced. The observed ratio of 10-20 can also be predicted but at a larger time, $5 - 10 \times 10^4$ yr. We conclude that this class of models succeeds to reproduce all the observations simultaneously, with the exception of the \[CH$_2$DOH\]/\[CH$_3$OD\] ratio, for a density of about $5 \times 10^6$ cm$^{-3}$ and at a time of 5000 yr.
![Mean deuterium fractionation of methanol and formaldehyde (solid lines) with their [1 sigma]{} standard deviation (color levels) with time, obtained adding the abstraction and substitution reactions (§3.3). The hatched zones give the range of observed values [@Parise2006].[]{data-label="Fmantle_time_all_nH_2_withabstract"}](Fmantle_time_all_nH_3_withabstract_2.ps){width="70mm"}
Discussion and conclusions
==========================
Although multiply deuterated molecules in low mass protostars have been discovered and observed for a decade, published models have had difficulties in reproducing the observed abundances, especially those of formaldehyde and methanol [@Parise2006]. Both species are believed to be mainly synthesised and to be observed on the grain surfaces during the cold and dense pre-collapse phase [see @Oberg2011] and that they are observed in the gas when they sublimate off the grain mantles upon heating from the central star. On the grains, H$_2$CO and CH$_3$OH are thought to be the result of the hydrogenation of iced CO. Their deuteration, therefore, depends on when exactly the two species are formed and how. We have shown that, based on our grain surface model GRAINOBLE, formation of H$_2$CO and CH$_3$OH from addition reactions alone fails to predict the observed deuterium fractionation. In contrast, if D and H abstraction and substitution reactions are added, the GRAINOBLE model can reproduce [ *simultaneously*]{} the observed values. Therefore, these processes are crucial and more laboratory experiments and theoretical computations are needed to better constrain their rates on the ices. Reproducing the observed \[CH$_2$DOH\]/\[CH$_3$OD\] ratio remains a challenge, as it is still underestimated by the model. Previous studies have suggested that this may be caused by D and H exchanges on the ices during the sublimation phase [@Ratajczak2009] or activated by photolysis processes [@Weber2009] or on the gas phase [@Osamura2004], all processes that would be inefficient in altering the other isotopologues [see @Ratajczak2011 for a detailed discussion].
With the above exception, our model predicts the observed abundance ratios for high densities ($\sim 5\times 10^6$ cm$^{-3}$) and for relatively short times ($\sim 5000$ yr). We emphasise that this time corresponds only to the final stage at high density and not to the age of the condensation, which can be considerably larger. In fact, it is possible and even likely that the pre-stellar cores spend a long time in a less dense phase [e.g. @Bergin2007]. However, the comparison of the observed H$_2$CO and CH$_3$OH deuteration with our model predictions suggests that the last phase at high density is short, just a few thousands years. In other words, soon after the central density reaches $\sim 5\times 10^6$ cm$^{-3}$ the [protostellar collapse]{} starts. This is a nice illustration of how chemistry can help us to understand the past history of the protostar.
In conclusion, our work leads to two important results:\
1) The pre-collapse phase may last hundred thousands of years: however, when the central density reaches $\sim 5\times 10^6$ cm$^{-3}$, the collapse starts in about a few thousands years. 2) D and H atoms abstraction and substitution reactions are crucial in the grain surface chemistry and should be incorporated into models. [Thus, more experimental and theoretical works are therefore needed to better contrain their efficiency and therefore the timescale needed to reproduce the observations.]{}\
This work has been supported by lAgence Nationale pour la Recherche (ANR), France (project FORCOMS, contracts ANR-08-BLAN-022).
, S. and [Goumans]{}, T. P. M. and [Arnaldsson]{}, A. 2011, Chemical Physics Letters, 513, 31-36 , P. and [Ward-Thompson]{}, D. and [Barsony]{}, M. 2000, Protostars and Planets IV, 59 , A. and [Lefloch]{}, B. and [Ceccarelli]{}, C. and [Steinacker]{}, J. et al. 2003, , 585, L55-L58 , E. A. and [Tafalla]{}, M. 2007, , 45, 339-396 Bergman, p. and Parise, B. and Liseau, R. and Larsson, B. 2011, , 527, 39 , P. and [Stantcheva]{}, T. and [Shalabiea]{}, O. and [Shematovich]{}, V. I. and [Herbst]{}, E. 2002, Planetary and Space Science, 50, 1257-1266 , S. and [Caselli]{}, P. and [Spaans]{}, M. 2011, , 741, L34 , C. and [Castets]{}, A. and [Loinard]{}, L. and [Caux]{}, E. and [Tielens]{}, A. G. G. M. 1998, , 338, L43-46 , C. and [Loinard]{}, L. and [Castets]{}, A. and [Tielens]{}, A. G. G. M. et al. 2001, , 372, 998-1004 , C. and [Caselli]{}, P. and [Herbst]{}, E. and [Tielens]{}, A. G. G. M. and [Caux]{}, E. 2007, Protostars and Planets V , S. B. and [Tielens]{}, A. G. G. M. and [Rodgers]{}, S. D. , 1997, 482, L203 , A. and [Caselli]{}, P. and [Walmsley]{}, M. C. and [Tafalla]{}, M. 2007, , 470, 221-230 Cuppen, H. M. and Herbst, E. 2007, , 668, 294 Cuppen, H. M. and van Dishoeck, E. F. and Herbst, E. and Tielens, A. G. G. M. 2009, , 508, 275 , V. and [Hily-Blant]{}, P. and [Faure]{}, A. and [Maret]{}, S. and [Bacmann]{}, A. and [Pineau Des For[ê]{}ts]{}, G. 2012, 537, A20 , D. R. and [Pineau Des For[ê]{}ts]{}, G. and [Walmsley]{}, C. M. 2005, , 436, 933-943 , D. R. and [Pineau Des For[ê]{}ts]{}, G. and [Walmsley]{}, C. M. 2006, , 449, 621–629 , G. W. and [Cuppen]{}, H. M. and [Ioppolo]{}, S. and [Romanzin]{}, C. and [Bisschop]{}, S. E. and [Andersson]{}, S. and [van Dishoeck]{}, E. F. and [Linnartz]{}, H. 2009, 505, 629-639 , R. T. and [Pauly]{}, T. 2011, , 735, 15 , T. P. M. 2011, , 413, 2615-2620 , T. P. M. and [Kaestner]{}, J. 2011, J Phys Chem A, 115, 10767-10774 Hasegawa, T. I., Herbst, E. and Leung C. M. 1992, , 82, 167 , T. I. and [Herbst]{}, E. 1993, , 261, 83-102 , T. I. and [Herbst]{}, E. 1993, , 263, 589-606 , H. and [Kouchi]{}, A. and [Watanabe]{}, N. 2007, Journal of Chemical Physics, 126, 204707 , H. and [Watanabe]{}, M. and [Kouchi]{}, A. and [Watanabe]{}, N. 2009, , 702, 291-300 , L. and [Baurichter]{}, A. and [Petrunin]{}, V. V. and [Luntz]{}, A. C. and [Kay]{}, B. D. and [Al-Halabi]{}, A. 2005, , 122, 12 , P., [Blake]{}, D. F., Wilson, M. A. et al. 1995, , 455, 389 , J. L. 2003, Space Science Reviews, 106, 49-60 , S. and [Ceccarelli]{}, C. and [Tielens]{}, A. G. G. M. and [Caux]{}, E. and [Lefloch]{}, B. and [Faure]{}, A. and [Castets]{}, A. and [Flower]{}, D. R. 2005, , 442, 527-538 , A. and [Watanabe]{}, N. and [Kouchi]{}, A. 2005, , 624, L29-L32 Nagaoka, A. and Watanabe, N. and Kouchi, A. 2007, J. Phys. Chem. A, 111, 3016-3028 , K. I. and [Boogert]{}, A. C. A. and [Pontoppidan]{}, K. M. and [van den Broek]{}, S. and [van Dishoeck]{}, E. F. and [Bottinelli]{}, S. and [Blake]{}, G. A. and [Evans]{}, II, N. J. 2011, , 740, 109 Osamura, Y. and Roberts, H. and Herbst, E. 2004, , 421, 1101 , B. and [Ceccarelli]{}, C. and [Tielens]{}, A. G. G. M. and [Herbst]{}, E. and [Lefloch]{}, B. and [Caux]{}, E. and [Castets]{}, A. and [Mukhopadhyay]{}, I. and [Pagani]{}, L. and [Loinard]{}, L. 2002, , 393, L49-L53 , B. and [Castets]{}, A. and [Herbst]{}, E. and [Caux]{}, E. and [Ceccarelli]{}, C. and [Mukhopadhyay]{}, I. and [Tielens]{}, A. G. G. M. 2004, , 416, 159-163 , B. and [Ceccarelli]{}, C. and [Tielens]{}, A. G. G. M. and [Castets]{}, A. and [Caux]{}, E. and [Lefloch]{}, B. and [Maret]{}, S. 2006, , 453, 949-958 , A. and [Quirico]{}, E. and [Faure]{}, A. and [Schmitt]{}, B. and [Ceccarelli]{}, C. 2009, , 496, L21-L24 , A. and [Taquet]{}, V. and [Kahane]{}, C. and [Ceccarelli]{}, C. and [Faure]{}, A. and [Quirico]{}, E. 2011, , 528, L13 , H. and [Millar]{}, T. J. 2000, , 361, 388-398 , H. and [Herbst]{}, E. and [Millar]{}, T. J. 2004, , 424,905-917 Stantcheva, T. and Herbst, E. 2003, , 340, 983-988 Taquet, V., Ceccarelli, C., and Kahane, C. 2011, , accepted Tielens, A. G. G. M. and Hagen, W. 1982, A&A, 114, 245-260 , C. and [Caselli]{}, P. and [Ceccarelli]{}, C. and [Phillips]{}, T. et al. 2006, , 645, 1198-1211 Vidali, G. and Ihm, G. and Kim, H. and Cole, M. 1991, Surface Science Reports, 12, 4, 135-181 Wakelam, V. and Herbst, E. and Le Bourlot, J. and Hersant, F. and Selsis, F. and Guilloteau, S. 2010, A&A, 517, 21 , N. and [Kouchi]{}, A. 2002, , 571, L73 , N. and [Kouchi]{}, A. 2008, Progress in Surface Science, 83, 439-489 Weber, A. S. and Hodyss, R. and Johnson, P. V. and Willacy, K. and Kanik, I. 2009, , 703, 10300
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
plus 5pt
[EUROPEAN LABORATORY FOR PARTICLE PHYSICS]{}
CERN–PH–EP/2010–0xx\
June 14, 2010
[**Towards the experimental clarification\
of quarkonium polarization** ]{}
Pietro Faccioli[$^{\mathrm{1)}}$]{}, Carlos Lourenço[$^{\mathrm{2)}}$]{}, João Seixas[$^{\mathrm{1,3)}}$]{} and Hermine K. Wöhri[$^{\mathrm{1)}}$]{}
**Abstract**
=0.4cm =0.4cm =0.pt We highlight issues which are often underestimated in the experimental analyses on quarkonium polarization: the relation between the parameters of the angular distributions and the angular momentum composition of the quarkonium, the importance of the choice of the reference frame, the interplay between observed decay and production kinematics, and the consequent influence of the experimental acceptance on the comparison between experimental measurements and theoretical calculations. Given the puzzles raised by the available experimental results, new measurements must provide more detailed information, such that physical conclusions can be derived without relying on model-dependent assumptions. We describe a frame-invariant formalism which minimizes the dependence of the measurements on the experimental acceptance, facilitates the comparison with theoretical calculations, and probes systematic effects due to experimental biases. This formalism is a direct and generic consequence of the rotational invariance of the dilepton decay distribution and is independent of any assumptions specific to particular models of quarkonium production. The use of this improved approach, which exploits the intrinsic multidimensionality of the problem, will significantly contribute to a faster progress in our understanding of quarkonium production, especially if adopted as a common analysis framework by the LHC experiments, which will soon perform analyses of quarkonium polarization in proton-proton collisions.
*Submitted to Euro. Phys. J. C*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
$^{\mathrm{1)}}$ Laboratório de Instrumentação e Física Experimental de Partículas (LIP),\
Lisbon, Portugal
$^{\mathrm{2)}}$ CERN, Geneva, Switzerland
$^{\mathrm{3)}}$ Physics Department, Instituto Superior Técnico (IST), Lisbon, Portugal
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Detailed studies of quarkonium prodution should provide significant progress in our understanding of quantum chromodynamics (QCD) [@bib:YellowRep-QWG]. However, our present understanding of this physics topic is rather limited, despite the multitude of experimental data accumulated over more than 30 years. The [$p_{\rm T}$]{} differential [J/$\psi$]{} and [$\psi^\prime$]{} direct production cross sections measured (in the mid 1990’s) by CDF, in ${\rm p}\bar{\rm p}$ collisions at 1.8 TeV [@bib:cdf1-psis], were seen to be around 50 times larger than the available expectations, based on leading order calculations made in the scope of the Colour Singlet Model. The non-relativistic QCD (NRQCD) framework [@bib:NRQCD], where quarkonia can also be produced as *coloured* quark pairs, succeeded in describing the measurements, opening a new chapter in the studies of quarkonium production physics. However, these calculations depend on non-perturbative parameters, the long distance colour octet matrix elements, which have been freely adjusted to the data, thereby decreasing the impact of the resulting agreement between data and calculations. More recently, calculations of next-to-leading-order (NLO) QCD corrections to colour-singlet quarkonium production showed an important increase of the high-[$p_{\rm T}$]{} rate, significantly decreasing the colour-octet component needed to reproduce the quarkonium production cross sections measured at the Tevatron [@bib:lansberg-HP08].
Given this situation, differential cross sections are clearly insufficient information to ensure further progress in our understanding of quarkonium production. Experimental studies of the polarization of the $J^{PC}=1^{--}$ quarkonium states, which decay into lepton pairs, will certainly provide very useful complementary information. In fact, the competing mechanisms dominating in the different theoretical approaches lead to very different expected polarizations of the produced quarkonia. On one hand, the NRQCD calculations [@bib:BK; @bib:Lei; @bib:BKL], dominated by the colour-octet component, predict that, at Tevatron or LHC energies and at asymptotically high [$p_{\rm T}$]{}, the directly produced [$\psi^\prime$]{} and [J/$\psi$]{}mesons are produced almost fully *transversely* polarized (i.e.with dominant angular momentum component $J_z = \pm 1$) with respect to their own momentum direction (the *helicity frame*). On the other hand, according to the new NLO calculations of colour-singlet quarkonium production [@bib:lansberg-HP08] these states should show a strong *longitudinal* ($J_z = 0$) polarization component.
Having two very different theoretical predictions appears to be an ideal situation when seen from an experimentalist’s perspective, as one may think that it should be relatively straightforward to discriminate between the two theory frameworks using experimental measurements. Somewhat surprisingly, however, this is not the case. In fact, the present experimental knowledge is incomplete and contradictory. Studies of the [$\psi^\prime$]{} polarization have been published on the basis of data collected by the CDF II experiment [@bib:CDFpol2]. Unfortunately, the large experimental uncertainties caused by the small size of the data samples prevent from drawing meaningful conclusions. In principle, a more precise test of the theoretical predictions should be provided by the [J/$\psi$]{} data, given their much higher statistical accuracy. However, the experimental perspective is more complicated in this case, because a significant fraction (around one third [@bib:feeddown]) of promptly produced [J/$\psi$]{} mesons (i.e.excluding contributions from B hadron decays) comes from [$\chi_c$]{} and [$\psi^\prime$]{}feed-down decays. This sizeable source of indirectly produced [J/$\psi$]{}mesons is not subtracted from the current measurements, and its kinematic dependence is not precisely known. Despite this limitation, it seems safe to say that the pattern measured by CDF [@bib:CDFpol2] of a slightly longitudinal polarization of the inclusive prompt [J/$\psi$]{}’s is incompatible with any of the two theory approaches mentioned above. The situation is further complicated by the intriguing lack of continuity between fixed-target and collider results, which can only be interpreted in the framework of some specific (and speculative) assumptions still to be tested [@bib:pol].
The [$b \bar{b}$]{} system should satisfy the non-relativistic approximation much better than the [$c \bar{c}$]{} case. For this reason, the [$\Upsilon$]{} data are expected to represent the most decisive test of NRQCD. However, the comparison with the existing [$\Upsilon(1S)$]{} polarization data from Tevatron [@bib:upsCDF; @bib:upsD0] is far from conclusive. The results indicate that, for $p_{\rm T} < 15$ GeV$/c$, the [$\Upsilon(1S)$]{} is produced either unpolarized (CDF) or longitudinally polarized (D0) in the helicity frame, and this discrepancy cannot be reasonably attributed to the different rapidity windows covered by the two experiments. Furthermore, the precision of the data for [$p_{\rm T}$]{} higher than $15$ GeV$/c$ is not sufficient to provide a significant test of the crucial hypothesis that very high-[$p_{\rm T}$]{} quarkonia, produced by the fragmentation of an outgoing (almost on-shell) gluon, are fully transversely polarized along their own direction. At lower energy and [$p_{\rm T}$]{}, the E866 experiment [@bib:e866_Ups] has shown yet a different polarization pattern: the [$\Upsilon(2S)$]{} and [$\Upsilon(3S)$]{} states have *maximal* transverse polarization, with no significant dependence on transverse or longitudinal momentum, *with respect to the direction of motion of the colliding hadrons* (Collins-Soper frame). Unexpectedly, the [$\Upsilon(1S)$]{}, whose spin and angular momentum properties are identical to the ones of the heavier [$\Upsilon$]{} states, is, instead, found to be only weakly polarized. These results give interesting physical indications. First, the maximal polarization of [$\Upsilon(2S)$]{} and [$\Upsilon(3S)$]{} along the direction of the interacting particles places strong constraints on the topology and spin properties of the underlying elementary production process. Second, the small [$\Upsilon(1S)$]{} polarization suggests that the bottomonium family may have a peculiar feed-down hierarchy, with a very significant fraction of the lower mass state being produced indirectly; at the same time, the polarization of the [$\Upsilon$]{}’s coming from [$\chi_b$]{} decays should be substantially different from the polarization of the directly produced ones.
This rather confusing situation demands a significant improvement in the accuracy and detail of the polarization measurements, ideally distinguishing between the properties of directly and indirectly produced states. We remind that the lack of a consistent description of the polarization properties represents today’s biggest uncertainty in the simulation of the LHC quarkonium production measurements and will probably be the largest contribution to the systematic error affecting the measurements of quarkonium production cross sections and kinematic distributions. Indeed, the probability that the detector accepts lepton pairs resulting from decays of quarkonium states is strongly dependent on the polarization of those states. Therefore, even from a purely experimental point of view it is very unsatisfactory that essential properties of these objects, such as kinematic details of how they decay into lepton pairs (on which their reconstruction is based), are subjected to such a high degree of uncertainty.
It is true that measurements of the quarkonium decay angular distributions are challenging, multi-dimensional kinematic problems, which require large event samples and a very high level of accuracy in the subtraction of spurious kinematic correlations induced by the detector acceptance. The complexity of the experimental problems which have to be faced in the polarization measurements is testified, for example, by the disagreement between the CDF results obtained in Run I and Run II for the [J/$\psi$]{} [@bib:CDFpol1; @bib:CDFpol2] and by the contradictory results obtained by CDF and D0 for the [$\Upsilon(1S)$]{}. However, it is also true, as we shall emphasize in this paper, that most experiments have exploited, and presented in the published reports, only a fraction of the physical information derivable from the data. This happens, for example, when the measurement is performed in only one polarization frame and is limited to the polar projection of the decay angular distribution. As we have already argued in Ref. [@bib:pol], these incomplete measurements do not allow definite physical conclusions. At best, they confine such conclusions to a genuinely model-dependent framework. Moreover, such a fragmentary description of the observed physical process obviously reduces the chances of detecting possible biases induced by not fully controlled systematic effects.
In this paper we review the mathematical framework for the description of the observable polarization of quarkonium states decaying electromagnetically into lepton pairs. We focus our attention on aspects that need to be taken in consideration in the analysis of the data, so as to maximize the physical significance of the measurement and provide all elements for its unambiguous interpretation within any theoretical framework. By increasing the level of detail of the physical information extracted from the data, the proposed methodologies also offer the possibility of performing consistency checks which can expose unaccounted detector or analysis biases. The only relevant theoretical ingredients of our discussion are the quantum properties of angular momentum and basic conservation rules of the electromagnetic interaction (parity, fermion chirality). All the results presented here are, therefore, valid in general for any quarkonium production mechanism.
In Section \[sec:concepts\] we define the concept of polarization and give simple examples of how basic production mechanisms can lead to the formation of polarized quarkonium states. We then focus on the dilepton decay distribution of $^3S_1$ quarkonia, a relatively simple case, and provide detailed geometric and kinematic considerations. In Section \[sec:distribution\] we recall the basic principles leading to the general expression describing the angular distribution of the decay products, while in Section \[sec:frame\_dependence\] we describe how the observed anisotropy parameters depend on the choice of the reference frame. Section \[sec:kinematics\] is devoted to a detailed description of how the production kinematics influences the observed polarization, depending on the quarkonium momentum and on the observation frame. We also discuss quantitatively the influence of the intrinsic parton transverse momenta on the polarization measurement when the natural axis is along the relative flight direction of the colliding partons. In Section \[sec:invariant\] we derive the existence of a frame-independent identity which relates the observable parameters of the decay distribution to one frame-invariant polarization parameter. We discuss how this relation, formally including the Lam-Tung identity [@bib:LamTung] as a particular case, improves the representation of polarization results and can be used to perform consistency checks in the experimental analyses. We continue with some remarks, given in Section \[sec:kt\], on how the existence of intrinsic parton transverse momentum affects the polarization measurement. We conclude, in Section \[sec:examples\], with a few examples inspired from existing experimental measurements, which should provide concrete evidence for the usefulness of the approaches discussed in this paper, in view of ensuring an improved understanding of quarkonium production.
Basic polarization concepts {#sec:concepts}
===========================
Because of angular momentum conservation and basic symmetries of the electromagnetic and strong interactions, a particle produced in a certain superposition of elementary mechanisms may be observed preferentially in a state belonging to a definite subset of the possible eigenstates of the angular momentum component $J_z$ along a characteristic quantization axis. When this happens, the particle is said to be polarized. Figure \[fig:processes\] shows examples of leading-order diagrams of elementary production processes giving rise to different types of polarizations.
Vector ($J=1^{--}$) quarkonia have the same charge-parity as an electron-positron pair and can be produced in electron-positron annihilation, via an intermediate photon (Fig. \[fig:processes\]a). The states originating from this process are polarized, as a consequence of helicity conservation, a general property of QED in the relativistic (massless) limit. The dynamics of the coupling of electrons to photons is, in fact, described by terms of the form $\overline{u}
\gamma^\mu u = \overline{u}_\mathrm{L} \gamma^\mu u_\mathrm{L} +
\overline{u}_\mathrm{R} \gamma^\mu u_\mathrm{R}$, where $\gamma^\mu$ are the Dirac matrices, $u$ is the electron spinor, and L (R) indicate its left-handed (right-handed) chiral components. Terms with opposite chiral components are absent, meaning that the fermion chirality is preserved in the interaction with a photon. When the fermions are assumed to have zero mass, so that the direction of their momenta cannot be reversed by any Lorentz transformation, left-handed and right-handed chiral components become eigenstates of the helicity operator $h = \vec{S} \cdot \vec{p} / |\vec{p}|$, corresponding to the projection of the spin on the momentum direction. In this case, chirality conservation becomes helicity conservation. In the diagram of Fig. \[fig:processes\]a, this rule implies that the annihilating electron and positron must have opposite helicities, because the intermediate photon has zero (fermion) helicity. Since in the laboratory their momenta are opposite, their spins must be parallel. Because of angular momentum conservation, the produced quarkonium has, thus, angular momentum component $J_z = \pm 1$ along the direction of the colliding leptons. This precise QED prediction (the relative amplitude for the $J_z = 0$ component is of order $m_e/E_e \simeq 3
\times 10^{-4}$ for [J/$\psi$]{} production and smaller for [$\Upsilon$]{}production) is commonly used as a base assumption in quarkonium measurements in electron-positron annihilations (as, for example, in the recent analysis of Ref. [@bib:chic_angulardistr_CLEO]). The fact that the dilepton system coupled to a photon is a pure $J_z = \pm
1$ state is also an essential ingredient in the determination of the expression for the dilepton-decay angular distributions of vector quarkonia (see Section \[sec:distribution\]).
The same reasoning can be applied to the production of Drell-Yan lepton pairs in quark-antiquark annihilation (Fig. \[fig:processes\]b): the quark and antiquark, in the limit of vanishing masses, must annihilate with opposite helicities, resulting in a dilepton state having $J_z = \pm 1$ along the direction of their relative velocity. The experimental verification of this basic mechanism has reached an impressive level of accuracy [@bib:e866_Ups]. Quark helicity is conserved also in QCD, when the masses can be neglected. Similarly to the Drell-Yan case, quarkonia originating from quark-antiquark annihilation (into intermediate gluons) will thus tend, provided they are produced alone, to have their angular momentum vectors “aligned” ($J_z = \pm
1$) along the beam direction. This prediction is in good agreement with the [$\chi_{c1}$]{}, [$\chi_{c2}$]{} and [$\psi^\prime$]{} polarizations measured in low-energy proton-antiproton collisions [@bib:chic_angulardistr_Fermilab; @bib:psip_E835].
At very high [$p_{\rm T}$]{}, quarkonium production at hadron colliders should mainly proceed by gluon fragmentation [@bib:gluonFragm]. In NRQCD, heavy-quark velocity scaling rules for the non perturbative matrix elements, combined with the $\alpha_S$ and $1/p_{\rm T}$ power counting rules for the parton cross sections, predict that [J/$\psi$]{} and [$\psi^\prime$]{} production at high [$p_{\rm T}$]{} is dominated by gluon fragmentation into the color-octet state $c\bar{c}[^3S^{(8)}_1]$ (Fig. \[fig:processes\]c). Transitions of the gluon to other allowed colour and angular momentum configurations, containing the [$c \bar{c}$]{} in either a colour-singlet or a colour-octet state, with spin $S = 0, 1$ and angular momentum $L = 0, 1, 2, \ldots$, as well as additional gluons ($c\bar{c}[^1S^{(8)}_0]g$, $c\bar{c}[^3P^{(8)}_J]g$, $c\bar{c}[^3S^{(1)}_1]gg$, etc.), are more and more suppressed with increasing [$p_{\rm T}$]{}. Up to small corrections, the fragmenting gluon is believed to be on shell and have, therefore, helicity $\pm 1$. This property is inherited by the $c\bar{c}[^3S^{(8)}_1]$ state and remains intact during the non-perturbative transition to the colour-neutral physical state, via soft-gluon emission. In this model, the observed charmonium has, thus, angular momentum component $J_z = \pm 1$, this time not along the direction of the beam, but along its own flight direction.
“Unpolarized” quarkonium has the same probability, $1/(2J+1)$, to be found in each of the angular momentum eigenstates, $J_z = -J, -J+1,
\ldots, +J$. This is the case, for example, in the colour evaporation model [@bib:colour_evap]. In this framework, similarly to NRQCD, the [$Q \bar{Q}$]{} pair is produced at short distances in any colour and angular momentum configuration. However, contrary to NRQCD, no hierarchy constraints are imposed on these configurations, so that the cross section turns out to be dominated by [$Q \bar{Q}$]{} pairs with vanishing angular momentum ($^1S_0$), in either colour-singlet or colour-octet states. In their long distance evolution through soft gluon emissions, $J=0$ states get their colour randomized, assuming the correct quantum numbers of the physical quarkonium. As a result, the final angular momentum vector $\vec{J}$ has no preferred alignment.
In two-body decays (such as the $^3S_1 \rightarrow \ell^+ \ell^-$ case considered in this paper), the geometrical shape of the angular distribution of the two decay products (emitted back-to-back in the quarkonium rest frame) reflects the polarization of the quarkonium state. A spherically symmetric distribution would mean that the quarkonium would be, on average, unpolarized. Anisotropic distributions signal polarized production.
The measurement of the distribution requires the choice of a coordinate system, with respect to which the momentum of one of the two decay products is expressed in spherical coordinates. In inclusive quarkonium measurements, the axes of the coordinate system are fixed with respect to the physical reference provided by the directions of the two colliding beams as seen from the quarkonium rest frame. Figure \[fig:coordinates\] illustrates the definitions of the polar angle $\vartheta$, determined by the direction of one of the two decay products (e.g. the positive lepton) with respect to the chosen polar axis, and of the azimuthal angle $\varphi$, measured with respect to the plane containing the momenta of the colliding beams (“production plane”).
The actual definition of the decay reference frame with respect to the beam directions is not unique. Measurements of the quarkonium decay distributions have used three different conventions for the orientation of the polar axis (see Fig. \[fig:frames\]): the direction of the momentum of one of the two colliding beams (Gottfried-Jackson frame [@bib:gott_jack], GJ), the opposite of the direction of motion of the interaction point (i.e. the flight direction of the quarkonium itself in the center-of-mass of the colliding beams: helicity frame, HX) and the bisector of the angle between one beam and the opposite of the other beam (Collins-Soper frame [@bib:coll_sop], CS). The motivation of this latter definition is that, in hadronic collisions, it coincides with the direction of the relative motion of the colliding partons, when their transverse momenta are neglected (the validity and limits of this approximation are discussed in detail in Section \[sec:kt\]). For our considerations, we will take the HX and CS frames as two extreme (physically relevant) cases, given that the GJ polar axis represents an intermediate situation. We note that these two frames differ by a rotation of $90^\circ$ around the $y$ axis when the quarkonium is produced at high [$p_{\rm T}$]{}and negligible longitudinal momentum ($p_{\rm T} \gg |p_{\rm
L}|$). All definitions become coincident in the limit of zero quarkonium [$p_{\rm T}$]{}. In this limit, moreover, for symmetry reasons any azimuthal dependence of the decay distribution is physically forbidden.
We conclude this section by defining the somewhat misleading nomenclature which is commonly used (and adopted, for convenience, also in this paper) for the polarization of vector mesons. These particles share the quantum numbers of the photon and are therefore said, by analogy with the photon, to be “transversely” polarized when they have spin projection $J_z = \pm 1$. The counterintuitive adjective originally refers to the fact that the electromagnetic field carried by the photon oscillates in the transverse plane with respect to the photon momentum, while the photon *spin* is aligned *along* the momentum. “Longitudinal” polarization means $J_z =
0$. By further extension, the same terms are also used to describe the “spin alignment” of vector quarkonia not only with respect to their own momenta (HX frame), but also with respect to any other chosen reference direction (such as the GJ or CS axes).
Dilepton decay angular distribution {#sec:distribution}
===================================
Vector quarkonia, such as the [J/$\psi$]{}, [$\psi^\prime$]{} and $\Upsilon(nS)$ states, can decay electromagnetically into two leptons. The reconstruction of this channel represents the cleanest way, both from the experimental and theoretical perspectives, of measuring their production yields and polarizations. In this and the following sections we discuss how to determine experimentally the “spin alignment” of a vector quarkonium by measuring the dilepton decay angular distribution. For convenience we mention explicitly the [J/$\psi$]{} as the decaying particle, but considerations and results are valid for any $J=1^{--}$ state.
We begin by studying the case of a single production “subprocess”, here defined as a process where the [J/$\psi$]{} is formed as a given superposition of the three $J = 1$ eigenstates, $J_z = +1, -1, 0$ with respect to the polarization axis $z$: $$| V \rangle = b_{+1} \, |+1\rangle + b_{-1} \, |-1\rangle + b_{0} \, |0\rangle \,
. \label{eq:state}$$ The calculations are performed in the [J/$\psi$]{} rest frame, where the common direction of the two leptons define the reference axis $z^\prime$, oriented conventionally along the direction of the positive lepton. The adopted notations for axes, angles and angular momentum states are illustrated in Fig. \[fig:psidecay\].
Because of helicity conservation for (massless) fermions in QED, the dilepton system coupled to a photon in the process $\mathrm{J}/\psi \rightarrow \gamma^{*} \rightarrow
\ell^+ \ell^-$ has angular momentum projection $\pm 1$ along $z^\prime$, i.e. it can be represented as an eigenstate of $J_{z^\prime}$, $|\ell^+ \ell^-; 1, l^\prime \rangle$ with $l^\prime =
+ 1$ or $-1$. We want to express this state as a superposition of eigenstates of $J_z$, $|\ell^+ \ell^-; 1, l \rangle$ with $l = 0, \pm
1$. To perform this change of quantization axis, we use a general result of angular momentum theory, which we recall in the following paragraphs.
We indicate by $R(\alpha, \beta, \gamma)$ the rotation from a generic set of axes $(x,y,z)$ to the set $(x^\prime,y^\prime,z^\prime)$, $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ denoting the Euler angles. Positive rotations are defined by the right-hand rule. An eigenstate $|J, M^\prime \rangle$ of $J_{z^\prime}$ can then be expressed as a superposition of the eigenstates $|J, M \rangle$ of $J_z$ through the rotation transformation [@bib:BrinkSatchler] $$|J, M^\prime \rangle = \sum_{M = -J}^{+J} \mathcal{D}_{M M^\prime}^{J}(R) \,
|J, M \rangle \, . \label{eq:ang_mom_rotation}$$ The (complex) rotation matrix elements $\mathcal{D}_{M M^\prime}^{J}$ are defined as $$\mathcal{D}_{M M^\prime}^{J}(\alpha, \beta, \gamma) = e^{-i M \alpha } d_{M
M^\prime}^{J}(\beta) e^{-i M^\prime \gamma} \label{eq:D_matrix}$$ in terms of the (real) reduced matrix elements $$\begin{aligned}
&& d_{M M^\prime}^J(\beta) =
\sum_{t=\max(0,M-M^\prime)}^{\min(J+M,J-M^\prime)}(-1)^{t} \nonumber \\[2mm]
&&\times \frac{\sqrt{(J+M)!\, (J-M)!\, (J+M^\prime)!\, (J-M^\prime)!}}
{(J+M-t)!\, (J-M^\prime-t)!\, t! \, (t-M+M^\prime)!}
~~~\label{eq:reduced_d_matrix} \\[2mm]
&& \times \left(\cos\frac{\beta}{2}\right)^{2J+M-M^\prime-2t}
\left(\sin\frac{\beta}{2}\right)^{2t-M+M^\prime}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
The rotation we need in our case has the effect of bringing one quantization axis ($z$) to coincide with another ($z^\prime$). The most general rotation performing this projection can be parametrized with $\beta = \vartheta$ and $\alpha = - \gamma = \varphi$. The dilepton angular momentum state is therefore expressed in terms of eigenstates of $J_z$ as $$|\ell^+ \ell^-; 1, l^\prime \rangle = \sum_{l = 0, \pm 1} \mathcal{D}_{l \,
l^\prime}^{1}(\varphi, \vartheta, - \varphi) \, |\ell^+ \ell^-; 1, l \rangle \,
. \label{eq:dilepton_state}$$ The amplitude of the partial process $\mathrm{J}/\psi(m) \rightarrow \ell^+
\ell^- (l^\prime)$ represented in Fig. \[fig:psidecay\] is $$\begin{aligned}
B_{m l^\prime} \; & = & \;
\sum_{l = 0, \pm 1} \mathcal{D}_{l l^\prime}^{1
*}(\varphi, \vartheta, - \varphi) \, \langle \ell^+ \ell^-; 1, l \; | \,
\mathcal{B} \, | \; \mathrm{J}/\psi; 1, m \rangle \nonumber \\[2mm]
& = & \; B \; \mathcal{D}_{m
l^\prime}^{1 *}(\varphi, \vartheta, - \varphi) \, ,
\label{eq:jpsi_to_ll_amplitude}\end{aligned}$$ where we imposed that the transition operator $\mathcal{B}$ is of the form $\langle \ell^+ \ell^-; 1, l \; | \, \mathcal{B} \, | \;
\mathrm{J}/\psi; 1, m \rangle = B \, \delta_{m \, l}$ because of angular momentum conservation, with $B$ independent of $m$ (for rotational invariance). The total amplitude for $\mathrm{J}/\psi \rightarrow
\ell^+ \ell^- (l^\prime)$, where the [J/$\psi$]{} is given by the superposition written in Eq. \[eq:state\], is $$\begin{aligned}
B_{l^\prime} \; & = & \; \sum_{m = -1, +1} b_m B \; \mathcal{D}_{m l^\prime}^{1
*}(\varphi, \vartheta, - \varphi) \nonumber \\[2mm]
& = & \; \sum_{m = -1, +1} a_m \;
\mathcal{D}_{m l^\prime}^{1
*}(\varphi, \vartheta, - \varphi) \, .
\label{eq:jpsi_to_ll_fullamplitude}\end{aligned}$$ The probability of the transition is obtained by squaring Eq. \[eq:jpsi\_to\_ll\_fullamplitude\] and summing over the (unobserved) spin alignments ($l^\prime = \pm 1$) of the dilepton system, with equal weights attributed, for parity conservation, to the two configurations. Using Eq. \[eq:D\_matrix\], with $d^1_{0, \pm 1}
= \pm \sin \vartheta / \sqrt{2}$, $d^1_{\pm 1, \pm 1} = (1 + \cos
\vartheta) / 2$ and $d^1_{\pm 1, \mp 1} = (1 - \cos \vartheta) / 2$ (from Eq. \[eq:D\_matrix\]), one obtains the angular distribution $$\begin{aligned}
W(\cos \vartheta, \varphi) && \propto \; \sum_{l^\prime = \pm 1} | B_{l^\prime} |^2 \; \propto \; \frac{\mathcal{N}}{(3 +
\lambda_{\vartheta})}\; (1 + \lambda_{\vartheta} \cos^2 \vartheta \nonumber \\[2mm]
&& + \;\lambda_{\varphi} \sin^2 \vartheta \cos 2 \varphi\; +\;
\lambda_{\vartheta \varphi} \sin 2 \vartheta \cos \varphi
\label{eq:ang_distr_subproc} \\[2mm]
&& + \;\lambda^{\bot}_{\varphi} \sin^2 \vartheta \sin 2 \varphi \;+\;
\lambda^{\bot}_{\vartheta \varphi} \sin 2 \vartheta \sin \varphi ) \, , \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ with $\mathcal{N} = |a_0|^2 + |a_{+1}|^2 + |a_{-1}|^2$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_{\vartheta} & = & \frac{{\mathcal{N}}-3 |a_0|^2}{\mathcal{N}+|a_0|^2} \, , \nonumber \\[2mm]
\lambda_{\varphi} & = & \frac{ 2 \, \mathrm{Re} [a_{+1}^{(i)*}
a_{-1}] }{\mathcal{N}+|a_0|^2} \, , \nonumber \\[2mm]
\lambda_{\vartheta \varphi} & = & \frac{ \sqrt{2} \, \mathrm{Re} [ a_{0}^{(i)*} ( a_{+1} - a_{-1})] }{\mathcal{N}+|a_0|^2} \,
, \label{eq:lambdas_vs_amplitudes} \\[2mm]
\lambda^{\bot}_{\varphi} & = & \frac{ -2 \, \mathrm{Im} [a_{+1}^{*} a_{-1}] }{\mathcal{N}+|a_0|^2} \, , \nonumber \\[2mm]
\lambda^{\bot}_{\vartheta \varphi} & = & \frac{ - \sqrt{2} \,
\mathrm{Im} [a_{0}^{*} (a_{+1} + a_{-1})] }{\mathcal{N}+|a_0|^2} \, . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Figure \[fig:natpols\] shows the shapes of the dilepton decay distributions in the two polarization cases $m = \pm 1$ (a) and $m =
0$ (b); the $m = +1$ and $m = -1$ configurations are indistinguishable because of rotation invariance. The same distributions are also shown, in panels (c) and (d), as seen when studied in frames rotated by $90^\circ$, anticipating the discussion in Section \[sec:frame\_dependence\].
It is worth noticing that it is impossible to chose the decay amplitudes $a_m$ and, therefore, the component amplitudes $b_m$ such that all decay parameters in Eq. \[eq:ang\_distr\_subproc\] vanish. This means that the angular distribution of the decay of a $J=1$ state is *never intrinsically isotropic*. Even if it is conceivable that a lucky superposition of different production processes might lead to a fortuitous cancellation of all decay parameters, such an exceptional case would signal a non-trivial physical polarization scenario, caused by spin randomization effects, or (semi-)exclusive configurations in which the observed state is produced together with certain final state objects. In other words, polarization is an essential property of the quarkonium states. This remark is particularly relevant when we consider that all existing Monte Carlo generators use an isotropic dilepton distribution as the default option for quarkonium production in hadronic collisions, a non-trivial assumption with a strong influence on the acceptance estimates and, therefore, on both normalizations and kinematic dependencies of the measured quarkonium cross sections.
In this paper we only consider inclusive production. Therefore, the only possible experimental definition of the $xz$ plane coincides with the production plane, containing the directions of the colliding particles and of the decaying particle itself. The last two terms in Eq. \[eq:ang\_distr\_subproc\] introduce an asymmetry of the distribution by reflection with respect to the production plane, an asymmetry which is not forbidden in individual (parity-conserving) events. In hadronic collisions, due to the intrinsic parton transverse momenta, for example, the “natural” polarization plane does *not* coincide event-by-event with the experimental production plane. However, the symmetry by reflection must be a property of the observed *event distribution* when only parity-conserving processes contribute. Indeed, the terms in $\sin^2 \vartheta \sin 2 \varphi$ and $\sin 2
\vartheta \sin \varphi$ are unobservable, because they vanish on average.
In the presence of $n$ contributing production processes with weights $f^{(i)}$, the most general *observable* distribution can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
W(\cos \vartheta, \varphi) \, & = & \, \sum_{i = 1}^{n} f^{(i)}
W^{(i)}(\cos \vartheta, \varphi) \nonumber \\[2mm]
& \propto & \, \frac{1}{(3 + \lambda_{\vartheta})} \,
(1 + \lambda_{\vartheta} \cos^2 \vartheta \label{eq:observable_ang_distr} \\[2mm]
& + & \lambda_{\varphi} \sin^2 \vartheta \cos 2 \varphi +
\lambda_{\vartheta \varphi} \sin 2 \vartheta \cos \varphi ) \, ,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $W^{(i)}(\cos \vartheta, \varphi)$ is the “elementary” decay distribution corresponding to a single subprocess (given by Eqs. \[eq:ang\_distr\_subproc\] and \[eq:lambdas\_vs\_amplitudes\], adding the index $(i)$ to the decay parameters) and each of the three observable shape parameters, $X =
\lambda_{\vartheta}$, $\lambda_{\varphi}$ and $\lambda_{\vartheta
\varphi}$, is a weighted average of the corresponding parameters, $X^{(i)}$, characterizing the single subprocesses, $$X \, = \, \sum_{i = 1}^{n} \frac{f^{(i)} \mathcal{N}^{(i)}}{3 +
\lambda_{\vartheta}^{(i)}} \,
X^{(i)} \left/ \sum_{i = 1}^{n} \frac{f^{(i)} \mathcal{N}^{(i)}}{3 +
\lambda_{\vartheta}^{(i)}} \right. \, .
\label{eq:parameters}$$
We conclude this section with the derivation of formulae which can be used for the determination of the parameters of the observed angular distribution, as an alternative to a multi-parameter fit to the function in Eq. \[eq:observable\_ang\_distr\]. The integration over either $\varphi$ or $\cos \vartheta$ leads to one-dimensional angular distributions, $$\begin{aligned}
W(\cos\vartheta) \; & \propto & \; \frac{1}{3 + \lambda_{\vartheta}} \left( 1 +
\lambda_\vartheta \cos^2\vartheta \right) \, ,
\label{eq:costh_distr} \\
W(\varphi) \; & \propto & \; 1 + {\frac{2 \lambda_\varphi}{3
+ \lambda_\vartheta}} \cos 2 \varphi \, , \label{eq:phi_distr}\end{aligned}$$ from which $\lambda_\vartheta$ and $\lambda_\varphi$ can be determined in two separate steps, possibly improving the stability of the fit procedures in low-statistics analyses. The “diagonal” term, $\lambda_{\vartheta \varphi}$, vanishes in both integrations but can be extracted, for example, by defining the variable $\tilde{\varphi}$ as $$\tilde{\varphi} = \left\{ \begin{array}{rcl}
\varphi - \frac{3}{4} \pi & \quad \mbox{for} & \cos \vartheta < 0 \\
\varphi - \frac{\pi}{4} & \quad \mbox{for} & \cos \vartheta > 0 \\
\end{array}
\right.$$ (adding or subtracting $2 \pi$ when $\tilde{\varphi}$ does not fall into one continuous range, e.g. $[0, 2 \pi]$) and measuring the distribution $$W(\tilde{\varphi}) \; \propto\; 1 +
{\frac{\sqrt{2} \, \lambda_{\vartheta\varphi}}{3 +
\lambda_\vartheta}} \, \cos \tilde{\varphi} \, .
\label{eq:phithdistr}$$ Each of the three parameters can also be expressed in terms of an asymmetry between the populations of two angular topologies (which are equiprobable only in the unpolarized case): $$\begin{aligned}
&& \frac{P(|\cos \vartheta| > 1/2) - P(|\cos \vartheta| < 1/2)}{P(|\cos \vartheta|
> 1/2) + P(|\cos \vartheta| < 1/2)} \; = \; \frac{3}{4}
\, \frac{\lambda_\vartheta}{3+\lambda_\vartheta} \, , \nonumber \\[2mm]
&& \frac{P(\cos 2 \varphi > 0) - P(\cos 2 \varphi < 0)}{P(\cos 2 \varphi > 0) +
P(\cos 2 \varphi < 0)} \; = \; \frac{2}{\pi} \, \frac{2
\lambda_\varphi}{3+\lambda_\vartheta} \, , \label{eq:asymmetries} \\[2mm]
&& \frac{P(\sin 2 \vartheta \cos \varphi > 0) - P(\sin 2 \vartheta \cos \varphi <
0)}{P(\sin 2 \vartheta \cos \varphi
> 0) + P(\sin 2 \vartheta \cos \varphi < 0)} \; = \; \frac{2}{\pi}
\, \frac{2
\lambda_{\vartheta \varphi}}{3+\lambda_\vartheta} \, . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In analyses applying efficiency corrections to the reconstructed angular spectra, the use of these formulae may require an iterative re-weighting of the Monte Carlo data, in order to compensate for the effect of the non-uniformity of those experimental corrections. In “ideal” experiments with uniform acceptance and efficiencies over $\cos \vartheta$ and $\varphi$ (such as in Monte Carlo studies at the generation level) the parameters can be obtained from the average values of certain angular distributions: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\langle \cos^2 \vartheta \rangle \quad & \; = \; \frac{1 + \frac{3}{5}
\lambda_\vartheta}{3 + \lambda_\vartheta} \,
, \\
\langle \cos 2 \varphi \rangle \quad & \; = \; \frac{\lambda_\varphi}{3 +
\lambda_\vartheta} \,
, \\
\langle \sin 2 \vartheta \cos \varphi \rangle & \; = \; \frac{4}{5} \,
\frac{\lambda_{\vartheta \varphi}}{3 + \lambda_\vartheta} \, .
\label{eq:means}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
Dependence of the measurement on the observation frame {#sec:frame_dependence}
======================================================
All possible *experimentally definable* polarization axes in inclusive measurements belong to the production plane (defined in Fig. \[fig:frames\]). We can, therefore, parametrize the transformation from an observation frame to another by one angle describing a rotation about the $y$ axis. Instead of rotating the angular momentum state vectors, we can apply a purely geometrical transformation directly to the observable angular distribution. The rotation matrix $$R_y(\delta) = \begin{pmatrix} \cos \delta & 0 & -\sin \delta \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
\sin \delta & 0 & \cos \delta \\
\end{pmatrix}$$ brings the old frame to coincide with the new one, the positive sign of $\delta$ being defined by the right-hand rule (we will discuss in Section \[sec:kinematics\] how the sign of $\delta$ depends in an observable way on the conventions chosen for the orientation of the $z$ and $y$ axes, and how, specifically, the angle between the HX and CS axes depends on the quarkonium production kinematics). The unit vector $\hat{r} = (\sin \vartheta
\cos \varphi, \sin \vartheta \sin \varphi, \cos \vartheta)$ indicating the lepton direction in the old frame is then expressed as $\hat{r} =
R^{-1}_y(\delta) \hat{r^\prime}$ as a function of the coordinates in the new frame. In particular, $$\cos \vartheta \; = \; - \sin \delta \sin \vartheta^\prime \cos \varphi^\prime
\; + \; \cos \delta \cos \vartheta^\prime \, .
\label{eq:costh_transform}$$ Substituting Eq. \[eq:costh\_transform\] into Eq. \[eq:observable\_ang\_distr\], we obtain the angular distribution in the rotated frame: $$\begin{aligned}
W^\prime(\cos \vartheta^\prime, \varphi^\prime) \; & \propto & \;
\frac{1}{3 + \lambda_{\vartheta}^\prime} \,
(1 \, + \lambda^\prime_{\vartheta} \cos^2 \vartheta^\prime
\label{eq:ang_distr_rotated} \\[2mm]
& + & \lambda^\prime_{\varphi} \sin^2 \vartheta^\prime \cos 2 \varphi^\prime
\, + \lambda^\prime_{\vartheta \varphi} \sin 2 \vartheta^\prime \cos
\varphi^\prime) \, , \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{split}
\lambda^{\prime}_\vartheta & = \frac{{\lambda_\vartheta
- 3\Lambda }}{{1 + \Lambda }}\, , \quad
\lambda^{\prime}_\varphi = \frac{{\lambda_\varphi
+ \Lambda }}{{1 + \Lambda }}\, , \\[2mm]
\lambda^{\prime}_{\vartheta \varphi} & = \frac{{\lambda_{\vartheta \varphi}
\cos 2\delta - \frac{1}{2}\, (\lambda_\vartheta - \lambda_\varphi )
\sin 2\delta }} {{1 + \Lambda }}\, , \\[2mm]
\mathrm{with} \quad \Lambda & = \frac{1}{2}\, (\lambda_\vartheta -
\lambda_\varphi)\sin^2 \delta - \frac{1}{2}\, \lambda_{\vartheta \varphi} \sin
2\delta \, . \label{eq:lambda_transf}
\end{split}$$ Since the magnitude of the “polar anisotropy”, $\lambda_\vartheta$, never exceeds $1$ in any frame, we deduce the frame-independent inequalities $$|\lambda_\varphi| \le \frac{1}{2}\, (1 + \lambda_\vartheta ) \, , \quad
|\lambda_{\vartheta \varphi}| \le \frac{1}{2}\, (1 - \lambda_\varphi ) \, ,
\label{eq:triangles}$$ which imply the bounds $|\lambda_\varphi| \le 1 $ and $|\lambda_{\vartheta
\varphi}| \le 1$. More interestingly, we can see that $|\lambda_\varphi| \le
0.5$ when $\lambda_{\vartheta} = 0$ and must vanish when $\lambda_{\vartheta}
\to -1$. The most general phase space for the three angular parameters is represented in Fig. \[fig:triangles\]. There is an alternative notation, widespread in the literature, where the coefficients $\lambda$, $\nu/2$ and $\mu$ replace, respectively, $\lambda_{\vartheta}$, $\lambda_{\varphi}$ and $\lambda_{\vartheta
\varphi}$. In that case, hence, we have $|\nu| \le 2$.
To illustrate the importance of the choice of the observation frame, we consider specific examples assuming, for simplicity, that the observation axis is perpendicular to the natural axis ($\delta = \pm
90^\circ$). This case is of physical relevance since when the decaying particle is produced with small longitudinal momentum ($|p_{\rm L}| \ll p_{\rm T}$, a frequent kinematic configuration in collider experiments) the CS and HX frames are actually perpendicular to one another. When $\delta = 90^\circ$, a natural “transverse” polarization ($\lambda_\vartheta = +1$ and $\lambda_\varphi = \lambda_{\vartheta\varphi} = 0$), for example, transforms (Eq. \[eq:lambda\_transf\]) into an observed polarization of opposite sign (but not fully “longitudinal”), $\lambda^\prime_\vartheta =
-1/3$, with a significant azimuthal anisotropy, $\lambda^\prime_\varphi = 1/3$, shown in Fig. \[fig:natpols\] (c). In terms of angular momentum wave functions, a state which is fully “transverse” with respect to one quantization axis is a coherent superposition of 50% “transverse” and 50% “longitudinal” components with respect to an axis rotated by $90^\circ$ (Eq. \[eq:ang\_mom\_rotation\]): $$|1, \pm 1 \rangle \quad \xrightarrow{ 90^\circ } \quad \frac{1}{2} \;
|1, +1 \rangle \; + \; \frac{1}{2} \; |1, -1 \rangle \; \mp \;
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \; |1, 0 \rangle \, .$$ The amplitude of the transition of this mixed state to the “rotated” dilepton state in Eq. \[eq:dilepton\_state\] contains three terms with *relative* phases (due to the $\varphi$ dependence of the rotation matrix) giving rise to the observable azimuthal dependence. The same polar anisotropy $\lambda^\prime_\vartheta = -1/3$ would be measured in the presence of a mixture of *at least two different processes* resulting in 50% “transverse” and 50% “longitudinal” natural polarization along the chosen axis. In this case, however, no azimuthal anisotropy would be observed. As a second example, we note that a fully “longitudinal” natural polarization ($\lambda_\vartheta = -1$) translates, in a frame rotated by $90^\circ$ with respect to the natural one, Fig. \[fig:natpols\] (d), into a fully “transverse” polarization ($\lambda^\prime_\vartheta = +1$), accompanied by a maximal azimuthal anisotropy ($\lambda^\prime_\varphi = -1$). In terms of angular momentum, the measurement in the rotated frame is performed on a coherent admixture of states, $$|1, 0 \rangle \quad \xrightarrow{\; 90^\circ \;} \quad \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
\; |1, +1 \rangle - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \; |1, -1 \rangle \, ,$$ while a *natural* “transverse” polarization would originate from the statistical superposition of *uncorrelated* $|1, +1
\rangle$ and $|1, -1 \rangle$ states. The two physically very different cases of a natural transverse polarization observed in the natural frame, shown in Fig. \[fig:natpols\] (a), and a natural longitudinal polarization observed in a rotated frame, shown in Fig. \[fig:natpols\] (d), are experimentally indistinguishable when the azimuthal anisotropy parameter is integrated out. These examples show that a measurement (or theoretical calculation) consisting only in the determination of the polar parameter $\lambda_\vartheta$ in one frame contains an ambiguity which prevents fundamental (model-independent) interpretations of the results. The polarization is only fully determined when *both* the polar and the azimuthal components of the decay distribution are known, or when the distribution is analyzed in at least two geometrically complementary frames.
Effect of production kinematics on the observed decay kinematics {#sec:kinematics}
=================================================================
Ideally, the dependence of the polarization on the momentum components of the produced quarkonium should reflect the relative contribution of individual production processes in different kinematic regimes, thereby providing information of *fundamental* physical interest. However, the observations are, in general, affected by some experimental limitations, which must be carefully taken in consideration. First, the frame-dependent polarization parameters $\lambda_\vartheta$, $\lambda_\varphi$ and $\lambda_{\vartheta
\varphi}$ can be affected by a strong *explicit* kinematic dependence (encoded in the parameter $\delta$ in Eq. \[eq:lambda\_transf\]), reflecting the change in direction of the chosen experimental axis (with respect to the “natural axis”) as a function of the quarkonium momentum. Second, detector acceptances and event samples with limited statistics induce a dependence of the measurement on the distribution of events effectively accepted by the experimental apparatus.
To better explain the first problem, let us consider the HX and CS frames as the experimental and natural frames, respectively. We start by calculating the angle between the polarization axes of the CS and HX frames as a function of the quarkonium momentum. The beam momenta in the “laboratory” frame (centre of mass of the colliding particles), written in longitudinal and transverse components with respect to the quarkonium direction, are $\vec{P}_1 = -\vec{P}_2 = P
\cos \Theta \; \hat{\imath}_\| + P \sin \Theta \; \hat{\imath}_\bot$, where $P$ is their modulus and $\Theta$ is the angle formed by the quarkonium momentum with respect to the beam axis, defined in terms of the quarkonium momentum $\vec{p}$ as $\cos \Theta = p_\mathrm{L} / p$. When boosted to the quarkonium rest frame, the two vectors become (neglecting the masses of the colliding particles) $\vec{P^\prime}_1 =
(\gamma P \cos \Theta - \beta \gamma P) \; \hat{\imath}_\| + P \sin
\Theta \; \hat{\imath}_\bot$ and $\vec{P^\prime}_2 = (- \gamma P \cos
\Theta - \beta \gamma P) \; \hat{\imath}_\| -P \sin \Theta \;
\hat{\imath}_\bot$, where $\gamma = E/m$ is the Lorentz factor of the quarkonium state, and $\beta = p/E =
\sqrt{1 - 1/\gamma^2}$. The unit vectors indicating the $z$ axis directions in the HX and CS frames are $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\hat{z}_{\mathrm{HX}} \; & = \; -\frac{\vec{P^\prime}_1 +
\vec{P^\prime}_2}{|\vec{P^\prime}_1 + \vec{P^\prime}_2|} \; = \;
\frac{\vec{p}}{p} \, , \\[2mm]
\hat{z}_{\mathrm{CS}} \; & = \; \frac{P^\prime_2
\vec{P^\prime}_1 - P^\prime_1 \vec{P^\prime}_2 }{|P^\prime_2 \vec{P^\prime}_1 -
P^\prime_1 \vec{P^\prime}_2|}
\, . \label{eq:z_axis}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ By definition, $\hat{z}_{\mathrm{HX}} = \hat{\imath}_\|$, while $\hat{z}_{\mathrm{CS}}$ can now be expressed as $\cos \tau \;
\hat{\imath}_\| + \sin \tau \; \hat{\imath}_\bot $, $\tau$ being the angle between the two axes: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\cos \tau \; & = \; \frac{\frac{1}{\gamma} \cos \Theta}{\sqrt{
\frac{1}{\gamma^2} \cos^2 \Theta + \sin^2 \Theta}} \; = \; \frac{m \,
p_\mathrm{L}}{m_\mathrm{T} \, p}
\, , \\
\sin \tau \; & = \; \frac{ \sin \Theta}{\sqrt{ \frac{1}{\gamma^2} \cos^2 \Theta
+ \sin^2 \Theta}} \; = \; \frac{E \, p_\mathrm{T}}{m_\mathrm{T} \, p} \, .
\label{eq:angle_CS_HX}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ We see that the result depends only on the momentum and mass of the quarkonium state ($m_\mathrm{T} = \sqrt{m^2 + p_\mathrm{T}^2}$). The angle $\delta$ entering in Eq. \[eq:lambda\_transf\], equal to $\tau$ in magnitude, defines the *positive* rotation (respecting the right-hand rule) from one frame to the other. Its sign depends, therefore, on the exact conventions used for the orientation of the axes $y$ and $z$ of the polarization frames. In the convention where the $y$ axis is defined as $$\hat{y} \; = \; \frac{( \vec{P^\prime}_1 \times \vec{P^\prime}_2
)}{|\vec{P^\prime}_1 \times \vec{P^\prime}_2|} \label{eq:y_axis}$$ and the $z$ axis is defined by Eq. \[eq:z\_axis\], with the “first” beam oriented as the laboratory $z$ axis, the positive rotation is the one bringing the HX axis to coincide with the CS axis. We thus write, using Eq. \[eq:angle\_CS\_HX\], $$\delta_{\mathrm{HX} \rightarrow \mathrm{CS}} \; = \; - \delta_{\mathrm{CS}
\rightarrow \mathrm{HX}} \; = \; \arccos \left(
\frac{m\, p_\mathrm{L}}{m_\mathrm{T}\, p}
\right) \, . \label{eq:delta_HX_to_CS}$$ Equation \[eq:lambda\_transf\], containing terms of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\sin^2\delta_{\mathrm{HX} \rightarrow \mathrm{CS}} \; = \;
\sin^2\delta_{\mathrm{CS} \rightarrow \mathrm{HX}} \; & = \quad
\frac{p_\mathrm{T}^2 \, E^2}{p^2 \, m_\mathrm{T}^2} \, , \\
\sin 2\delta_{\mathrm{HX} \rightarrow \mathrm{CS}} \; = \; - \sin
2\delta_{\mathrm{CS} \rightarrow \mathrm{HX}} \; & = \; \frac{2 \, m
\, p_\mathrm{T} \, p_\mathrm{L} \, E}{p^2 \, m_\mathrm{T}^2} \, ,
\label{eq:delta2_HX_to_CS}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ is now explicitly seen as a kinematic-dependent transformation.
As an example, we show in Fig. \[fig:kindep\_lambda\] how natural [J/$\psi$]{} polarizations $\lambda_\vartheta = +1$ and $-1$ in the CS frame (with $\lambda_{\varphi} = \lambda_{\vartheta \varphi} = 0$ and no intrinsic kinematic dependence) translate into different [$p_{\rm T}$]{}-dependent polarizations measured in the HX frame in different rapidity acceptance windows, representative of the acceptance ranges of several Tevatron and LHC experiments. Corresponding figures for the [$\Upsilon(1S)$]{}case can be seen in Ref. [@bib:ImprovedQQbarPol]. The same results, except for a change in the sign of $\lambda_{\vartheta \varphi}$, the only parameter depending on the sign of the rotation angle, are obtained if the roles of the two frames are inter-exchanged.
The change of sign of the rapidity does not change the $\lambda_{\vartheta}$ and $\lambda_{\varphi}$ curves. However, the sign of $\lambda_{\vartheta \varphi}$ can change from positive to negative rapidity, depending on the convention used for the orientation of the axes. If the axes are defined as in Eqs. \[eq:z\_axis\] and \[eq:y\_axis\] at both positive and negative rapidity, always taking as “first” beam the one positively oriented in the laboratory, $\lambda_{\vartheta \varphi}$ (proportional to $\sin 2 \delta$ with $0 < \delta < \pi$) is forced to change sign when the rapidity changes sign. Any measurement integrating events over a range in rapidity where the acceptance is symmetrical around zero would, therefore, yield $\lambda_{\vartheta \varphi} = 0$. In order to avoid this cancellation, the axis definitions in Eqs. \[eq:z\_axis\] and \[eq:y\_axis\] can be improved by inverting the orientations of $\hat{y}$ and $\hat{z}_{\mathrm{CS}}$ for negative rapidity (correspondingly restricting the domain of the rotation angle to $0 <
\delta < \pi / 2$).
Having seen how the strong kinematic dependence induced by the choice of the observation frame can mimic and/or mask the fundamental (“intrinsic”) dependencies reflecting the production mechanisms, let us now discuss the additional problems caused by common experimental limitations. Experiments can only measure the net polarization of the specific cocktail of quarkonium events accepted by the detector, trigger and analysis cuts. Moreover, each measured value necessarily implies an integration over certain ranges (bins or cells) of the quarkonium momentum components. If the polarization depends on the kinematics, this binning effectively biases the measured angular parameters, in different ways for experiments having different differential acceptances. In other words, two experiments covering the same kinematic interval can measure different average polarizations. This problem can be solved by presenting the results in narrow intervals of the probed phase space. Similarly, theoretical calculations aimed at comparisons with experimental data should consider how the momentum distributions are distorted by the acceptances of those experiments. Alternatively, the predictions should avoid kinematic integrations or, even better, be provided as event-level information to be embedded in the Monte Carlo simulations of the experiments. These considerations provide a further motivation for reporting measurements and theoretical calculations in frame-independent terms, as we will discuss in the next section.
A frame-invariant approach {#sec:invariant}
==========================
The general frame-transformation relations in Eq. \[eq:lambda\_transf\] imply the existence of an invariant quantity, definable in terms of $\lambda_{\vartheta}$, $\lambda_{\varphi}$ and $\lambda_{\vartheta \varphi}$, in one of the following equivalent forms: $$\mathcal{F}_{\{c_i\}} \, = \, \frac{(3 + \lambda_\vartheta) +
c_1 (1 - \lambda_\varphi)}{c_2 (3 + \lambda_\vartheta) +
c_3 (1 - \lambda_\varphi)} \, .
\label{eq:invariants}$$ An account of the fundamental meaning of the frame-invariance of these quantities can be found in Ref. [@bib:LTGen]. We will consider here, specifically, the form $$\tilde{\lambda} \, \equiv \, \mathcal{F}_{\{-3,0,1\}} \,
= \, \frac{\lambda_\vartheta + 3 \lambda_\varphi }{1 -
\lambda_\varphi} \, . \label{eq:lambda_tilde}$$ In the special case when the observed distribution is the superposition of $n$ “elementary” distributions of the kind $1 +
\lambda_\vartheta^{(i)} \cos^2\vartheta$, with event weights $f^{(i)}$, with respect to $n$ different polarization axes, $\tilde{\lambda}$ represents a weighted average of the $n$ polarizations, insensitive to the orientations of the corresponding axes: $$\tilde{\lambda} \; = \;
\sum_{i = 1}^{n} \frac{f^{(i)}}{3 + \lambda_{\vartheta}^{(i)}}
\, \lambda^{(i)}_{\vartheta}
\, \bigg/ \, \sum_{i = 1}^{n} \frac{f^{(i)}}{3 +
\lambda_{\vartheta}^{(i)}} \, .
\label{eq:lambda_tilde_meaning}$$ The determination of an invariant quantity is immune to “extrinsic” kinematic dependencies induced by the observation perspective and is, therefore, less acceptance-dependent than the standard anisotropy parameters $\lambda_{\vartheta}$, $\lambda_{\varphi}$ and $\lambda_{\vartheta \varphi}$.
This is shown in Fig. \[fig:kindep\_lambda\_mix\], where we consider, for illustration, that $60\%$ of the [J/$\psi$]{}events have natural polarization $\lambda_\vartheta = +1$ in the CS frame while the remaining fraction has $\lambda_\vartheta = +1$ in the HX frame. Although the polarizations of the two event subsamples are intrinsically independent of the production kinematics, in neither frame, CS or HX, will measurements performed in different transverse and longitudinal momenta windows find identical results. However, in this case as well as in the simpler case of Fig. \[fig:kindep\_lambda\](a-b-c), any arbitrary choice of the experimental observation frame will always yield the value $\tilde{\lambda} = +1$, independently of kinematics. This particular case, where all contributing processes are transversely polarized, is formally equivalent to the Lam-Tung relation [@bib:LamTung], as discussed in Ref. [@bib:LTGen]. Analogously, the example represented in Fig. \[fig:kindep\_lambda\](d-e-f), or any other case where all polarizations are longitudinal, yields $\tilde{\lambda} = -1$.
The existence of frame-invariant parameters also provides a useful instrument for experimental analyses. Checking, for example, that the same value of an invariant quantity (Eq. \[eq:invariants\]) is obtained, within systematic uncertainties, in two distinct polarization frames is a non-trivial verification of the absence of unaccounted systematic effects. In fact, detector geometry and/or data selection constraints may strongly polarize the reconstructed dilepton events. Background processes also affect the measured polarization, if not well subtracted. The spurious anisotropies induced by detector effects and background do not obey the frame transformation rules characteristic of a physical $J=1$ state. If not well corrected and subtracted, these effects will distort the shape of the measured decay distribution differently in different polarization frames. In particular, they will violate the frame-independent relations between the angular parameters. Any two physical polarization axes (defined in the rest frame of the meson and belonging to the production plane) may be chosen to perform these “sanity tests”. The HX and CS frames are ideal choices at high [$p_{\rm T}$]{}, where they tend to be orthogonal to each other (in Eq. \[eq:delta2\_HX\_to\_CS\], $\sin^2 \delta \rightarrow 1$ for $p_\mathrm{T} \gg m$ and/or $p_\mathrm{T} \gg |p_\mathrm{L}|$). At low [$p_{\rm T}$]{}, where the difference between the two frames vanishes, any of the two and its exact orthogonal may be used to maximize the significance of the test. Given that $\tilde{\lambda}$ is “homogeneous” to the anisotropy parameters, the difference $\tilde{\lambda}^{({\rm B})} -
\tilde{\lambda}^{({\rm A})}$ between the results obtained in two frames provides a direct evaluation of the level of systematic errors not accounted in the analysis.
Effect of intrinsic parton transverse momentum {#sec:kt}
==============================================
In this section we describe how the geometry of the CS frame is related to the kinematics of the production process. It can be recognized from Eq. \[eq:angle\_CS\_HX\] that the vector $\hat{z}_{\mathrm{CS}}$ indicates the direction of the *laboratory* $z$ axis (that is, the beam line) as seen in the quarkonium rest frame. In this frame, any length will be Lorentz contracted by a factor $1/\gamma$ along the quarkonium boost direction, but not along the transverse directions. In the quarkonium rest frame (as well as in the laboratory) the direction of the beam line coincides with the direction of the relative motion of the colliding partons (“parton axis”), when their transverse momenta are neglected (and exactly when averaging a large sample of events). This approximation affects the experimental determination of an angular distribution naturally of the kind $1+ \lambda_\vartheta^{*} \cos^2
\vartheta^{*}$ with respect to the parton axis $z^{*}$. In the following considerations we fix a coordinate system having the $z$ axis along the dilepton direction in the laboratory and the $xz$ plane coinciding with the production plane. We then define the directions of the beam axis and of the parton axis in the laboratory as, respectively, $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\hat{B} & = ( \sin \Theta, 0, \cos \Theta ) \, , \\
\hat{B}^\prime & = ( \sin \Theta^\prime \cos \Phi^\prime, \sin \Theta^\prime
\sin \Phi^\prime, \cos \Theta^\prime ) \, , \label{eq:beam_partons_lab}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Theta$ and $\Theta^\prime$ are the angles they form with respect to the dilepton direction. The presence of the angle $\Phi^\prime$ denotes the fact that, due to the intrinsic transverse momenta of the partons, the vector $\hat{B}^\prime$ does not belong, in general, to the production plane. The angle $\Delta$ between the two directions in the laboratory is given by $$\cos \Delta = \sin \Theta \sin \Theta^\prime \cos \Phi^\prime + \cos \Theta
\cos \Theta^\prime \, . \label{eq:Delta_beam_partons}$$ When boosted to the dilepton rest frame, the two vectors become $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\hat{b} & = \frac{( \sin \Theta, 0, \frac{1}{\gamma} \cos \Theta )}
{\sqrt{\sin^2 \Theta + \frac{1}{\gamma^2} \cos^2 \Theta }} \, , \\
\hat{b}^{\prime} & = \frac{( \sin \Theta^\prime \cos \Phi^\prime, \sin
\Theta^\prime \sin \Phi^\prime, \frac{1}{\gamma} \cos \Theta^\prime
)}{\sqrt{\sin^2 \Theta^\prime + \frac{1}{\gamma^2} \cos^2 \Theta^\prime }}
\label{eq:beam_partons_dimuon}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ and the cosine of the angle between them $$\cos \zeta = \frac{\cos \Delta - \beta^2 \cos \Theta \cos \Theta^\prime }{
\sqrt{1 - \beta^2 \cos^2 \Theta} \sqrt{1 - \beta^2 \cos^2 \Theta^\prime} } \, .
\label{eq:zeta_beam_partons}$$ The rotation by $\zeta$ from the parton axis to the beam line axis transforms the polarization parameter $\lambda_\vartheta$ according to the following expressions: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\lambda^{\rm{CS}}_\vartheta & \; \simeq \;
\left( 1- \frac{3+\lambda_\vartheta^{*}}{2} \, \langle \sin^2\zeta \rangle
\right) \;
\lambda_\vartheta^{*} \, , \\
\lambda^{\rm{CS}}_\varphi & \; \simeq \;
\lambda^{\rm{CS}}_{\vartheta \varphi} \; \simeq \; 0 \, .
\label{eq:lambda_transf_parton_CS}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ These transformations do not represent a simple rotation as Eq. \[eq:lambda\_transf\]. Indeed, the magnitude of the polar anisotropy decreases, while no significant azimuthal anisotropy arises. In fact, the rotation plane (formed by the parton and beam lines) does not coincide with the experimentally defined production plane. The angle between the two planes changes from one event to the next, so that the azimuthal anisotropy deriving from the tilt between the “natural” polarization axis and the experimental axis tends to be smeared out in the integration over all events. Since $\cos \Delta \simeq 1 - \frac{1}{2} \sin^2\Delta$ and (approximately event-by-event, and exactly on average) $\cos
\Theta^\prime \simeq \cos \Theta$, from Eq. \[eq:zeta\_beam\_partons\] we obtain $$\langle \sin^2\zeta \rangle \; \simeq \; \frac{\langle \sin^2\Delta \rangle}{ 1
- \beta^2 \cos^2 \Theta } \; = \; \frac{E^2}{m_{\rm{T}}^2} \, \langle \sin^2\Delta
\rangle \, . \label{eq:sinzeta2_beam_partons}$$ Denoting by $\vec{k}_{1,2}$, $\vec{k}_{1,2\rm{T}}$ and $E_{1,2}$ the total momenta, transverse momenta and energies of the two partons in the laboratory, the laboratory angle $\Delta$ satisfies $$\sin^2\Delta \; = \; \frac{( \vec{k}_{1\rm{T}} - \vec{k}_{2\rm{T}} )^2 }{ (
\vec{k}_{1} - \vec{k}_{2} )^2 } \; \simeq \; \frac{( \vec{k}_{1\rm{T}} -
\vec{k}_{2\rm{T}} )^2 }{ ( E_{1} + E_{2} )^2 } \label{eq:sinDelta2}$$ and, on average, $$\langle \sin^2\Delta \rangle \; \simeq \; \frac{ 2 \langle \vec{k}_{\rm{T}}^2
\rangle }{ ( E_{1} + E_{2} )^2 } \, , \label{eq:sinDelta2avg}$$ where we have defined the average parton squared transverse momentum as $\langle \vec{k}_{\rm{T}}^2 \rangle = (\langle \vec{k}_{1\rm{T}}^2
\rangle +\langle \vec{k}_{2\rm{T}}^2 \rangle)/2$.
Considering now the specific case of Drell-Yan production at low [$p_{\rm T}$]{}, we can assume an approximate equality between total parton energy and dilepton energy, $E_{1} + E_{2} \simeq E$, and, moreover, $\langle
m_{\rm{T}}^2 \rangle \simeq m^2 + 2 \langle
\vec{k}_{\rm{T}}^2\rangle$. Combining Eqs. \[eq:lambda\_transf\_parton\_CS\] (with $\lambda_\vartheta^{*} =
+1$), \[eq:sinzeta2\_beam\_partons\] and \[eq:sinDelta2avg\], we find that the measurement of the polarization of low-[$p_{\rm T}$]{} Drell-Yan dileptons provides an estimate of the “effective” parton transverse momentum: $$\langle \vec{k}_{\rm{T}}^2 \rangle \; \simeq \; \frac{m^2}{2} \;
\frac{1-\lambda_\vartheta^{\rm{CS}}}{1+\lambda_\vartheta^{\rm{CS}}} \, .
\label{eq:kT2_lambdatheta}$$ The average Drell-Yan polarization $\lambda_\vartheta^{\rm{CS}} =
1.008 \pm 0.026$ measured by E866 [@bib:e866_Ups], in proton-copper collisions for $\langle m \rangle \simeq 10$ GeV$/c^2$ and $p_{\rm{T}} < 4$ GeV$/c$, implies, therefore, that $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\langle \vec{k}_{\rm{T}}^2 \rangle \; & < \; 0.5 \; {\rm GeV}^2/c^2
\quad {\rm at~ 68\% ~ C.L.\ and}\\
\langle \vec{k}_{\rm{T}}^2 \rangle \; & < \; 1.0 \; {\rm GeV}^2/c^2
\quad {\rm at~ 95\% ~ C.L.\, .}
\label{eq:kT2_limit_E866}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Tighter limits could be derived from precise low-mass measurements, given that the polarization smearing effects are essentially proportional to $m^{-2}$. Unfortunately, the existing (pion-induced) measurements [@bib:NA10; @bib:E615], though very precise and extending down to $4$ GeV$/c^2$, present large azimuthal anisotropies of dubious interpretation and are scarcely suitable for this purpose.
We can now estimate the maximum magnitude of the smearing effects that can be foreseen for the observable quarkonium polarization when the natural polarization axis is the parton axis. Combining again Eqs. \[eq:lambda\_transf\_parton\_CS\], \[eq:sinzeta2\_beam\_partons\] and \[eq:sinDelta2avg\], this time with $E_{1} + E_{2} \geq E$, we find that the magnitude of the polarization is reduced by the fraction $$\left| \frac{\lambda_\vartheta^{\rm{CS}} -
\lambda_\vartheta^{*}}{\lambda_\vartheta^{*}} \right| \; \lesssim \; \frac{(3 +
\lambda_\vartheta^{*}) \langle \vec{k}_{\rm{T}}^2 \rangle}{m^2 + p_{\rm{T}}^2}
\, . \label{eq:lambdatheta_kT_smearing}$$ For example, it cannot be excluded, considering the limit in Eq. \[eq:kT2\_limit\_E866\], that a fully transverse natural polarization of the [J/$\psi$]{} along the parton axis is reduced by as much as $30\%$, for $p_{\rm{T}} = 2$ GeV$/c$, when observed in the CS frame. This smearing effect should be one order of magnitude smaller for [J/$\psi$]{} mesons of $p_{\rm{T}} = 10$ GeV$/c$. On the other hand, given the strong dependence of the effect on the dilepton mass, bottomonium polarization measurements are practically insensitive to the parton transverse momentum even at low $p_{\rm{T}}$. This prediction is consistent with the already quoted E866 results, showing $\Upsilon(2S+3S)$ polarizations in the CS frame always compatible with $+1$, within a $\sim 15\%$ uncertainty, in four $p_{\rm{T}}$ bins between $0$ and $4$ GeV$/c$.
A few concrete examples {#sec:examples}
=======================
We conclude with some examples of measurements illustrating concepts described in the previous sections.
We have already referred to the E866 measurement of a full transverse $\Upsilon(2S+3S)$ polarization in the CS frame. The result is represented in Fig. \[fig:E866\]a, as a function of $p_{\rm{T}}$. A similarly constant behaviour, consistent with a Drell-Yan-like polarization, has been measured by this experiment as a function of $x_{\rm{F}}$, in the range $[0,0.5]$, confirming that the adoption of the CS frame is, in this case, an optimal choice. It is true that, in special kinematic conditions, the transverse polarization observed in one frame could, in reality, be the reflection of a natural longitudinal polarization in another frame, as shown in Fig. \[fig:kindep\_lambda\]d. However, a maximal polarization *independent of the production kinematics* in the CS frame must directly reflect the spin configuration of the interacting partons (as is well known to be the case in Drell-Yan production, a paradigmatic example of natural transverse polarization in the CS frame).
To better illustrate the importance of an optimal choice of the reference frame, we will now consider what the E866 experiment would have measured, had the analysis been made with a different choice. As a reasonable approximation, we assume that the azimuthal distribution is exactly isotropic in the CS frame. The polar anisotropy that would be observed in the HX frame is shown in Fig. \[fig:E866\]b, where the curve includes an extrapolation to higher $p_{\rm{T}}$ assuming that in the CS frame the distribution continues to have the shape $1 + \cos^2 \vartheta$. A measurement performed in the HX frame would show, quite misleadingly, a polarization changing from fully transverse to partially longitudinal. The strong signature of “natural” transverse polarization evidenced by the data in the CS frame would become unrecognizable, although it could, in principle, be reconstructed back if (and only if) the azimuthal anisotropy were also measured.
Seeing how the curve in Fig. \[fig:E866\]b qualitatively resembles the pattern measured by CDF for the [J/$\psi$]{}, it is natural to wonder how that measurement, made in the HX frame, would look like in the CS frame. Unfortunately, in this case the measurement itself, a slight longitudinal polarization, does not suggest any educated guess on what we could assume for the unmeasured azimuthal anisotropy. For example, as shown in Fig. \[fig:CDF\_CS\], if the distribution in the HX frame were azimuthally isotropic, the measured polarization would correspond to a practically undetectable polarization in the CS frame (dashed line).
However, if we take into account all physically possible values of the azimuthal anisotropy, as allowed by the triangular relation represented in Fig. \[fig:triangles\], we can only derive a broad spectrum of possible CS polarizations, approximately included between $-0.5$ and $+1$ (shaded band). This example shows how a measurement reporting only the polar anisotropy is amenable to several interpretations in fundamental terms, often corresponding to drastically different physical cases. One possible hypothesis would be that all processes are naturally polarized in the HX frame and that transverse and longitudinal polarizations are superimposed in proportions varying from approximately $2/3$ transverse and $1/3$ longitudinal at $p_{\rm T} =
5$ GeV$/c$ ($\lambda_\vartheta \simeq 0$) to around 60%/40% at $p_{\rm T} = 20$ GeV$/c$ ($\lambda_\vartheta \simeq -0.2$). In this case, no azimuthal anisotropy should be observed in the HX frame. Alternatively, we can consider a scenario where the observed *slightly longitudinal* HX polarization is actually the result of a mixture of two processes, both producing [J/$\psi$]{} mesons with *fully transverse* polarizations, but one in the HX frame and the other in the CS frame.
Figure \[fig:CDF\_transverse\](left) shows that this scenario is perfectly compatible with the CDF $\lambda_\vartheta$ measurement if the proportion $f_{\rm HX}/(f_{\rm HX} + f_{\rm CS})$ between the two sub-processes is assumed to vary linearly between $30\%$ at $p_{\rm T} = 5$ GeV$/c$ and $15\%$ at $p_{\rm T} = 20$ GeV$/c$. The difference with respect to the previous hypothesis is that now we would measure a significant azimuthal anisotropy, $\lambda_\varphi
\simeq 0.3$, as shown in Fig. \[fig:CDF\_transverse\](right). As an attempt to reconcile low-[$p_{\rm T}$]{} measurements with collider data, Ref. [@bib:pol] described one further conjecture, in which the polarization arises naturally in the CS frame, and becomes increasingly transverse with increasing total [J/$\psi$]{} momentum. Again, a direct measurement of $\lambda_\varphi$ (which, in this case, should be zero in the CS frame but positive and increasing in the HX frame) would easily clarify the situation.
We finish this section by illustrating the application of the frame-independent formalism as a tool to estimate residual systematic uncertainties in experimental data analyses. Figure \[fig:NA60\] shows a putative set of [J/$\psi$]{} polarization measurements performed in the CS and HX frames, versus [$p_{\rm T}$]{}. While the $\lambda_\vartheta$ values seem to change significantly from one frame to the other, the two $\lambda_\varphi$ patterns are very similar. This observation should alert to a possible experimental artifact in the data analysis. We can evaluate the significance of the apparent contradiction by calculating the frame-invariant $\tilde{\lambda}$ variable in each of the two frames. For the case illustrated in Fig. \[fig:NA60\], averaging the four represented [$p_{\rm T}$]{} bins, we see that $\tilde{\lambda}$ in the HX frame is larger than in the CS frame by 0.5 (a rather large value, considering that the decay parameters are bound between $-1$ and $+1$). In other words, an experiment obtaining such measurements would learn from this simple exercise that its determination of the decay parameters must be biased by systematic errors of roughly this magnitude. Given the puzzles and contradictions existing in the published experimental results, as recalled in Section \[sec:intro\], the use of a frame-invariant approach to perform self-consistency checks, which can expose unaccounted systematic effects due to detector limitations and analysis biases, constitutes a non-trivial complementary aspect of the new approach proposed in this paper for quarkonium polarization measurements.
Summary and conclusions
=======================
Motivated by several puzzles affecting the existing measurements of quarkonium polarization, we present in this paper a set of proposals which should improve the experimental determination of the [J/$\psi$]{} and [$\Upsilon$]{} polarizations. They are summarized in the next paragraphs.
Measurements and calculations of vector quarkonium polarization should provide results for the full dilepton decay angular distribution (a three-parameter function) and not only for the polar anisotropy parameter. Only in this way can the measurements and calculations represent unambiguous determinations of the average angular momentum composition of the produced quarkonium state in terms of the three base eigenstates, with $J_z = +1, 0, -1$.
It is advisable to perform the experimental analyses in at least two different polarization frames. In fact, the self-evidence of certain signature polarization cases (e.g. a full polarization with respect to a specific axis) can be spoiled by an unfortunate choice of the reference frame, which can lead to artificial (“extrinsic”) dependencies of the results on the kinematics and on the experimental acceptance.
The measured dependence of the polarization on the production kinematics is necessarily influenced by the differential experimental acceptance, i.e. by the kinematic distribution of the population of the accepted events. This problem, which is not solved by acceptance corrections, can be minimized by providing the results in narrow cells in quarkonium rapidity and transverse momentum. Theoretical calculations should be provided as event-level inputs to Monte Carlo generators which can be tailored to the specific performance capabilities of each experiment.
The decay angular distribution can be characterized by a frame-independent quantity, such as $\tilde{\lambda}$, calculable in terms of the polar and azimuthal anisotropy parameters. The existence of such frame-invariant quantities can be used during the data analysis phase to perform self-consistency checks that can expose previously unaccounted biases, caused, for instance, by the detector limitations or by the event selection criteria.
Besides providing a much needed control over systematic experimental biases, the variable $\tilde{\lambda}$ also provides relevant physical information: it characterizes the *shape* of the angular distribution, reflecting “intrinsic” spin-alignment properties of the decaying state, irrespectively of the specific geometrical framework chosen by the observer. For instance, we obtain $\tilde{\lambda}=+1$ for the shapes shown in Fig. \[fig:natpols\] (a) and (c), and $\tilde{\lambda}=-1$ for the shapes shown in the panels (b) and (d). A very important advantage of re-expressing the frame-dependent polar and azimuthal anisotropies in terms of a frame-invariant quantity is the exact cancellation of extrinsic dependencies on kinematics and acceptances, enabling more robust comparisons with other experiments and with theory. The calculation of $\tilde{\lambda}$ requires, anyhow, the determination of the full decay distribution in a chosen reference frame and, obviously, does not replace this standard procedure. Moreover, the three frame-dependent parameters ($\lambda_{\vartheta}$, $\lambda_{\varphi}$ and $\lambda_{\vartheta\varphi}$) can provide information on the *direction* of the spin-alignment of the decaying particle (when this direction is univocally defined) and, therefore, on the topological properties of the dominant production mechanism. For instance, the measurement of a full transverse polarization in the CS frame represents a direct observation of the spin alignments of the interacting partons, as we know from Drell-Yan production. On the other hand, in the presence of a superposition of production processes with polarizations along different axes, measuring the frame-dependent anisotropies will not provide, in general, much information on the polarizations involved or on their natural alignment directions, while the value of $\tilde{\lambda}$ will immediately tell us if the processes involved have a predominantly transverse or longitudinal nature.
Stripped-down analyses which only measure the polar anisotropy in a single reference frame, as often done in past experiments, give more information about the frame selected by the analyst (“is the adopted quantization direction an optimal choice?”) than about the physical properties of the produced quarkonium (“along which direction is the spin aligned, on average?”). For example, a natural longitudinal polarization will give any desired $\lambda_\vartheta$ value, from $-1$ to $+1$, if observed from a suitably chosen reference frame. Lack of statistics is not a reason to “reduce the number of free parameters” if the resulting measurements become ambiguous. The forthcoming measurements of quarkonium polarization in proton-proton collisions at the LHC have the potential of providing a very important step forward in our understanding of quarkonium production, if the experiments adopt a more robust analysis framework, incorporating the ideas presented in this paper.
P.F., J.S. and H.K.W. acknowledge support from Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, Portugal, under contracts SFRH /BPD/42343/2007, CERN/FP/109343/2009 and SFRH/BPD/42138/2007.
[99]{} =0.pt =0.pt
N. Brambilla *et al.* (QWG Coll.), CERN Yellow Report 2005-005, hep-ph/0412158, and references therein.
F. Abe *et al.* (CDF Coll.), Phys. Rev. Lett. **79**, 572 (1997).
G.T. Bodwin, E. Braaten and G.P. Lepage, Phys. Rev. **D 51**, 1125 (1995); Phys. Rev. **D 55**, 5853E (1997).
J.P. Lansberg, Eur. Phys. J. **C 61** (2009) 693.
M. Beneke and M. Krämer, Phys. Rev. **D 55**, 5269 (1997).
A.K. Leibovich, Phys. Rev. **D 56**, 4412 (1997).
E. Braaten, B.A. Kniehl and J. Lee, Phys. Rev. **D 62**, 094005 (2000).
A. Abulencia *et al.* (CDF Coll.), Phys. Rev. Lett. **99**, 132001 (2007).
P. Faccioli, C. Lourenço, J. Seixas, and H.K. Wöhri, J. High Energy Phys. **10**, 004 (2008).
P. Faccioli, C. Lourenço, J. Seixas and H.K. Wöhri, Phys. Rev. Lett. **102**, 151802 (2009).
D. Acosta *et al.* (CDF Coll.), Phys. Rev. Lett. **88**, 161802 (2002). V.M. Abazov *et al.* (D0 Coll.), Phys. Rev. Lett. **101**, 182004 (2008).
C.N. Brown *et al.* (E866 Coll.), Phys. Rev. Lett. **86**, 2529 (2001).
T. Affolder *et al.* (CDF Coll.), Phys. Rev. Lett. **85**, 2886 (2000).
C.S. Lam and W.K. Tung, Phys. Rev. **D 18**, 2447 (1978). M. Artuso *et al.* (CLEO Coll.), Phys. Rev. **D 80**, 112003 (2009).
T.A. Armstrong *et al.* (E760 Coll.), Phys. Rev. **D 48**, 3037 (1993); M. Ambrogiani *et al.* (E835 Coll.), Phys. Rev. **D 65**, 052002 (2002).
M. Ambrogiani *et al.* (E835 Coll.), Phys. Lett. **B 610**, 177 (2005).
E. Braaten and T.C. Yuan, Phys. Rev. Lett. **71**, 1673 (1993).
H. Fritzsch, Phys. Lett. **B 67**, 217 (1977); F. Halzen, Phys. Lett. **B 69**, 105 (1977).
K. Gottfried and J.D. Jackson, Nuovo Cim. **33**, 309 (1964).
J.C. Collins and D.E. Soper, Phys. Rev. **D 16**, 2219 (1977).
D.M. Brink and G.R. Satchler, “Angular momentum” (Third Edition), Clarendon Press, Oxford (1993).
P. Faccioli, C. Lourenço and J. Seixas, Phys. Rev. **D 81**, 111502(R) (2010).
P. Faccioli, C. Lourenço and J. Seixas, “Rotation-invariant relations in vector meson decays into fermion pairs”, arXiv:1005.2601 \[hep-ph\].
S. Falciano *et al.* (NA10 Coll.), Z. Phys. **C 31**, 513 (1986).
J.S. Conway *et al.* (E615 Coll.), Phys. Rev. **D 39**, 92 (1989).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We compute the centre of the cyclotomic Hecke algebra attached to $G(m,1,2)$ and show that if $q \neq 1$ it is equal to the image of the centre of the affine Hecke algebra ${H_2^{\text{aff}}}$. We also briefly discuss what is known about the relation between the centre of an arbitrary cyclotomic Hecke algebra and the centre of the affine Hecke algebra of type $A$.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, Imperial College London. '
author:
- Kevin McGerty
date: 'April, 2010'
title: 'On the centre of the cyclotomic Hecke algebra of $G(m,1,2)$'
---
On the centre of ${\mathcal K_2^{\mathbf v}}$ {#onthecenter}
=============================================
We consider quotients of the affine Hecke algebra ${H_2^{\text{aff}}}$ of type $A_2$: this is the algebra over $\mathcal A = \mathbb Z[q]$ generated by $T, X_1^{\pm 1},X_2^{\pm 1}$, such that
1. there is an injective algebra map $\mathcal A[X_1^{\pm 1}, X_2^{\pm 1}] \to {H_2^{\text{aff}}}$.
2. $(T-q)(T+1) = 0$;
3. $TX_1T = qX_2$.
Let $S$ denote the image of the ring of Laurent polynomials $\mathcal A[X_1^{\pm}, X_2^{\pm}]$ in ${H_2^{\text{aff}}}$, and let $W$ be the two element group with nontrivial element $s$ which acts on $S$ by interchanging $X_1$ and $X_2$. We write the action as $f \mapsto {^sf}$. For convenience of notation we set $Q = q-1$. Relation ($3$) above is then equivalent to $$\label{commutation}
Tf = {^sf}T + Q\frac{f-{^sf}}{1 - X_1X_2^{-1}}, \qquad f \in S.$$ It is easy to check from this that the centre of ${H_2^{\text{aff}}}$ is $S^W$ the algebra of symmetric functions in the $X_i^{\pm 1}$.
Now let $A = \mathbb Z[q^{\pm1},v_1^{\pm1}, v_2^{\pm1}, \ldots, v_m^{\pm1}]$ be a Laurent polynomial ring, and extend the scalars of ${H_2^{\text{aff}}}$ to $A\otimes_{\mathcal A} {H_2^{\text{aff}}}$. By abuse of notation we will again denote this algebra by ${H_2^{\text{aff}}}$, and similarly for the subalgebra $S$.
\[cycldef\] The cyclotomic Hecke algebra ${\mathcal K_2^{\mathbf v}}$ of type $G(m,1,2)$ is a quotient of ${H_2^{\text{aff}}}$: let $$\label{charpoly}
\begin{split}
{f_{\mathbf v}}&= (x -v_1)(x-v_2)\ldots(x -v_m) \\
& = \sum_{j=0}^{m} (-1)^{m-j}e_{m-j}x^{j}.
\end{split}$$ where the $e_j$ are the elementary symmetric functions in the $v_i$’s. Let ${J_{\mathbf v}}$ be the two-sided ideal in ${H_2^{\text{aff}}}$ generated by $f_1 = {f_{\mathbf v}}(X_1)$ and set ${\mathcal K_2^{\mathbf v}}= {H_2^{\text{aff}}}/{J_{\mathbf v}}$. (Note that our definition coincides with that in [@A] up to rescaling, after $v_1,v_2,\ldots,v_m$ have been inverted, except that his “$q$” is a square root of ours).
We say that a polynomial $p$ in $S$ is $m$-*restricted* (or simply *restricted*, when the integer $m$ is understood) if the monomials $X_1^iX_2^j$ occurring with nonzero coefficient in $p$ all satisfy $0 \leq i,j \leq m-1$. Let $S_m$ denote the space of $m$-restricted polynomials. It is known that the image $R_m$ of $S$ in ${\mathcal K_2^{\mathbf v}}$ is isomorphic as an $A$-module to $S_m$, and moreover ${\mathcal K_2^{\mathbf v}}= R_m \oplus R_mT$ as an $A$-module *i.e.* every element of ${\mathcal K_2^{\mathbf v}}$ can be written uniquely in the form $f +gT$ where $f$ and $g$ are restricted. We refer to this last fact as the “basis theorem” for ${\mathcal K_2^{\mathbf v}}$.
We start with a technical lemma. Let $D$ be the difference operator on $S$ given by $$D(f) = (f-{}^sf)/(1-X_1X_2^{-1}), \quad f \in S,$$ so that the relation \[commutation\] becomes $Tf = {}^sfT+QD(f)$. Let $D_s$ be the composition $f \mapsto {}^s(-D(f))$, that is, $$D_s(f) = (f-{}^sf)/(1-X_1^{-1}X_2).$$
The operators $D$ and $D_s$ preserve $S_m$ and thus induce $A$-linear maps on $R_m$. Moreover $$D(f) = D_s(f)$$ if and only if $f ={}^sf$.
The proof that $D$ and $D_s$ preserve $R$ is a direct calculation: observe that if $f = X_1^i X_2^j$, then we have $$D(f) = \left\{\begin{array}{cc}X_1^i\sum_{k=0}^{j-i-1} X_1^kX_2^{j-k}, & \text{ if } j>i; \\
-X_1^j\sum_{k=0}^{i-j-1} X_1^kX_2^{i-k}, & \text{ if } j<i.\end{array}\right.$$ Thus as the highest powers of $X_1$ and $X_2$ occurring in these expressions is $\max\{i,j\}$, it is clear that if $p$ is any $m$-restricted polynomial, so is $D(p)$. Since $^sD$ is the composition of $-D$ with $s$, it clearly also preserves restricted polynomials.
Moreover, note that in $D(f)$ where $f$ is the monomial above, $X_1$ never occurs to the power $\max\{i,j\}$ whereas $X_2$ does, thus for any restricted polynomial $p$, if $D(p)\neq 0$, it has a higher power of $X_2$ occurring than occurs as a power of $X_1$. Thus similarly $D_s(p)$, if nonzero, has a higher power of $X_1$ occurring than occurs as a power of $X_2$. It follows that $D(p) = D_s(p)$ if and only if $D(p) = 0$, and this occurs only if $p = {}^sp$ as claimed.
\[symmetricnecessity\] Let $z \in \mathcal K_2$ and suppose that $z = f+gT$ where $f, g \in R_m$. Then $z$ commutes with $T$ if and only if $f,g \in R_m^W$.
The sufficiency of the condition is clear. To see the necessity, we have $$\begin{split}
T(f +gT) &= {^sf}T + QD(f) + {^sg}T^2 + QD(g)T \\
& = ({^sf}+ Q{^sg}+QD(g))T + QD(f)+q{^sg},
\end{split}$$ (where we write $D$ for the operator on $R_m$ given by the previous lemma). On the other hand, we have $$(f+gT)T = (f+Qg)T + qg.$$ Since $f$ and$g$ are restricted, it follows from the basis theorem for cyclotomic Hecke algebras that we must have: $$({^sf}+ Q{^sg}+QD(g)) = f+Qg,$$ and $$QD(f)+q{^sg} = qg$$ Thus after rearranging the second of these equations becomes: $$QD(f) = q(g-{^sg}).$$ Now note that the right-hand side is an eigenvector for the action of $s$ with eigenvalue $-1$, thus so is the left-hand side, whence we get ${}^s(D(f)) = -D(f)$, or equivalently $D(f) = D_s(f)$. By the previous Lemma, this is possible only if $f = {^sf}$, and $D(f) =0$. But then we must also have $g-{^sg}= 0$, and so $f$ and $g$ are symmetric as required.
Let $\mathcal Z$ denote the centre of $\mathcal K_2$. From the previous lemma, we see that if $z = f+gT \in \mathcal Z$, then $f, g \in R_m^W$. Since $f\in R_m^W$ is already central, we see that $\mathcal Z = \mathcal Z \cap R_m \oplus \mathcal Z \cap R_mT$, and we are reduced to calculating when $gT$ is central. For this we introduce the following operator:
Let $d\colon S \to S$ be the linear map given on monomials by $$d(X_1^iX_2^j) = \left\{\begin{array}{cc}X_1^iX_2^j & \text{ if } i<j; \\-X_1^jX_2^i & \text{ if } i>j \\0 & \text{ if } i=j.\end{array}\right.$$ Clearly $d$ preserves $S_m$, and so we may transport it to a map on $R_m$ (which we will also denote by $d$). Clearly the kernel $\text{ker}(d)$ of its action on $R_m$ is $R_m^W$, and since $d^2 = d$, $R_m = R_m^W \oplus d(R_m)$.
\[TpartofZ\] $\mathcal Z \cap R_mT$ is a free $A$-module of rank $m$.
Suppose that $gT \in \mathcal Z \cap RT$. We must have $X_1gT = gTX_1$ and $TgT = gT^2$, and these conditions are sufficient. Since $T$ is invertible (indeed $T^{-1} = q^{-1}(T+1-q)$) the second equation is equivalent to $Tg =gT$. By Lemma \[symmetricnecessity\] this implies that $g \in R^W$, and hence the first equation becomes $(X_1g)T =T( X_1g)$. But then again using Lemma \[symmetricnecessity\], we see that $X_1g \in R_m^W$. Let $M$ be the space of such restricted symmetric polynomials: $$M = \{g \in R_m^W: X_1g \in R_m^W\}.$$ We have shown that $\mathcal Z \cap RT = MT$. It is now a linear algebra exercise to check that $M$ is a free $A$-modules of rank $m$. By the paragraph preceding the lemma, $R_m = R_m^W \oplus d(R_m)$ as an $A$-module. Thus if we let $\phi\colon R_m^W \to d(R_m)$ be the map $g \mapsto d(X_1g)$, we see that $M = \text{ker}(\phi)$. Let $m_{ij}= X_1^iX_2^j + X_1^jX_2^i$ for $i < j$ and $m_{ii} = X_1^iX_2^i$ be the monomial symmetric functions, and let $R^W_{m-1}$ be the span of $\{m_{ij}: 0 \leq i \leq j <m-1\}$. Then we claim that $\phi \colon R^W_{m-1} \to d(R_m)$ is an isomorphism of $A$-modules. Indeed for $j<m-1$ we have: $$\phi(m_{ij}) = \left\{\begin{array}{cc}-X_1^iX_2^{j+1}, & \text{ if } j-i \leq 1;\\ -X_1^iX_2^{j+1} +X_1^{i+1}X_2^j, & \text{ if } j-i >1.\end{array}\right.$$ If we use reverse lexicographical ordering on the bases $\{m_{ij}: 0 \leq i \leq j <m-1\}$ and $\{X_1^iX_2^j: 0 \leq i < j \leq m-1\}$, then the above equations show that the matrix of $\phi_{|R^W_{m-1}}$ with respect to these ordered bases is triangular with diagonal entries equal to $- 1$, thus $\phi_{|R_{m-1}^W}$ is an isomorphism as claimed.
This immediately implies that $M$ is a free $A$-module of rank $m$. However, we can be more precise and even specify a basis of $M$ by considering the images of $\phi(m_{i(m-1)})$, ($0 \leq i \leq m-1$): set $$p_i = m_{i(m-1)} - (\phi_{R_{m-1}^W})^{-1}(\phi(m_{i(m-1)})),$$ then $\{p_0T,p_1T,\ldots p_{m-1}T\}$ is an $A$-basis of $\mathcal Z \cap R_mT$
\[3example\] Let $m=3$. In this case we find that the space $\mathcal Z \cap R^WT$ is spanned by $\{p_0T,p_1T,p_2T\}$ where $$\label{theZs}
\begin{split}
p_0 = (e_3 -e_1(X_1+X_2) + X_1X_2 + X_1^2 +X_2^2), \\
p_1 = (e_3 -e_1X_1X_2 + X_1X_2(X_1+X_2)),\\
p_2 = (e_3(X_1+X_2) - e_2X_1X_2 +X_1^2X_2^2).
\end{split}$$
Thus we have shown that the centre $\mathcal Z$ of ${\mathcal K_2^{\mathbf v}}$ (with $m=3$) is a $9$-dimensional free submodule spanned by $R_3^W$ and $\{p_0T, p_1T, p_2T\}$ (this is exactly as stated in [@A Section 2]).
It is easy to check directly that Lemma \[TpartofZ\] implies that the rank of the centre is the number of $m$-multipartitions of $2$. This also follows by passing to the field of fractions of $A$, and using the result of [@AK] which shows that in the semisimple case (for any $n$), the centre has rank equal to the number of $m$-multipartition of $n$.
On the image of $Z(H_2^\mathrm{aff})$
=====================================
Next we do some simple computations. Let $H_k = \sum_{j=0}^{k}X_1^jX_2^{k-j}$ be the complete symmetric function in $X_1$ and $X_2$ of degree $k$, and let $\mathcal I$ denote the image of the centre of ${H_2^{\text{aff}}}$ in ${\mathcal K_2^{\mathbf v}}$. Recall that $f_1= {f_{\mathbf v}}(X_1)$.
Let $f_2 = Tf_1T$. Thus $f_2 \in J_v$.
\[explicitcalculation\] a) In ${H_2^{\text{aff}}}$, for any $k\geq 2$ $$TX_1^kT = qX_2^k -Q(X_1X_2)H_{k-2}T$$ b) We have $$q{f_{\mathbf v}}(X_2) = f_2 + QzT,$$ where $z = (-1)^{m+1}e_m + (X_1X_2)(\sum_{j=0}^{m-2}(-1)^{j}e_{j}H_{m-2-j}) \in S_m^W$.
The proof of a) is a direct calculation using Equation (\[commutation\]). For b) we have using a) $$qX_2^k = TX_1^kT +Q(X_1X_2)h_{k-2}T, \qquad (k \geq 2).$$ Moreover, $qX_2 = TX_1T$, and $q = T^2 -QT$, so that $$q{f_{\mathbf v}}(X_2) = f_2 + Q\big( (-1)^{m+1}e_m +(X_1X_2)(\sum_{j=2}^{m} (-1)^{m-j}e_{m-j}H_{j-2})\big)T,$$ as claimed.
Note that one has the well known identity of symmetric functions $\sum_{r=o}^n (-1)^r e_{n-r}h_r = 0$ for elementary and complete symmetric functions in the *same* set of variables. In the preceding lemma the $e_j$ are symmetric functions in the $v_i$s while the $H_k$s are symmetric in the $X_i$s.
\[TpartofI\] The elements $QX_1^kz$ lie in $\mathcal I$ for all $k \in \mathbb Z$, and moreover the elements $\{X_1^{k-1}z: 0 \leq k \leq m-1\}$ are linearly independent.
From the previous lemma we have $$\begin{split}
QX_1^kzT &= qX_1^k{f_{\mathbf v}}(X_2) - X_1^kf_2 \\
& = qX_1^k{f_{\mathbf v}}(X_2) + qX_2^k{f_{\mathbf v}}(X_1) -(qX_2^kf_1 +X_1^kf_2) \\
& \in qX_1^k{f_{\mathbf v}}(X_2) + qX_2^k{f_{\mathbf v}}(X_1) + {J_{\mathbf v}}.
\end{split}$$ hence we see that $QX_1^kzT \in {\mathcal K_2^{\mathbf v}}= {H_2^{\text{aff}}}/{J_{\mathbf v}}$ is in the image of the centre of ${H_2^{\text{aff}}}$ as required.
It remains to show that the elements $\{X_1^{k-1} z: 0 \leq k \leq m-1\}$ are linearly independent. Since $A$ is an integral domain, we see that $X_1^{k-1}zT \in \mathcal Z$, and hence $X_1^{k-1}z \in R_m^W$ by Lemma \[symmetricnecessity\]. Now we have $$X_1^{k-1}z = (-1)^{m+1}e_mX_1^{k-1} - (X_1^{k}X_2)(\sum_{j=0}^{m-2}(-1)^{j+1}e_{j}H_{m-2-j}).$$ Now consider this expression for $X_1^{k-1}z$ as a linear combination of the monomial symmetric functions $m_{ij}$ lying in $R_m$: by considering the terms involving $X_2^{m-1}$ we see that the coefficient of $m_{j(m-1)}$ is zero unless $j=k$ in which case it is $1$. It follows immediately that the $X_1^{k-1} z$ in the range $0\leq k \leq m-1$ are linearly independent.
We can now combine the above results to establish our main theorem.
Let $B$ denote the localization $A$ where $Q=q-1$ is inverted. Then, over $B$, the centre of ${H_2^{\text{aff}}}$ surjects onto the centre of ${\mathcal K_2^{\mathbf v}}$.
It is clearly sufficient to show that $p_iT$ lies in $\mathcal I$, where $p_i \in R_m^W$, $(0 \leq i \leq m-1)$, is as in Lemma \[TpartofZ\]. Since we have inverted $Q$, Proposition \[TpartofI\] shows that we have $X_1^kzT \in \mathcal I$ for all $k \in \mathbb Z$. Now by the proof of the previous proposition, we also know that the coefficient of $m_{j(m-1)}$ in $X_1^{k-1}z$ ($0 \leq k \leq m-1$) in the basis $\{m_{ij}\}$ of restricted monomial symmetric functions is $\delta_{jk}$, and the same is true, by definition, for the $p_k$. Since $\mathcal I \subset \mathcal Z$, we can write $X_1^kzT$ as a linear combination of the elements $p_iT$, hence it follows immediately that $p_kT = X_1^{k-1}zT$, and we are done.
We consider again the case $m=3$, keeping the notation of the previous example. Then $z=p_1$, and it is easy to check that $X_1p_1 = p_2$, and similarly
$$\begin{split}
X_1^{-1}p_1 &= e_3X_1^{-1} - e_1X_2 + X_2(X_1+X_2) \\
&= (e_2-e_1X_1+ X_1^2) - e_1X_2 + X_2(X_1+X_2) \\
&= e_2 -e_1(X_1+X_2)+(X_1^2+X_1X_2+X_2^2) \\
&=p_0
\end{split}$$ so that $X_1^{k-1}z = p_{k}$ for $0 \leq k \leq 2$.
Comments on the general case
============================
We wish to consider the following conjecture.
\[Centreconjecture\] Let $H_n^{\text{aff}}$ be the affine Hecke algebra with coefficients extended to $B$, the ring $$A = \mathbb Z[q^{\pm1},v_1^{\pm 1}, \ldots, v_m^{\pm 1}]$$ with $Q = q-1$ inverted. Let $\psi_m\colon H_n^{\text{aff}} \to \mathcal K_n$ be the quotient map. Then $$\psi_m(Z(H_n^{\text{aff}})) = Z(\mathcal K_m).$$
In fact, it may be easier (and as useful) to show this in the case where $H_n^{\text{aff}}$ is defined over a field $F$, and the parameter $q$ is not equal to $1$.
As pointed out in [@A], if we specialise to $q=1$, *i.e.* $Q=0$, then the image of the centre of the affine Hecke algebra does *not* necessarily surjects onto the centre of the specialised Ariki-Koike algebra (for ${\mathcal K_2^{\mathbf v}}$, if we say require $X_1$ to satisfy $X_1^3 -1 =0$, then at $q=1$ this is just the group algebra of the complex reflection group $G(3,1,2)$ which has a $9$ dimensional centre – the specialisation of the centre of ${\mathcal K_2^{\mathbf v}}$ – whereas the images of $X_1+X_2$, $X_1X_2$ only generate a $6$-dimensional subalgebra). Of course at $q=1$ one should instead consider the degenerate algebra.
While the above conjecture is certainly not new, it does not seem to be explicitly stated in the literature, and some of existing literature is unclear as to its status: the counterexample of [@A] is quoted in [@M] in a fashion which makes it appear it is more general than [@A] intended to imply[^1].
We list the following evidence for the conjecture:
- [@AK] shows that the conjecture holds in the semisimple case (they also show explicitly the conditions on the parameters under which the Ariki-Koike algebras is semisimple).
- This note establishes the case $n=2$.
- In an orthogonal direction, Francis and Graham [@FG] have verified the conjecture for the case of the finite Hecke algebra of type $A$, *i.e.* the case $m=1$.
We end with another result which supports the conjecture when we work over $F$, an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero. Let $\mathfrak H_n$ be the degenerate, or graded, affine Hecke algebra of type $A$. As a vector space it is isomorphic to $\mathbb C[S_n]\otimes \mathbb C[r][x_1,\ldots,x_n]$. If $\mathscr T$ denotes the algebraic torus with regular functions $\mathcal O = \mathbb C[q^{\pm1}, X_1^{\pm 1},\ldots, X_n^{\pm 1}]$, and $\mathfrak t\oplus \mathbb C$ the vector space with functions $\bar{\mathcal O} = \mathbb C[r][x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_n]$ note that we may use the group structure on $\mathscr T$ to identify $\mathfrak t \oplus \mathbb C$ with the tangent space of $\mathscr T$ at any point.
Now let $I$ be a maximal ideal of the centre $\mathcal Z$ of ${H_n^{\text{aff}}}$. Thus $I$ corresponds to an $S_n$-orbit $\Sigma$ in $\mathscr T$. We want to consider the completions $\widehat{\mathcal Z}$ and $\widehat{{H_n^{\text{aff}}}}$ with respect to $I$. Assume that all of the coordinates of the elements of $\Sigma$ are equal to a power of $q$. In this case, by choosing a logarithm of $q$ we may attach to $\Sigma$ a maximal ideal $\mathfrak I$ of the centre $\mathfrak Z = \mathbb C[r][x_1,\ldots,x_n]^{S_n}$ of $\mathfrak H_n$, and consider the corresponding completions $\widehat{\mathfrak H}_n$ and $\widehat{\mathfrak Z}$. The algebras $\widehat{\mathcal Z}$ and $\widehat{\mathfrak Z}$ are then naturally isomorphic and Lusztig [@L 9.3] has shown that the $I$-adic completion $\widehat{{H_n^{\text{aff}}}}$ of ${H_n^{\text{aff}}}$ is isomorphic to the corresponding completion $\widehat{\mathfrak H}_n$ of $\mathfrak H_n$ as algebras over $\widehat{\mathcal Z} \cong \widehat{\mathfrak Z}$. Moreover, the isomorphism restricts to give an isomorphism between the (completed) commutative subalgebras $\widehat{\mathcal O}$ and $\widehat{\bar{\mathcal O}}$.
Let $\mathcal K_n$ be the cyclotomic Hecke algebra over $F$, where let us moreover assume that $v_i = q^{a_i}$ for some integers $a_i$, ($1 \leq i \leq m$), and $q \in F$ has infinite order. It is known [@DM] that representation theory of a general cyclotomic quotient can be reduced to the case where the $v_i$ are of this form[^2]. Recently, Brundan [@Br] has established the analogue of Conjecture \[Centreconjecture\] for the degenerate cyclotomic Hecke algebras $\mathfrak K_n$, where $\mathfrak K_n$ is the quotient of $\mathfrak H_n$ by the two-sided ideal generated by $f_r(x_1)$ where $f_r(t) = \prod_{i=1}^m (t-a_i)$.
Now we may decompose a cyclotomic Hecke algebra according to the spectrum of the image of $\mathcal Z$, which is certainly a central subalgebra (in fact, it follows from the work of Lyle-Mathas [@LM] that this decomposition yields the blocks of the cyclotomic algebra, but we do not need that here). For each of these subalgebras, the above discussion shows that the summands of the cyclotomic and degenerate cyclotomic Hecke algebras are isomorphic as they are quotients of $\widehat{{H_n^{\text{aff}}}}$ and $\widehat{\mathfrak H}_n$ which are annihilated by a finite power of some maximal idea $I$ (resp. $\mathfrak I$) of the centre $\mathcal Z$ (resp. $\mathfrak Z$), since Lusztig’s isomorphisms are maps of $\widehat{\mathcal Z}\cong \widehat{\mathfrak Z}$-algebras. Thus we can deduce from Brundan’s work the following result:
Let $F$ be an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero, $q \in F$ of infinite order and $\mathcal K_n$ a cyclotomic Hecke algebra with $v_i=q^{a_i}$ for some integers $a_i$. Then the centre of $\mathcal K_n$ is equal to the image of the centre of ${H_n^{\text{aff}}}$.
It is shown in [@A1] that the cyclotomic Hecke algebra is semisimple precisely when the polynomial: $$P(q,\mathbf v) = \prod_{1 \leq i< j \leq m}\big( \prod_{-n < a < n}(q^av_i-v_j)\big)\cdot \prod_{k=1}^n(1+q+\ldots + q^{k-1}),$$ is nonvanishing. Thus the cyclotomic Hecke algebra need not be semisimple even when $q$ is not a root of unity, so this result includes cases which are not covered by the results of [@AK]. It should also be noted that Brundan and Kleshchev [@BK] have recently shown that if $F$ is any field of characteristic zero and $q$ is not a root of unity then the cyclotomic and degenerate cyclotomic Hecke algebras are isomorphic. One can presumably use their results to extend the above Proposition to this more general situation.
*Acknowledgements*: We thank Prof. Ariki and Prof. Mathas for helpful correspondence. We also thank Anthony Henderson for suggesting that the world would not be significantly worse off if this note were to be posted online.
[AAA]{}
Ariki, Susumu, *On the semi-simplicity of the Hecke Algebra of $(\mathbb Z/r\mathbb Z)\wr \mathfrak S_n$*, J. Algebra **169** (1994), 216–225.
Ariki, Susumu, *On the decomposition numbers of the Hecke algebra of $G(m,1,n)$*, J. Math. Kyoto Univ. [**36** ]{} (1996), no. 4, 789–808.
Ariki, Susumu; Koike, Kazuhiko. A Hecke algebra of $({Z}/r{Z})\wr{ S}\sb n$ and construction of its irreducible representations. [*Adv. Math.* ]{} [**106**]{} (1994), no. 2, 216–243.
J. Brundan, *Centers of degenerate cyclotomic Hecke algebras and parabolic category* $\mathcal O$. Represent. Theory **12** (2008), 236–259.
J. Brundan, S. Kleshchev, *Blocks of cyclotomic Hecke algebras and Khovanov-Lauda algebras*, Invent. Math. **178** (2009), no. 3, 451–484.
R. Dipper, A. Mathas, *Morita equivalences of Ariki-Koike algebras*, Math. Z. **240** (2002), 579–610.
A. Francis, J. Graham, *Centres of Hecke algebras: the Dipper-James conjecture*, J. Algebra **306** (2006), no. 1, 244–267.
G. Lusztig, *Affine Hecke algebras and their graded version*, J. Amer. Math. Soc. **2** (1989) no. 3, 599–635.
S. Lyle, A. Mathas, *Blocks of cyclotomic Hecke algebras*, Adv. Math. **216** (2007), 854–878.
A. Mathas, *The representation theory of the Ariki-Koike and cyclotomic q-Schur algebras*, Representation theory of algebraic groups and quantum groups, Adv. Studies Pure Math., 40 (2004), 261-320.
[^1]: The author thank Profs Ariki and Mathas for helping him sort out this confusion.
[^2]: The restriction that $q$ have infinite order however, is genuinely restrictive.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Point defect migration is considered as a mechanism for aging in ferroelectrics. Numerical results are given for the coupled problems of point defect migration and electrostatic energy relaxation in a 2D domain configuration. The peak values of the clamping pressure at domain walls are in the range of $10^6$Pa, which corresponds to macroscopically observed coercive stresses in perovskite ferroelectrics. The effect is compared to mechanisms involving orientational reordering of defect dipoles in the bulk of domains. Domain clamping is significantly stronger in the drift mechanism than in the orientational picture for the same material parameters.'
author:
- 'Yuri A. Genenko'
- 'Doru C. Lupascu'
bibliography:
- 'apssamp.bib'
title: Drift of charged defects in local fields as aging mechanism in ferroelectrics
---
\[sec:intro\]Introduction
=========================
Ferroelectric materials underlie restrictions in technological applications because of several degradation phenomena. One of these phenomena is aging which is defined as the gradual change of material properties with time $t$ under static external boundary conditions [@drougard54domain; @mcquarrie55aging; @takahashi70space; @thomann72stabilization; @carl78electrical; @arlt88internal; @zhang05insitu; @zhang06aging]. Experimentally, the dielectric constant decreases and hysteresis loops alter their shape and amplitude in remanent polarization and coercive field. The dielectric constant decreases as the logarithm of time in an intermediate time range saturating for long times [@plessner56aging]. The change of material properties is caused by a decreasing domain wall mobility stabilizing in an aged domain structure [@ikegami67mechanism]. In order to describe the experimentally observed shifted or deformed ferroelectric hysteresis loops after aging [@lamb86_02] the internal field ${\bf E}^i$ has been defined as a quantity describing the strength of domain stabilization [@arlt88internal]. Several mechanisms have been considered to partake in the stabilization process, space charge formation [@takahashi70space; @thomann72stabilization], domain splitting [@ikegami67mechanism], ionic drift [@hage80_02; @lamb86_02; @scott87activation], or the reorientation of defect dipoles [@robels93domain]. Except for domain splitting, all mechanisms directly involve some reordering of point defects. Within a microstructure, three relevant locations can be identified for charge carrier rearrangement: the domain bulk, grain boundaries, or domain walls. For the bulk effect, defect dipoles reorient with respect to the direction of the spontaneous polarization under an electrical field or strain. For the grain boundary effect, charged point defects move under electrical fields originating from polarization discontinuities at the grain boundaries or the outer perimeter of the sample in order to compensate the fields. The same process can occur at charged domain walls and then becomes a domain wall effect [@chynoweth60pyroelectricity; @shur88spatial]. Local space charge is another electric driving force for ionic currents observed in LiNbO$_3$ type crystals [@gopalan96observation; @imlau03holographic] as well as perovskites [@alemany84ageing; @korneev01thermal; @gakh01space].
Elastic fields can provide a second driving force for defects inside domains but will not be treated here. For not too rigid non-charged domain walls, the localization of free charge carriers at a domain wall is a further possible effect entailing the wrinkling of the initially planar walls [@mueller02dielectric; @mueller03aging; @mueller04aging; @paruch05domain]. Even though this is a physically interesting mechanism, it will not be taken into consideration here.
Oxygen vacancies are a well known and frequent defect in the perovskite structure. They have been considered to play an important role in aging of ferroelectric materials due to their low, but finite mobility. In the orientational picture, oxygen vacancies, when adjoint to an acceptor center, form electric and elastic defect dipoles in the bulk of a ferroelectric domain [@arlt88internal]. The defect dipoles align parallel to the spontaneous polarization $P_s$ by diffusion of the mobile oxygen vacancy in cage motion. Because of the relatively slow oxygen vacancy motion [@waser91bulk], the polarization directions of the aligned defect dipoles stay constant when the direction of $P_s$ changes for short times. In this case, the defect dipoles generate an internal electrical field ${\bf E}^i$ which stabilizes the domain pattern by increasing the force constant for the reversible displacement of the domain walls [@arlt93aging]. This relaxation model has been well developed [@lohkaemper90internal]. It bears two insufficiencies, though, the time dependence of aging is not reproduced and the absolute values of clamping pressures are low [@lupascu06aging]. A second point of view about the role of oxygen vacancies in aging is the formation of ionic space charges [@dawber05physics] which was originally proposed to explain space charge effects in BaTiO$_3$ single crystals [@wiliams65surface]. Ionic space charges are well known for highly doped positive temperature coefficient resistors based on BaTiO$_3$ [@ravikumar97space]. For aging the mobile charge carriers move to charged domain faces or grain boundaries and compensate polarization. This leads to an asymmetric charge distribution whereby a voltage offset arises yielding the known shift or deformation of the ferroelectric hysteresis [@pike95]. The clamping pressure on domain walls generated by these space charges has not been treated mathematically for periodic domain structures.
This paper describes quantitatively the formation of space charges in single domains of a periodic structure and shows the development of the defect distribution inside the domain. An estimate of bending and clamping pressures on domain walls and a comparison to the orientational picture [@robels93domain] are given. Electrostatic clamping of domain walls through the formation of space charges is calculated to be two orders of magnitude stronger than clamping through aligned defect dipoles for the same concentration of charge carriers.
The model is independent of the type of point defect, as long as a diffusion constant can be assigned and the defect is charged. It can thus be equally well applied to hopping of electronic carriers. The oxygen vacancy was chosen for the numerical examples in order to be comparable to previous work, but does not preclude a statement on the physical nature of the mobile carrier.
\[sec:generalmodel\]General Model
=================================
In order to study the effect of migration of charge carriers on aging, we chose a two-dimensional periodic array of domains cut by the grain surface, $z=0$, perpendicular to the direction of spontaneous polarization which is along the $z$ axis in Fig. \[domarray\]. This model configuration is well-known in the physics of polarized media and was used for the study of equilibrium and dynamic properties of ferromagnetic [@Kittel1946; @LandauElectrodynamicsContinuum] and ferroelectric [@Mitsui1953; @Fedosov1976] materials. We assume for simplicity an isotropic material of the grain occupying the area $z>0$ characterized by the relative dielectric constant $\varepsilon_f$. The dielectric material outside the grain is assumed isotropic too and is characterized by the relative permittivity $\varepsilon_d$. As we previously showed by finite element simulation, the electric fields arising due to spontaneous polarization in a periodic multi-domain grain of finite dimensions generate a nearly perfect periodic pattern except for the very edges of the grain [@lupascu06aging]. We thus consider the periodic domain array of Fig. \[domarray\] occupying the semi-space $-\infty<x<\infty,\,z>0$ as a representative model for a multi-domain grain of domain width $a$ much smaller than the typical grain size.
![Scheme of a 2D-array of 180[$^\circ$]{}-domain walls crossing the grain boundary at a right angle. Straight arrows show the direction of the polarization and curved arrows the approximate directions of the local electric fields.[]{data-label="domarray"}](Fig1.ps)
Due to polarization, the domain faces at $z=0$ are alternatively charged with the bound surface charge density $\sigma = |\mathbf{P}_s|, $ the spontaneous polarization value. If the length of the domains $L$ along the $z$-axis is much larger than their width $a$ along the $x$-axis, which is typically the case in experiment, field lines are effectively closed at the same side of the grain (see Fig. \[domarray\]). As a consequence, both components of the electric field ${\bf E}^0(x,z)$ induced by the alternating surface charge exponentially decrease towards the interior of the grain along the $z$-axis [@lupascu06aging]. Migration of the charged defects driven by the field ${\bf E}^0(x,z)$ is then expected to occur in a volume near the grain surface. The domains may therefore be considered infinitely long along the $z$-axis without introducing a substantial error.
Let us now derive the equations of evolution for the charge and field distributions in the considered system. At any time $t$, the electric field ${\bf E}(x,z,t)$ is determined by the charged faces of the domains and the imbalanced charge density of free carriers $\rho(x,z,t)=q_f
\left[c(x,z,t)-c_0\right]$ through Gauss’ law $$\label{Gauss}\nabla{\bf E}=\frac{q_f}{
\varepsilon_0\varepsilon_f}(c-c_0)$$ where $c(x,z,t)$ is the local concentration of mobile carriers of charge $q_f$, $c_0$ is the background concentration of the immobile charge carriers of opposite polarity warranting total electroneutrality, and $\varepsilon_0$ is the permittivity of vacuum. In the initial state, the system is locally neutral assuming $c(x,z,0)\equiv c_0$, the electric field ${\bf
E}(x,z,0)\equiv{\bf E}^0(x,z)$ is yet to be found.
In presence of an electric field and a gradient of concentration, the flow of charge carriers is given by the sum of drift and diffusion contributions to the particle current density: $$\label{particle_current}{\bf s}=\mu c {\bf E} - D\nabla c$$ where $\mu$ and $D$ are the mobility and diffusivity of charge carriers, respectively. We assume, for simplicity, that the latter two quantities are isotropic and connected by the Einstein relation, $D=\mu k
\Theta/q_f$ with $k$ the Boltzmann constant and $\Theta$ the absolute temperature. Migration of charge carriers is governed by the continuity equation: $$\label{continuity}\partial_t c=-\nabla(\mu c {\bf E}) + D\triangle c .$$ For boundary conditions to the system of equations (\[Gauss\]) and (\[continuity\]) we assume chemical and electrical isolation of the grain. The first requirement means vanishing particle current $$\label{boundary-chem}s_z=\mu c E_z - D\partial_z c=0,$$ at the grain boundary, $z=0$. The second requirement means vanishing total electric current, $$\label{boundary-el}q_f(\mu c E_z - D\partial_z c)+ \varepsilon_0\varepsilon_f
\partial_t E_z=0,$$ at $z=0$ which results in a constant value of the $z$-component of the electric field at the grain boundary, $\partial_t E_z(x,0,t)=0$.
Eqs. (\[boundary-chem\],\[boundary-el\]) together with Eqs. (\[Gauss\],\[continuity\]) complete the statement of the problem of charge segregation in a ferroelectric grain. In the next section we will observe how the system relaxes according to the equations of evolution (\[Gauss\],\[continuity\]).
\[sec:solution\]Solution of the equations of evolution
======================================================
In this section we first calculate the field ${\bf E}^0(x,z)$ in the virgin state of the system before the process of charge segregation starts. Then we formally solve equation (\[Gauss\]) and find the total electric field ${\bf E}(x,z,t)$ for an arbitrary right-hand side. Finally, using the latter result, we numerically solve equation (\[continuity\]), self-consistently describing drift and diffusion of the mobile charge defects in the domain arrangement of Fig. \[domarray\].
\[subsec:virgin\]Electric field in the virgin state of a multi-domain grain
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To use the bilateral symmetry of the problem, the origin is chosen in the center of the positively charged domain face as shown in Fig. \[centraldomain\].
![Scheme of expected charge redistribution induced by the local electric field within the central region $-a<x<a,\,z>0$, presenting repeating element of the periodic domain arrangement of Fig. \[domarray\]. Thin layers of positive charge carriers piled up at the negatively charged domain faces as well as a wide (shaded) area depleted of mobile charge carriers near the positively charged domain face are shown.[]{data-label="centraldomain"}](Fig2.ps)
The bound charge density of the domain faces is represented by an alternating function [@LandauElectrodynamicsContinuum] $$\label{face-charge}
\rho_b(x,z)=\sigma\delta(z)\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}(-1)^n
\theta\left(\frac{a}{2}-an+x\right)
\theta\left(\frac{a}{2}+an-x\right),$$ where $\delta (z)$ and $\theta (x)$ are the Dirac $\delta $-function and the Heaviside unit step function, respectively. The electrostatic potential induced by this bound charge is given by the expression: $$\label{face-potential-} \varphi_b(x,z)=-\frac{1}{2\pi
\varepsilon_0(\varepsilon_f+\varepsilon_d)}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dx_0
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dz_0\,
\rho_b(x_0,z_0)
\ln\left[\left(\frac{x-x_0}{a}\right)^2 +
\left(\frac{z-z_0}{a}\right)^2 \right]$$ in both areas $z\geq 0$ and $z<0$. The formula (\[face-potential-\]) is simply a superposition of the potentials generated by straight parallel charged lines located at the grain boundary $z=0$ between the media with dielectric constants $\varepsilon_d$ and $\varepsilon_f$ [@LandauElectrodynamicsContinuum].
The $z$-component of the electric field created by the bound charge, ${\bf E}^0=-\nabla \varphi_b$, may be directly calculated by substitution of $\rho_b$, Eq. (\[face-charge\]), into Eq. (\[face-potential-\]) and subsequent summation [@prudnikov86integrals] which results in the form $$\label{E0z}
E^0_z(x,z)=\frac{2\sigma}{\pi\varepsilon_0
(\varepsilon_f + \varepsilon_d )}
\arctan{\left[\frac{\cos(\pi x/a)}{\sinh(\pi z/a)}\right]}$$ valid for both media.
Direct calculation of the other field component, $E^0_x=-\partial_x\varphi_b$, is more complicated because of slow convergence of the appropriate series. Instead, $E^0_x$ may be calculated for $z>0$ from Gauss’ law $\nabla{\bf E}^0=0$, taking into account that, from the symmetry of the problem, $E^0_x(0,z)=E^0_x(\pm a,z)=0$. Proceeding with integration of the latter Gauss’ equation over distance along the $x$-axis and using the mentioned boundary conditions one finds the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E0x}
E^0_x(x,z)=\frac{\sigma}{\pi\varepsilon_0 (\varepsilon_f + \varepsilon_d )}
\ln{\left[\frac{\cosh(\pi z/a)+\sin(\pi x/a)}
{\cosh(\pi z/a)-\sin(\pi x/a)}\right]}\end{aligned}$$ valid inside and outside the grain. Both field components exhibit periodic dependence along the $x$-axis, as expected from the periodic domain arrangement, and exponentially decrease at large distance from the charged surface $|z|\gg a$, as expected from the previous finite element simulations [@lupascu06aging]. We note here that the short range fields, Eq. (\[E0z\],\[E0x\]), may be very large. For example, in BaTiO$_3$ the depolarization field amplitude may be as high as $10^8 \rm \: V/m$ [@lupascu06aging]. The presence of high local fields were confirmed at least partly in observations on the acceptor doped BaTiO$_3$, where internal fields were experimentally found in the range of $10^5 \rm \: V/m$ for up to 1 mol% Ni-doping and temperatures below 80[$^\circ$]{}C [@arlt88internal].
\[subsec:field\]Electric field due to redistribution of charged defects
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
At any arbitrary moment, the total electric field in the system may be conveniently decomposed as ${\bf E}={\bf E}^0+{\bf E}^i$, where the field ${\bf E}^0$ is determined by the charged faces of the domains, Eqs. (\[E0z\],\[E0x\]), and the field ${\bf E}^i$ is generated by the distribution of the charge density in the area $z>0$. Thanks to periodicity and the bilateral symmetry of the initial conditions, both the charge density and the electrostatic potential remain periodic and bilaterally symmetric in the course of the charge redistribution, as illustrated in Fig. \[centraldomain\]. This allows us to consider the region $-a<x<a$ as a repetitive basic unit of the system and confine ourselves to the consideration of processes in this area. To get a full description of the electric field under these circumstances, it is sufficient to construct the Green’s function of the symmetrical Neumann problem in the mentioned region, $G_s(x,z|x_0,z_0)$, so that the electrostatic potential induced by redistribution of charged defects with $z_0>0$ may then be presented in a form [@jackson75classical] $$\label{Pot-Green}
\varphi_i(x,z,t)=\int_{0}^{a}dx_0 \int_0^{\infty}dz_0\,
\rho(x_0,z_0,t) G_s(x,z|x_0,z_0),$$ followed by the field expression ${\bf E}^i=-\nabla \varphi_i$.
The Green’s function satisfies the equation $$\label{Eq-Green}
\triangle G_s(x,z|x_0,z_0) = -\frac{1}{
\varepsilon_0\varepsilon_f}\delta (z-z_0) \left[\delta(x-x_0) + \delta (x+x_0)\right]$$ with boundary conditions $\partial_x G_s(x=\pm a ,z|x_0,z_0)=0$. The latter requirement is a consequence of the constraint $E_{x}(\pm a,z)=0$ inherent to the chosen domain arrangement. Boundary conditions for the electrostatic potential, Eq. (\[Pot-Green\]), on the interface between the two media at $z=0$ [@jackson75classical] impose two additional boundary conditions on the Green’s function $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Green-Boundaries}
G_s(x,-0|x_0,z_0)=G_s(x,+0|x_0,z_0)\nonumber\\
\varepsilon_d \partial_z G_s(x,-0|x_0,z_0)=\varepsilon_f \partial_z G_s(x,+0|x_0,z_0)\end{aligned}$$
Using the fundamental solution of the 2D Poisson equation [@jackson75classical] and taking into account periodicity of the problem the solution of Eq. (\[Eq-Green\]) may be reduced to summation of a series:
$$\label{Green-Series-}
G_s(x,z|x_0,z_0)=-\frac{1}{2\pi \varepsilon_0(\varepsilon_f + \varepsilon_d)}
\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} \left\{\ln\left[
\left(\frac{x-x_0}{a}-2n\right)^2+
\left(\frac{z-z_0}{a}\right)^2\right]\right\}
+(x_0 \rightarrow -x_0)$$
for the area $z<0$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Green-Series+}
G_s(x,z|x_0,z_0)=-\frac{1}{4\pi \varepsilon_0\varepsilon_f}
\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} \left\{\ln\left[
\left(\frac{x-x_0}{a}-2n\right)^2+
\left(\frac{z-z_0}{a}\right)^2\right]\nonumber\right.\\
\left.
+\frac{\varepsilon_f - \varepsilon_d}{\varepsilon_f + \varepsilon_d}\ln\left[
\left(\frac{x-x_0}{a}-2n\right)^2+\left(\frac{z+z_0}{a}\right)^2\right]\right\}
+ (x_0 \rightarrow -x_0)\end{aligned}$$ for the area $z>0$.
Because of slow convergence of this series it is more convenient to perform summation for the derivatives $\partial_x
G_s$ and $\partial_z G_s$ and then to restore the function $G_s$ itself by integration using boundary conditions. This leads after all to the solution of Eq.(\[Eq-Green\]) $$\label{SymGreen-}
G_s(x,z|x_0,z_0)=-\frac{1}{2\pi\varepsilon_0(\varepsilon_f + \varepsilon_d)}
\ln\left[ \cosh\frac{\pi(z-z_0)}{a} -\cos\frac{\pi(x-x_0)}{a} \right]
+ (x_0 \rightarrow -x_0)$$ for the area $z<0$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{SymGreen+}
G_s(x,z|x_0,z_0)=-\frac{1}{4\pi\varepsilon_0 \varepsilon_f}
\left\{\ln\left[ \cosh\frac{\pi(z-z_0)}{a} -\cos\frac{\pi(x-x_0)}{a} \right]\right.\nonumber\\\left.+\frac{\varepsilon_f - \varepsilon_d}{\varepsilon_f + \varepsilon_d}
\ln\left[ \cosh\frac{\pi(z+z_0)}{a} -\cos\frac{\pi(x-x_0)}{a} \right]\right\}
+ (x_0 \rightarrow -x_0)\end{aligned}$$ for the area $z>0$, which are periodic, bilaterally symmetric and satisfy the proper boundary conditions. Now, from the expressions (\[Pot-Green\],\[SymGreen-\],\[SymGreen+\]), the components of the electric field induced by the redistribution of charged defects may be obtained. It is easy to verify that the total electric field satisfies the boundary condition $E_x(x=\pm
a,z)=0$ for any bilaterally symmetric charge density $\rho(x,z,t)$.
Numerical solution of the evolution equations
---------------------------------------------
Having solved equation (\[Gauss\]) explicitly allows for the implementation of a simple direct Euler scheme for numerical treatment of the problem. Space and time will be discretized. At every time step, the change in the carrier concentration will be calculated from the previous values of the concentration and the electric fields using Eq. (\[continuity\]). Then, the updated values of the field will be calculated directly from the updated values of the concentration using Eq. (\[Pot-Green\]). The calculation is repeated until convergence. Taking into account the bilateral symmetry of the problem, it is sufficient to consider the charge redistribution within the area $0<x<a$.
We first introduce dimensionless variables which is helpful for the following numerical analysis and reveals those parameters of the system which are relevant to the relaxation process. Dimensionless coordinates are naturally introduced as $X=x/a$ and $Z=z/a$. The dimensionless field ${\bf F}={\bf
E}/E^{\ast}$ is expressed in units of the characteristic value $E^{\ast}=\sigma/2\varepsilon_0\varepsilon_f$. The system reveals two characteristic time scales: the drift time $\tau_{\mu}=a/\mu E^{\ast}$ and the diffusion time $\tau_D=a^2/D$. For the typical parameters involved, $\tau_D \gg
\tau_{\mu}$ therefore we will introduce dimensionless time as $T=t/\tau_{\mu}$. The concentration of defects is now reduced to $n(X,Z,T)=c(x,z,t)/c^{\ast}$ with the characteristic value $c^{\ast}=\sigma/2aq_f$. The latter has the physical meaning of a concentration of defects on an area $a^2$, which completely neutralizes the bound charge $\sigma$ at the domain faces. The reduced initial concentration $n_0=c_0/c^{\ast}$ measures whether the density of defects is high or low with respect to the charge compensation concentration.
The continuity equation (\[continuity\]) now acquires the form $$\label{continuity2}\partial_t n=-n(n-n_0)- {\bf F}\nabla n + \beta\triangle n$$ where all differentiations are performed with respect to the dimensionless variables. The parameter $\beta = \tau_{\mu}/\tau_D \ll 1$ characterizes a weak contribution of diffusion to the migration of defects in ferroelectrics. It is now seen from Eq. (\[continuity2\]) that only two composed parameters, $n_0$ and $\beta$, control the relaxation process.
Though the parameter $\beta$ may be rather small, it cannot be neglected as is clearly seen from the boundary condition for the particle current, Eq. (\[boundary-chem\]), taken in a dimensionless form $$\label{boundary-chem-dim}n F_y - \beta\partial_y n=0,\,\,\,\,Z=0,$$ otherwise this boundary condition is not compatible with the initial conditions. The finite value of $\beta$ means compensation of the drift contribution to the current by the diffusion contribution at the grain boundary and this way defines the structure of a thin layer of charged defects piling up at this boundary.
Eq. (\[continuity2\]) is supplemented by expressions for the dimensionless field ${\bf F}={\bf F}^0+{\bf F}^i$ which can be easily derived from Eqs. (\[E0z\],\[E0x\]) and (\[Pot-Green\],\[SymGreen-\],\[SymGreen+\]), namely, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DimField0}
F^0_{x}(X,Z)=\frac{1}{\pi} \frac{2\varepsilon_f}{\varepsilon_f+\varepsilon_d} \ln{\left[\frac{\cosh\pi Z+\sin\pi
X}{\cosh\pi Z -\sin\pi X}\right]}\nonumber\\
F^0_{z}(X,Z)=\frac{2}{\pi}\frac{2\varepsilon_f}{\varepsilon_f+\varepsilon_d}\arctan{\left[\frac{\cos\pi X}{\sinh\pi Z}\right]}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\label{DimField} F^i_{x,z}(X,Z,T)=\int_{0}^{1}dX_0
\int_0^{\infty}dZ_0\,f_{x,z}(X,Z|X_0,Z_0)
\left[n(X_0,Z_0,T)-n_0\right]$$ where the kernels in this integral are presented by the functions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kernels-}
f_{x}(X,Z|X_0,Z_0)=\frac{\varepsilon_f }{2(\varepsilon_f+\varepsilon_d)}
\frac{\sin\pi (X-X_0)}{\cosh\pi (Z-Z_0)-\cos\pi (X-X_0)}
+ (X_0 \rightarrow -X_0),\nonumber\\
f_{z}(X,Z|X_0,Z_0)=\frac{\varepsilon_f }{2(\varepsilon_f+\varepsilon_d)}
\frac{\sinh\pi(Z-Z_0)}{\cosh\pi (Z-Z_0)-\cos\pi (X-X_0)}
+ (X_0 \rightarrow -X_0)\end{aligned}$$ for $Z<0$ and by functions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kernels+}
f_{x}(X,Z|X_0,Z_0)=
\frac{1}{4}\left[\frac{\varepsilon_f-\varepsilon_d}{\varepsilon_f+\varepsilon_d}
\frac{\sin\pi(X-X_0)}{\cosh\pi (Z+Z_0)-\cos\pi (X-X_0)} \right.\nonumber\\
\left. +\frac{\sin\pi(X-X_0)}{\cosh\pi (Z-Z_0)-\cos\pi (X-X_0)}
+ (X_0 \rightarrow -X_0)\right],\nonumber\\
f_{z}(X,Z|X_0,Z_0)=
\frac{1}{4}\left[\frac{\varepsilon_f-\varepsilon_d}{\varepsilon_f+\varepsilon_d}
\frac{\sinh\pi(Z+Z_0)}{\cosh\pi (Z+Z_0)-\cos\pi (X-X_0)} \right.\nonumber\\
\left. +\frac{\sinh\pi(Z-Z_0)}{\cosh\pi (Z-Z_0)-\cos\pi (X-X_0)}
+ (X_0 \rightarrow -X_0)\right]\end{aligned}$$ for $Z>0$.
Since the system remains electrically neutral within the domain of integration during the redistribution of defects, arbitrary constants may be added to the kernels (\[kernels-\],\[kernels+\]) without changing the results of integration in Eqs. (\[DimField\]). This property is used in the numerical procedure to facilitate the conversion of the integrals in Eqs. (\[DimField\]).
As an example, we now consider the aging process in $\rm BaTiO_3$. For the numerical simulations, the material parameters of $\rm BaTiO_3$ at room temperature are taken from Wernicke and Jaffe et al. [@wern75; @jaff71], namely, $P_s=2.71\cdot 10^{-5} \rm \: C/cm^2$, $\varepsilon_f = 170$, $\mu=1.73\cdot 10^{-20} \rm \: m^2/Vs$, $a=0.5\rm \: \mu m$ and $q_f$ twice the elementary charge, implying positively charged oxygen vacancies as mobile defects. For the dielectric medium between ferroelectric grains we take the same but non-polarized material with $\varepsilon_d = 170$. This yields $c^{\ast} = 1.69\cdot10^{18} \rm \: cm^{-3}$, $\tau_{\mu} = 1.61\cdot10^{5} \rm
\: s$, $\tau_{D} = 1.14\cdot10^{9} \rm \: s$. As was shown in one dimensional simulations [@lupascu06aging], the parameter $\beta <<1$ has no effect on the dynamics of the relaxation. The only physical characteristic depending on $\beta <<1$ is the thickness of the positively charged layer of defects piling up at the negative face of the domain. To make this layer visible in figures and to avoid numerical problems invoked by the strong gradients of the defect density we take the value $\beta=5\cdot 10^{-2}$ instead of the actual ratio $\tau_{\mu}/\tau_D=1.4\cdot 10^{-4}$ for our simulations.
![Distribution of oxygen vacancies $c_{V_o}(X,Z)$ over the reference area $0<X<1, 0<Z<4$ at time $T=0.05$ for an initial concentration of defects $c_0=c^{\ast} = 1.69\cdot10^{18} \rm \: cm^{-3}$.[]{data-label="relief"}](Fig3.ps)
A snapshot of the development of the defect concentration profile over the reference area $0<X<1,\, 0<Z<4$ starting with the background defect concentration $n_0 =1$ is presented in Fig. \[relief\] for the moment $T=0.05$. A wide depleted zone forms near the positively charged face at $0<X<0.5, Z=0$ and a very thin excess charge layer of high concentration near the negatively charged face at $0.5<X<1, Z=0$.
![Defect concentration profile along the line $X=0.25$ for a succession of times $T=0.1,\,1,\,2,\,3,\,4,\,5$ (from left to right) for the initial concentration of defects $c_0=n_0 \cdot c^{\ast}$. []{data-label="cross-left"}](Fig4.ps)
![Defect concentration profile along the line $X=0.75$ for a succession of times $T=0.1,\,1,\,2,\,3,\,4,\,5$ (from left to right) for an initial concentration of defects $c_0=n_0 \cdot c^{\ast}$.[]{data-label="cross-right"}](Fig5.ps)
The structural difference of these two space charge areas is better seen in Figs. \[cross-left\] and \[cross-right\] presenting vertical cross sections of the concentration profile along the lines $X=0.25$ and $X=0.75$, respectively. A succession of snapshots of the concentrations along the line $X=0.25$ (Fig. \[cross-left\]) exhibits the evolution of the charge defect density near the positive face of the domain. The profile positions at the moments $T=4$ and $5$ cannot be discerned any more which indicates saturation at time $T\simeq 5$ (corresponding to $t\simeq 8\cdot 10^5 \rm \: s$). The characteristic width of this zone in the final relaxed state is of the order of unity. The defects piling up near the negative face of the domain form a much thinner layer of a characteristic width of the order of $\beta$ as is represented by concentration profiles along the line $X=0.75$ in Fig. \[cross-right\]. The final relaxed state is reached also at about $T\simeq 5$. The corresponding evolution of the front cross section of the concentration profile along the line $Z=0$ shown in Fig. \[cross-front\] exhibits saturation at about $T\simeq 5$, too.
![Defect concentration profile along the line $Z=0$ for a succession of times $T=0.1,\,1,\,2,\,3,\,4,\,5$ (upwards) for the initial concentration of defects $c_0=n_0 \cdot c^{\ast}$.[]{data-label="cross-front"}](Fig6.ps)
In our model, drift-dominated migration of the charged defects is caused by local electric fields near the charged faces of a grain. This migration process only stops, if either no mobile defects remain in the area where fields are present or there is no remaining field in the area where the defect concentration is not zero. The process of field compensation due to defect migration is exemplified by the evolution of the electric field component $F_z=F^0_z+F^i_z$ at the line $Z=2$ represented in Fig. \[cross-fieldEy\].
![The electric field component $F_z$ plotted along the line $Z=2$ for a succession of times $T=0,\,0.1,\,1,\,2,\,3,\,4,\,5,$ $\,6,\,7,\,8,\,9,\,10$ in a system with the initial concentration of defects $c_0=c^{\ast}$. The arrows show the direction of evolution.[]{data-label="cross-fieldEy"}](Fig7.ps)
$F^i_z$ saturates at the values opposite to the local values of the initial electric field $F^0_z$ determined by the bound surface charge. Relaxation leads to an energy minimum where the system will resist any change of the domain wall positions. The final distribution of free charges then determines the equilibrium domain configuration of the system. For an effectively low mobility of the free charge carriers the transition above the Curie point will not readily rearrange the charge carrier configuration due to thermal excitation. The defect charge density then determines the subsequent domain configuration after re-cooling the sample to low temperature. Experimentally it is observed that the original domain configuration is reproduced to a great extent [@zhang05insitu; @zhang06aging; @hennings].
\[sec:pinningforce\]Forces exerted upon a domain wall
=====================================================
From the known development of the charge density and the electric field in our model, the time dependent forces exerted upon domain walls can be evaluated. Using the general formula derived by Nechaev et al. [@nechaev90effect] and taking into account only electrostatic contributions to the energy one can obtain the local pressure $f$ exerted upon a wall. For a straight rigid wall considered here, one finds $f=2{\bf P E}$ where $\bf P$ and $\bf E$ are the local values of spontaneous polarization and electric field, respectively. This relation is reduced, in the geometry of Fig. \[domarray\], to $f=2P_s E_z$ (note that, in the case of the same arrangement of the 90[$^\circ$]{}-domain walls, the $\sigma$ would merely decrease by a factor of $\sqrt{2}$ and the force by a factor of 2, the configuration and results are otherwise identical).
Although only one end of the domains is present in the mentioned geometry of Fig. \[domarray\] it is obvious that similar segregation of the charged defects occurs on the other end of the domain, too. This results in the antisymmetric force of opposite sign exerted upon the domain wall on the other end of the domain yielding a total force equal to zero. This force cannot move the domain wall as a whole or prevent its motion but it may lead to bending of the wall violating our assumption of rigid straight domains. This is frequently encountered in real systems. Domains forming needle tips near external interfaces are commonly observed [@salje96mesoscopic; @shur00formation]. In this case, part of the compensation arises within the bulk and not only right at the grain interface. The final defect distributions will be different from the case calculated here, but the essential effect of bending will remain the same. Our model of drift of free charge carriers also supports a coalescence of domains rather than their splitting. Without any further details included in the model, it contradicts the experimental observations of Ikegami ad Ueda of domain splitting during aging [@ikegami67mechanism].
The evolution of the bending pressure $f(T)$ averaged over half the domain wall length, assumed as long as $L=20a$, is shown in Fig. \[clamping\] for three different values of the initial background concentration of defects. It is seen that systems with smaller concentrations need an inversely longer time to relax. For the system with $n_0=1$ it takes about $T\simeq 5$ while for the system with $n_0=0.5$ this time is roughly doubled. All curves can be well fitted by the exponential form $f_0 \tanh{(\alpha n_0 T/2)}$ where the parameters $f_0\simeq 1$ MPa and $\alpha\simeq 1$ and slowly increase when $n_0$ decreases. A reliable simulation of defect concentrations smaller than $n_0=0.5$ is impossible on the chosen template $(0<X<1,\,0<Z<4)$ since in this case migration involves defects from a wider area in order to compensate the bound charge at the domain faces.
![Bending pressure $f$ as a function of time $T=t/\tau_{\mu }$ at room temperature for $\rm BaTiO_3$ is plotted for three different sample concentrations of oxygen vacancies $c_0 = n_0 \cdot c^{\ast}$ with $n_0 = 0.5,\,1$ and $2$ (solid lines). Dashed lines show fitting of the pressure by the function $f_0 \tanh{(\alpha n_0 T/2)}$ with parameters $f_0=1.095,\,0.91,\,0.66 \rm \: MPa$ and $\alpha =0.91,\,0.86,\,0.76$ for $n_0 = 0.5,\,1$ and $2$, respectively. []{data-label="clamping"}](Fig8.ps)
One more general feature of time dependencies of the bending pressure in Fig. \[clamping\] is worth discussion. All the curves exhibit a small region at small times where the value of pressure is negative. This is not an artefact of the numerical discretization procedure but has a physical meaning. Indeed at any time, the characteristic width of the positive space charge zone near the domain face $0.5<X<1, Z=0$ is of the order of $\beta $ which follows from the boundary condition, Eq. (\[boundary-chem\]). On the other hand, at the very beginning of charge defect migration, the characteristic width of the negative space charge zone in the area $0<X<0.5, Z>0$ is less than $\beta$. This means that a negative value of the field component $F_z$ prevails at the domain wall at this stage. This is confirmed by the dependence of $F_z$ on position $Z$ for different times as presented in Fig. \[pressure-t\].
![Snap-shots of the distribution profile of the field component $F_z$ along the domain wall for the succession of times $T=0.1,\,0.2,\,0.3,\,0.4,\,0.5,\,0.6,\,0.7,\,0.8,\,0.9,\,1$ (upwards) for $\rm BaTiO_3$ at room temperature for an oxygen vacancy concentration $c_0=n_0 \cdot c^{\ast}$.[]{data-label="pressure-t"}](Fig9.ps)
The above considered bending force does not directly describe the aging phenomenon as long as rigid straight domain walls are retained. In fact, the total force exerted upon the walls remains equal to zero during the defect redistribution if both ends of the domains are taken into account. Nevertheless, the loss of domain wall mobility characteristic of aging may be captured in this model, too. Indeed, the segregation of charge carriers in the fixed domain framework of Fig. \[domarray\] leads to the relaxation of the energy of the electrostatic depolarization field. The decrease of this energy per unit length of domain wall measures the clamping pressure preventing the displacement of the wall from the energy minimum: $$\label{clamping-form}P_{cl}(z,t)=\frac{\varepsilon_0 \varepsilon_f}{2a} \int_0^a dx
\left( {\bf E}^0(x,z)^2 -{\bf E}(x,z,t)^2 \right)$$
The dependence of this pressure along the length of the wall is shown in Fig. \[clamping-figure\] for a succession of times. The magnitude of the pressure saturates as expected at about a time $T\simeq 5$ for a defect concentration of $c_0 = c^{\ast}$. The corresponding peak value of the pressure around 1.5 MPa is comparable with the average bending pressure at the wall, Fig. \[clamping\].
![Snap-shots of the clamping pressure distribution along the domain wall for the succession of times $T=0,\,0.1,\,1,\,2,\,3,\,4,\,5$ (upwards) for $\rm BaTiO_3$ at room temperature for an oxygen vacancy concentration $c_0 = n_0 \cdot c^{\ast}$. []{data-label="clamping-figure"}](Fig10.ps)
The magnitude of the saturated pressure increases monotonously with the defect concentration $c_0$ as is seen from Fig. \[comparePCL\].
![The saturated clamping pressure distribution along the domain wall for $\rm BaTiO_3$ at room temperature for the oxygen vacancy concentrations $c_0 = n_0\cdot c^{\ast}$ with $n_0 = 0.5,\,1,\,1.5$ and $n_0 = 2$ (upwards).[]{data-label="comparePCL"}](Fig11.ps)
The irreversible migration of charged defects entails growing immobilization of the domain walls and, consequently, enhancement of the coercive field, $E_c$. To estimate this effect one should compare the pressure $\sim P_s \mathcal{E}$ exerted by the external field, $\mathcal{E}$, upon a domain wall with the clamping pressure, Eq. (\[clamping-form\]), averaged over the domain wall length, $L$. This results in the following estimate for the coercive field $$\label{coercive-field}E_c(t)=\frac{2}{P_s L} \int_0^{L/2} dz
P_{cl}(z,t)$$ where integration over the half-length of the wall accounts for the other end of the domain. Evaluation of the time-dependent coercive field assuming the typical length of the domain wall $L=20a$ obtains a characteristic value of $E_c\simeq 1 \rm \: kV/cm$ which is of the order of the coercive field in unaged bulk samples of $\rm BaTiO_3$ [@zhang05insitu; @zhang06aging]. In fact, the magnitude of the clamping pressure and, consequently, the value of the coercive field may be substantially larger then it was estimated using Eq. (\[coercive-field\]). Firstly, the peak value of the pressure has to be approximately doubled if one takes into account the reduction of the energy of electrostatic field in the dielectric material outside the grain which is approximately the same as in the ferroelectric area assuming $\varepsilon_d =\varepsilon_f$. Secondly, the consideration of the anisotropy of the dielectric constant is expected to scale up the pressure together with the energy gain by the factor of $\sqrt{\varepsilon_a/\varepsilon_c}$ which is about 6 for $\rm BaTiO_3$. Finally, values of few $\rm\: MPa$ are expected for the average clamping pressure at the domain wall and the values of few $\rm\:kV/mm$ are expected for the coercive field due to charge carrier migration which is in agreement with the characteristic values observed on the aged samples of $\rm BaTiO_3$ [@zhang05insitu; @zhang06aging]. Accordingly, the coercive field, Eq. (\[coercive-field\]), multiplied by the factor of $12$ is shown in Fig. \[CoerciveField\] in physical units to compare with known experimental data. The dashed line shows that the time behavior of $E_c$ mimics logarithmic time dependence for durations less then a few $\tau_{\mu }$.
![Coercive field due to charged defect migration as a function of time (solid line) for the oxygen vacancy concentration $c_0 = n_0\cdot c^{\ast}$. Dashed line shows fitting with logarithmic dependence for intermediate times.[]{data-label="CoerciveField"}](Fig12mod.ps)
One more essential factor which brings about enhancement of the coercive field is that the minimum energy of the system will further substantially decrease if domain wall bending is allowed contributing to the increase of the clamping pressure, Eq. (\[clamping-form\]). This mechanism is, however, beyond the consideration in our model of rigid walls.
The above obtained values are much larger than typical magnitudes of clamping pressure arising due to dipole re-orientation [@robels93domain]. Indeed, for uniformly aligned dipoles in the latter mechanism, the dipole moments exert upon the domain wall a clamping pressure $P_{or}\simeq c_0 E_z d$ where the dipole moment $d=q_f l/2$ with the dipole length of $l=4\cdot10^{-10} \rm \:
m$. For the material parameters assumed in the above estimations and $c_0=c^{\ast}$ this results in the peak value of the clamping pressure $P_{or}=9.7 \rm \: kPa$ which is two orders of magnitude smaller than that in the drift mechanism.
A common feature of these two aging mechanisms is that both dipole re-orientation and defect migration occur in those areas where a depolarization electric field is present. In respect thereof these mechanisms can be classified neither as volume nor as boundary ones as was suggested in the recent works by Zhang and Ren [@zhang05insitu; @zhang06aging] but rather as geometry dependent. Indeed, in the two-dimensional periodic array of domains considered here the depolarization field is present only near the grain boundaries causing both defect drift and dipole re-orientation only in this area. On the other hand, in the single domain state of a Mn-doped $\rm BaTiO_3$ single crystal observed in Ref. [@zhang06aging] a one-dimensional geometry is virtually realized where the depolarization field is present in the whole sample [@lupascu06aging] and invokes both dipole re-orientation and defect drift in the whole volume.
\[sec:conclusions\]Conclusions
==============================
In this work, we have considered migration of charged defects as a possible reason for aging in ferroelectrics. The model is based on two main assumptions: 1) existence of mobile carriers of ionic or electronic nature in the bulk material and 2) presence of strong local depolarization fields due to bound charges at the domain faces. The first assumption is based on direct measurements of the conductivity in perovskites [@waser91bulk], the second one was at least partly confirmed in observations of Ref. [@arlt88internal]. Solving self-consistently the drift-diffusion equation together with the Gauss equation for the fixed two-dimensional domain array [@Kittel1946; @LandauElectrodynamicsContinuum; @Mitsui1953; @Fedosov1976] reveals gradual formation of space charge zones compensating the field generated by charged domain faces. Charged domain walls, which are tip-to-tip or tail-to-tail configurations of the polarization in adjacent domains, are electrically equivalent to our model. The biggest difference arises due to the fact that charged domain walls are often observed as needle tip domains in single crystals [@shur00formation]. The geometry is thus considerably different from the model of parallel domain walls presented in our paper, where only periodic straight domain configurations are captured.
The process of charge defect migration is accompanied by the reduction of the energy of the electrostatic depolarization field which leads to the energy minimum where the system will resist any change of the domain pattern. The characteristic time of this relaxation depends on the doping and is typically about $5\cdot\tau_{\mu}\simeq 8\cdot 10^5 \rm \: s \simeq 9$ days, where $\tau_{\mu}$ is a time of drift over the distance of domain width. That is why, after aging, a clamping force at a domain wall arises if an external electric field attempts to shift the domain wall from its initial position. This force may be estimated from the calculated energy gain due to the reduction of the depolarization field. The peak value of the clamping pressure is in the range of $1\div 10 \rm\: MPa$ but the pressure is distributed very inhomogeneously along the domain wall concentrating near the domain ends. Nevertheless, the total value of the clamping force at the domain wall results in the characteristic coercive field of few $\rm\:kV/mm$ which is comparable with that observed on the aged samples of Mn-doped $\rm BaTiO_3$ [@zhang06aging].
Clamping pressures on domain walls in the presented two-dimensional model are considerably lower than in the uniaxial case [@lupascu06aging] and approach macroscopically observable values. They are two orders of magnitude larger than in the picture of defect dipole re-orientation [@robels93domain] and are thus a plausible mechanism for aging in ferroelectrics. In contrast to the one-dimensional case with only one characteristic value of electric field, $E_d=P_s/\varepsilon_f \varepsilon_0$, treated earlier [@lupascu06aging] the two-dimensional model exhibits seemingly a wide spectrum of characteristic times according to the position-dependent values of the electric field ${\bf E}(x,y)$. This allows one to expect a time dependence of the clamping pressure in a two-dimensional array of domains different from the one-dimensional case [@lupascu06aging]. Nevertheless, comparing time evolution of the field and defect concentration in Ref. [@lupascu06aging] with Figs. (\[cross-left\],\[cross-right\],\[cross-front\],\[cross-fieldEy\]) one observes a striking similarity between them. We are thus concerned with a single characteristic time constant $\tau_r = \tau_{\mu}/n_0$ characterizing the relaxation of the system. This time is independent of the width of the domains, $a$. In fact, $\tau_r =\varepsilon_f \varepsilon_0 /\lambda$ with $\lambda=q_f c_0 \mu$ being the conductivity of the material is the Maxwell relaxation time which only depends on the mobility and local concentration of the mobile carriers. This in turn means that a distribution of grain sizes in the material and accordingly a distribution of domain sizes does not entail a distribution of characteristic relaxation times. The logarithmic time dependence of the dielectric constant during aging yet remains to be explained.
A crucial parameter for the plausibility of the time scale in our simulations is the mobility of charged species in a ferroelectric material. The mobility of oxygen vacancies considered is still a highly disputable issue. The activation barrier for this ionic defect is usually estimated in the range of 0.9-1.1 eV in both experimental works and first principle calculations [@TagantsevReview; @MeyerWaser2005; @DamjanovicReview; @Erhart2007] which makes the migration of oxygen vacancies over the distance of the order of the domain width $\simeq 0.5 \rm\: \mu m$ most unlikely. On the other hand, the estimations of the mobility in the Refs. [@waser91bulk; @dawber05physics; @Dawber2000-1; @Jiang2002] are similar to or higher than that given in Refs. [@wern75; @jaff71] which we used for simulations in our study. We would like to stress here therefore that the nature of the charge carriers plays no important role for the model presented. These may be also electronic carriers as was suggested in Refs. [@MeyerWaser2005; @Warren1995]. In any case our input parameters agree with direct measurements of the conductivity of perovskites indifferent to the nature of the charge carriers [@waser91bulk].
It is evident that any real system will contain more than one mobile charge carrier. In case their mobilities or concentrations are considerably different, the final distribution of defects of the more mobile / more frequent carrier will determine the field environment for the drift of the second carrier as it was discussed in Ref. [@MeyerWaser2005]. The solutions from the present calculation would have to be taken as starting condition and iteratively the final solution could be found. In case of equal mobilities and concentrations, a coupled system of equations has to be solved which is the issue of forthcoming work. Similarly the local potential wells for the domain wall which determine the dielectric constant will be given in a future publication.
\[sec:acknowledgement\]Acknowledgement
======================================
Discussions with Karsten Albe, Nina Balke, Dietmar Gross, Valeriy Ishchuk, Hans Kungl, Ralf Müller, Hermann Rauh, and Jürgen Rödel and the support by the Sonderforschungsbereich 595 of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft are gratefully acknowledged.
[99]{} M. E. Drougard and D. R. Young, Phys. Rev. **94**, 1561 (1954).
M. C. McQuarrie and W. R. Buessem, Ceram. Bull. **34**, 402 (1955).
M. Takahashi, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. **9**, 1236 (1970).
H. Thomann, Ferroelectrics **4**, 141 (1972).
K. Carl and K. H. Härdtl, Ferroelectrics **17**, 473 (1978).
G. Arlt and H. Neumann, Ferroelectrics **87**, 109 (1988).
L.X. Zhang and X. Ren, Phys. Rev. B **71**, 174108 (2005).
L.X. Zhang and X. Ren, Phys. Rev. B **73**, 094121 (2006).
K. W. Plessner, Proc. Phys. Soc. B **69**, 1261 (1956).
S. Ikegami and I. Ueda, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **22**, 725 (1967).
P. V. Lambeck and G. H. Jonker, J. Phys. Chem. Solids **47**, 453 (1986).
H.-J. Hagemann, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. **11**, 3333 (1978).
J. F. Scott, B. Pouligny, K. Dimmler, M. Parris, D. Butler, and S. Eaton, J. Appl. Phys. **62**, 4510 (1987).
U. Robels and G. Arlt, J. Appl. Phys. **73**, 3454 (1993).
A.G. Chynoweth, Phys. Rev. **117**, 1235 (1960).
V.Ya. Shur, A.L. Gruverman, N.V. Korovina, M.Z. Orlova, and L.V. Sherstobitova, Sov. Phys. Solid State **30**, 172 (1988).
V. Gopalan and M.C. Gupta, Appl. Phys. Lett. **68**, 888 (1996).
M. Imlau, T. Bieringer, S.G. Odulov, and T. Woike, in Nanoelectronics and Information Technology, R. Waser, Ed., Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2003.
C. Alemany, B. Jim$\acute{e}$nez, J. Mendiola, and E. Maurer, J. Mater. Sci. **19**, 2555 (1984).
N. Korneev, H. Veenhuis, K. Buse, and E. Krätzig, J. Optic. Soc. Am. B - Opt. Phys. **18**, 1570 (2001).
S.G. Gakh, E.D. Rogach, and E.V. Sviridov, Techn. Phys. (Russ.) **46**, 47 (2001).
V. Mueller, Y. Shchur, H. Beige, S. Mattauch, J. Glinnemann, and G. Heger, Phys. Rev. B **65**, 134102 (2002).
V. Mueller, H. Beige, and Y. Shchur, Ferroelectrics **290**, 151 (2003).
V. Mueller and Y. Shchur, Europhys. Lett. **65**, 137 (2004).
P. Paruch, T. Giamarchi, and J.M. Triscone, Phys. Rev. Lett. **94**, 197601 (2005).
R.M. Waser, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. **74**, 1934 (1991).
G. Arlt and U. Robels, Integrated Ferroelectrics **3**, 343 (1993).
R. Lohkämper, H. Neumann, and G. Arlt, J. Appl. Phys. **68**, 4220 (1990).
D.C. Lupascu, Y.A. Genenko, and N. Balke, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. **89**, 224 (2006).
M. Dawber, K.M. Rabe, and J.F. Scott, Rev. Mod. Phys. **77**, 1083 (2005).
R. Williams, J. Phys. Chem. Solids **65**, 399 (1965).
V. Ravikumar, R.P. Rodrigues, and V.P. Dravid, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. **80**, 1117 and 1131 (1997).
G.E. Pike, W.L. Warren, D. Dimos, B.A. Tuttle, R. Ramesh, J. Lee, V.G. Keramides, and J.T. Evans, Jr., Appl. Phys. Lett. **66**, 484 (1995).
C. Kittel, Phys. Rev. **70**, 965 (1946)
L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz, [*Theoretical Physics, Vol. VIII: Electrodynamics of Continuous Media*]{} (Pergamon, Oxford, 1963).
T. Mitsui and J. Furuichi, Phys. Rev. **90**, 193 (1953)
V.N. Fedosov and A.S. Sidorkin, Sov. Phys. Solid State **18**, 964 (1976)
A.P. Prudnikov, Y.A. Brychkov, and O.I. Marychev, [*Integrals and Series*]{} (Gordon and Breach, New York, 1986).
J.D. Jackson, [*Classical Electrodynamics*]{} (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1975).
R. Wernicke, Dissertation RWTH-Aachen, Germany (1975).
B. Jaffe, W.R. Cook, Jr., and H. Jaffe, [*Piezoelectric Ceramics*]{} (Academic Press, Marietta, OH, 1971).
U. Hennings, [*private communication*]{} (2005).
V.N. Nechaev and A.M. Roschupkin, Ferroelectrics **90**, 29 (1989).
E.K.H. Salje and Y. Ishibashi, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter **8**, 8477 (1996).
V.Ya. Shur, E.L. Rumyantsev, E.V. Nicolaeva, and E.I. Shishkin, Appl. Phys. Lett. **77**, 3636 (2000).
A.K. Tagantsev, I. Stolichnov, E.L. Colla, and N. Setter, J. Appl. Phys. **90**, 1387 (2001)
R. Meyer, R. Lidtke, and R. Waser, Appl. Phys. Lett. **86**, 112904 (2005)
D. Damjanovic, [*Hysteresis in Piezoelectric and Ferroelectric Materials*]{}, in [*The Science of Hysteresis*]{}, ed. by I. Mayergoyz and G. Bertotti (Elsevier, 2005)
P. Erhart and K. Albe, to be published
M. Dawber and J.F. Scott, Appl. Phys. Lett. **76**, 1060 (2000)
A.Q. Jiang, J.F. Scott, and M. Dawber, J. Appl. Phys. **92**, 6756 (2002)
W.L. Warren, D. Dimos, B.A. Tuttle, G.E. Pike, R.W. Schwartz, P.J. Clews, and D.C. McIntyre, J. Appl. Phys. **77**, 6695 (1995)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
[**An Extended Kerr-Schild Ansatz**]{} 1.0cm 10.mm [**Benjamin Ett[^1] and David Kastor[^2]**]{}\
[ Department of Physics\
University of Massachusetts\
Amherst, MA 01003 ]{}
0.5in
[**Abstract**]{}
> We present an analysis of the vacuum Einstein equations for a recently proposed extension of the Kerr-Schild ansatz that includes a spacelike vector field as well as the usual Kerr-Schild null vector. We show that many, although not all, of the simplifications that occur in the Kerr-Schild case continue to hold for the extended ansatz. In particular, we find a simple set of sufficient conditions on the vectors such that the vacuum field equations truncate beyond quadratic order in an expansion around a general vacuum background solution. We extend our analysis to the electrovac case with a related ansatz for the gauge field. 2.mm
Introduction
============
The Kerr-Schild (KS) ansatz [@Kerr-Schild][@Debney:1969zz] yields remarkable simplifications of the Einstein equations and has long proved to be a powerful tool in the search for new black hole solutions. One takes the spacetime metric to have the form $$\label{kerrschild}
g_{ab} = \bar g_{ab} + \lambda h_{ab} ,\qquad
h_{ab} = Hk_ak_b$$ where $\bar g_{ab}$ is a background metric, $k^a$ is null with respect to the background metric (with $k_a\equiv \bar g_{ab}k^b$), $H$ is a function and the constant $\lambda$ is inserted for convenience. To solve the vacuum Einstein equations, the background metric is taken to be Ricci flat. One can then analyze the Einstein equations order by order in $\lambda$ in an expansion around the background. A drastic reduction in complexity comes about because the inverse metric truncates beyond first order in $\lambda$, [*i.e.*]{} it is given exactly by $$\label{ksinverse}
g^{ab} = \bar g^{ab} - \lambda h^{ab}$$ with $h^{ab}=\gbar^{ac}\gbar^{bd}h_{cd}$. Further computation shows that, if the null vector is tangent to a geodesic congruence of the background metric, then the Ricci tensor $R^a{}_b$ of the KS metric also truncates beyond linear order in $\lambda$ [@Gurses]. These results can also be generalized to non-vacuum cases [@Dereli:1986cm].
The KS ansatz has, in particular, served as the key for finding many higher dimensional black hole solutions. Myers and Perry [@Myers:1986un] made use of it to find neutral, rotating black holes solutions in $D>4$, a task that would very likely have proved intractable otherwise. The general higher dimensional (A)dS neutral rotating black holes were similarly found by Gibbons et. al. [@Gibbons:2004uw] starting from (A)dS background metrics.
Nevertheless, one could make a long list of potentially interesting black hole solutions that have not so far been found via the KS ansatz (or by any other method). Candidates for this list would include the rotating, charged black holes of Einstein-Maxwell theory for $D>4$, vacuum black holes with non-spherical event horizon topology beyond $D=5$ ([*e.g.*]{} such as those discussed in [@Emparan:2009cs]), as well as black branes and rotating black holes in Lovelock gravity theories (beyond the special cases found in [@Kastor:2006vw; @Giribet:2006ec] and [@Anabalon:2009kq] respectively).
Moreover, there are known higher dimensional black hole solutions that cannot be written in KS form, in particular the $5$-dimensional black ring [@Emparan:2001wn]. This may be seen in the following way. The KS ansatz was originally put forth in the context of algebraically special spacetimes. In four dimensions, with a flat background metric, the null vector $k^a$ in a vacuum KS spacetime is necessarily a repeated principal null vector of the Weyl tensor [@Gurses]. In higher dimensions, it was shown in reference [@Ortaggio:2008iq] that the Weyl tensor of vacuum KS spacetimes is always of Type $II$, or more, algebraically special, within the classification scheme of reference [@Coley:2004jv]. On the other hand, it was shown in [@Pravda:2005kp] that the black ring is only Type $I_i$, and therefore cannot be of KS form.
It seems reasonable to ask whether it might be possible to extend the KS ansatz in a way that might [*e.g.*]{} encompass the $D=5$ black ring, or allow one to find further new black hole solutions such as those listed above. One possible extension was suggested recently in reference [@Aliev:2008bh]. The authors showed that the charged, rotating black holes of minimal, gauged $D=5$ supergravity, originally found in reference [@Chong:2005hr] and known as the CCLP spacetimes, may be rewritten in a form similar to (\[kerrschild\]), with $g_{ab} = \bar g_{ab} + \lambda h_{ab}$ and $\bar g_{ab}$ a flat background metric, but now with $$\label{extended}
h_{ab} = H k_ak_b + K (k_al_b +l_ak_b).$$ Here $k^a$ is again a null vector, $H$ and $K$ are functions, the vector $l^a$ is spacelike and orthogonal to $k^a$ with respect to $\bar g_{ab}$, and we define $k_{a}\equiv\bar g_{ab} k^b$ and $l_{a}\equiv\bar g_{ab} l^b$. We will call metrics of this general form extended Kerr-Schild or xKS metrics.
Another indication of the usefulness of the xKS ansatz comes from considering higher dimensional pp-waves, which are defined by having a covariantly constant null vector (and hence a null Killing field). These spacetimes have long been of interest as exact string backgrounds [@Horowitz:1989bv]. It is known that in $D=4$, all pp-wave spacetimes can be cast into Kerr-Schild form (see [@Stephani:2003tm]). However, as discussed in [@Ortaggio:2008iq], examples of pp-wave spacetimes are known in higher dimensions that have Weyl types [@Coley:2004jv] that are not compatible with those of Kerr-Schild spacetimes. Therefore, not all higher dimensional pp-waves can be cast in Kerr-Schild form. On the other hand, the particular example of a non-Kerr-Schild pp-wave given in [@Ortaggio:2008iq] is of xKS form, and one may speculate that perhaps all higher dimensional pp-waves can be cast in xKS form.
The main focus of this paper will be an analysis of the vacuum Einstein equations for xKS metrics. As an indication of the simplifications we will find, consider the inverse of an xKS metric. An elementary calculation shows that this truncates beyond second order in $\lambda$, being given exactly by $$\label{xksinverse}
g^{ab} = \bar g^{ab} - \lambda h^{ab} + \lambda^2 h^{ac}h_c{}^b.$$ Recall that the truncation of the inverse metric beyond linear order in the Kerr-Schild case led to a similar truncation of the Ricci tensor $R^a{}_b$ beyond linear order. Our main task below is to discover the degree of simplification of the Ricci tensor that occurs in the xKS case. We will see that for $k^a$ geodesic and $l^a$ also satisfying a certain condition with respect to the background metric, that the Ricci tensor $R^a{}_b$ will truncate beyond second order in $\lambda$. The vacuum Einstein equations then reduce to a set of differential equations that are quadratic in $h_{ab}$.
The paper proceeds as follows. In section (\[CCLP\]) to further set the context for our work, we present the xKS form [@Aliev:2008bh] of the CCLP spacetimes [@Chong:2005hr] (in the limit of vanishing cosmological constant) in Cartesian coordinates that highlight the sense in which they generalize the $D=5$ Myers-Perry metrics [@Myers:1986un]. In section (\[basics\]) we introduce the basic geometrical tools we will use in computing the Ricci tensor for xKS spacetimes. In section (\[vacuumKS\]) we reproduce the analysis in the KS case as a warm-up and as a basis of comparison for the xKS case. Section (\[vacuumxks\]) contains our main results on the simplification of the vacuum Einstein equations for xKS metrics. In section (\[stress-energy\]) we study the implications of adding an electromagnetic field with a specific form for the gauge potential. Section (\[conclusions\]) contains some concluding remarks and suggestions for further research.
After our work was largely complete, reference [@bonanos] was brought to our attention, which analyzes a closely related extension of the Kerr-Schild ansatz. The contents of [@bonanos] are largely complementary to those of the present paper, being in certain respects both more general and more limited. The metric ansatz in [@bonanos] is more general in that it allows a variety of possible signs for the norms of the two orthogonal vectors $k^a$ and $l^a$. On the other hand, the material presented in [@bonanos] is more limited in part because it treats only $D=4$ and flat background metrics. More importantly, however, our specific case of interest, $k^a$ null and $l^a$ spacelike, is explored in less depth and in particular our main result, a simple, sufficient condition for the truncation of $R^a{}_b$ beyond second order in $\lambda$, is not obtained.
The xKS form of CCLP spacetimes {#CCLP}
===============================
Our work was motivated by the observation [@Aliev:2008bh] that the charged rotating black holes of minimal $D=5$ supergravity [@Chong:2005hr], known as the CCLP solutions, may be written in the extended Kerr-Schild form (\[extended\]). In [@Aliev:2008bh] the metrics are presented in a type of spheroidal coordinates. Following a sequence of steps given in the Appendix, we have transformed them into Cartesian coordinates. The background is then simply $5$-dimensional Minkowski spacetime $d\bar s^2 = -d\tau^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 +dw^2 + dz^2$, while the vector fields $k^a$ and $l^a$ are then given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cartesian}
k_adx^a &=& d\tau - { r(xdx+ydy) +a (xdy-ydx)\over r^2 +a^2}
- { r(wdw+zdz) +b(wdz-zdw)\over r^2 +b^2} \\
l_adx^a &=& {b\left( a (xdx+ydy) - r(xdy-ydx)\right)\over r (r^2+a^2)}
+ {a\left( b(wdw+zdx)-r(wdz-zdw)\right)\over r(r^2 +b^2)}.\end{aligned}$$ The functions $H$ and $K$ in (\[extended\]) are given by $$\label{metricfunctions}
H = {2m\over\Sigma}-{Q^2\over \Sigma^2},\qquad K = {Q\over\Sigma}.$$ Here $\Sigma = r^2+a^2\cos^2\theta +b^2\sin^2\theta$, $r$ is the spheroidal radial coordinate satisfying $$\label{spheroidal}
{x^2 +y^2\over r^2 + a^2} + {w^2 +z^2\over r^2 + b^2} = 1$$ and the angle $\theta$ is defined in equation (\[cartesiancoords\]) in the Appendix. The $1$-form gauge potential is given by $A= ( \sqrt{3}Q/2\Sigma)k$.
The Cartesian form of the metric facilitates a comparison of the metric with the general odd-dimensional form of the Myers-Perry uncharged rotating black holes [@Myers:1986un]. The vector $k^a$ is identical to that which appears in the $D=5$ Myers-Perry uncharged rotating black holes [@Myers:1986un]. Like the null vector $k^a$, the spacelike vector $l^a$ is independent of the mass $m$ and charge $Q$ of the spacetime. The vector $l^a$ can also be seen to be separately orthogonal to $k^a$ in both the $xy$ and $wz$-planes. This Cartesian form of the metric should be useful in searching for higher dimensional generalizations of the CCLP spacetimes [@ek-in-progress].
We also note some further properties of the vectors $k^a$ and $l^a$ in the CCLP spacetimes. The null vector $k^a$ satisfies $k^a\bar\nabla_a k^b=0$, where $\bnabla_a$ is the covariant derivative operator for the background metric. The vector $k^a$ is thus tangent to a congruence of affinely parameterized null geodesics. This property is indeed central to the Kerr-Schild construction of the Myers-Perry spacetimes [@Myers:1986un]. In combination, the vectors $k^a$ and $l^a$ can also be shown to satisfy $$k^b(\partial_b l_a-\partial_a l_b) = 0,\qquad l^b(\partial_b k_a-\partial_a k_b) = 0.$$ These same statements would, of course, hold with respect to the background covariant derivative operator $\bnabla_a$ as well. These equations also imply the relation $$k^a\bnabla_a l^b = -l^a\bnabla_a k^b.$$ between the covariant derivative of each vector field along the other.
Computational Basics {#basics}
====================
The curvatures of KS and xKS metrics as well as other useful quantities may be computed in terms of the curvature of the background metric $\bar g_{ab}$ and the background covariant derivatives of the vectors $k^a$ and $l^a$ (in the xKS case). In this section we present the basic formalism that goes into these calculations. Let $\bnabla_a$ denote the covariant derivative operator compatible with the background metric $\bar g_{ab}$. The action covariant of the full covariant derivative of the (x)KS metric on a vector can then be written as $\nabla_a v^b = \bnabla_a v^b + C_{ac}^b v^c$ with the tensor $C_{ab}^c$ given by $$C_{ab}^c = {\lambda\over 2}g^{cd}\left(\bnabla_a h_{bd} + \bnabla_b h_{ad} -\bnabla_d h_{ab}\right).$$ It is easily checked that the determinant of the (x)KS metric is unchanged from its background value and hence the quantity $C_{ab}^b$ vanishes. The Ricci tensor of the (x)KS metric is then given by $R_{ab} = \bnabla_c C_{ab}^c - C_{ac}^d C_{bd}^c.$
We can write the connection coefficients and the Ricci tensor as a sum over contributions at different orders in $\lambda$. Given that the inverse KS and xKS metrics truncate beyond orders $\lambda$ and $\lambda^2$ respectively, the connection coefficients can be written as $$\label{connection}
C_{ab}^c = \sum_{k=1}^{\kmax} \lambda^k C_{ab}^{(k)c}$$ where $\kmax =2$ in the KS case and $\kmax=3$ in the xKS case. The Ricci tensor contains terms quadratic in the connection coefficients and hence has an expansion $$R_{ab} = \sum_{l=1}^{\lmax} \lambda^l R_{ab}^{(l)}.$$ going out to order $\lmax = 2\kmax$ in $\lambda$. We will also find it useful to consider the expansion for the Ricci tensor with indices in mixed position $R^a{}_b=g^{ac}R_{cb}$. Because of the extra factor of the inverse metric, this has an expansion in powers $\lambda^n$ that goes out to order $n_{max}=5$ for the KS case and to order $n_{max}=8$ in the xKS case. The coefficients $R^{(n)a}{}_b$ in the expansion of $R^a{}_b$ are simply related to the coefficients in the expansion of $R_{ab}$, with for example $$R^{(2)a}{}_b = \gbar^{ac}R^{(2)}_{cb} - h^{ac}R^{(1)}_{cb}+h^{ad}h_d{}^c\bar R_{cb}.$$ However, they organize the expansion in a different way that turns out to simplify the analysis of the extended Kerr-Schild case below.
Before turning to explicit computations of the Ricci tensor for (x)KS metrics, we consider the important case when the vector $k^a$ is geodesic with respect to the background metric. Assuming an affine parameterization we then have $k^a\bnabla_a k^b=0$. It is well known that for KS metrics, the vector $k^a$ is then also geodesic with respect to the full metric. This turns out to be true in the xKS case as well. One has $k^a\nabla_a k^b = k^a\bnabla_a k^b + C^b_{ac}k^ak^c$ and one can check that the quantity $C^b_{ac}k^ak^c$ vanishes for xKS metrics. Moreover one can show that the expansion, shear and twist of $k^a$ are the same in the xKS metric as in the background.
Vacuum Einstein equations for Kerr-Schild spacetimes {#vacuumKS}
====================================================
The analysis of the vacuum Einstein equations, $R_{ab}=0$, for Kerr-Schild metrics will serve as a model for the analysis in the extended Kerr-Schild case below (see [*e.g.*]{} references [@xanthopoulos; @Chandrasekhar:1985kt] for a similar treatment of the KS case). We start by rescaling the null vector in (\[kerrschild\]) to absorb the function $H$ and work with the KS ansatz in the form $g_{ab} = \bar g_{ab} +\lambda h_{ab}$ with $h_{ab}=k_ak_b$. We assume that the background metric also satisfies the vacuum Einstein equations, so that $\bar R_{ab}=0$. The coefficients in $C_{ab}^{(n)c}$ the expansion of the connection coefficients (\[connection\]) can be written as $$C_{ab}^{(1)c} = {1\over 2}\left(\bnabla_a h_b{}^c +\bnabla_b h_a{}^c - \bnabla^ch_{ab}\right),\qquad
C_{ab}^{(2)c} = {1\over 2} k^c \dbar k_ak_b$$ where $\bar D = k^a\bnabla_a$ is the background covariant derivative taken along the null vector $k^a$.
We initially consider the expansion of the Ricci tensor $R_{ab}$ with both of its indices down which goes out to order $\lambda^4$. Computation shows that the fourth order contribution $R^{(4)}_{ab}$ vanishes identically. Further progress it is facilitated by considering the contracted equation $R_{ab}k^ak^b=0$. One finds that $R^{(3)}_{ab} k^ak^b$ and $R^{(2)}_{ab} k^ak^b$ vanish identically, while $$R^{(1)}_{ab}k^ak^b = - (\dbar k_a)\dbar k^a.$$ The vacuum Einstein equation then implies that $\dbar k^a$ is a null vector. Since it is also orthogonal to $k^a$, it follows that the vector $\dbar k^a$ must be parallel to the null vector $k^a$, [*i.e.*]{} that $\dbar k^a = \phi k^a$ for some function $\phi$. This is equivalent to the statement that $k^a$ is tangent to a null geodesic congruence of the background metric. Assuming this to be the case, it then follows that the contribution to the Ricci tensor at order $\lambda^3$, which is given by $R^{(3)}_{ab} = -{1\over 2}k_ak_b(\dbar k_d)\dbar k^d$, vanishes as well. The contribution at order $\lambda^2$ does not vanish automatically for $k^a$ geodesic. However, one can show the for geodesic $k^a$, it is related to the order $\lambda^1$ according to $$\label{R2R1}
R^{(2)}_{ab} = k_ak^c R^{(1)}_{cb}.$$ Therefore the vacuum field equations will be satisfied if $R^{(1)}_{ab} =0$. This establishes that for Kerr-Schild metrics with a geodesic null vector $k^a$, solving the vacuum field equations reduces to solving the linearized equations in $h_{ab}$ around the background metric. This is the result that we will seek an analogue of in the extended Kerr-Schild case.
The corresponding analysis in the extended Kerr-Schild case is more lengthy and intricate. As noted above, one useful calculational strategy is to work with the expansion of the Ricci tensor $R^{a}{}_b$ with its indices in mixed position. The potential benefits of this strategy are already evident in the KS case. After assuming that $k^a$ is geodesic, we found the relation (\[R2R1\]) between the first and second order terms in the expansion of $R_{ab}$. The equivalent statement in terms of the expansion of $R^a{}_b$ is simply $R^{(2)a}_b=0$. Overall, one finds that the quantities $R_{a}^{(n)b}$ vanish identically for $n=3,4,5$ for the Kerr-Schild ansatz, while $R_{a}^{(2)b}$ vanishes after making use of the geodesic condition. One is then left in a slightly more straightforward manner with the single equation $R_{a}^{(1)b}=0$.
Vacuum Einstein equations for extended Kerr-Schild spacetimes {#vacuumxks}
=============================================================
We will now present a similar analysis of the vacuum Einstein equations for extended Kerr-Schild metrics. We are interested in seeing what simplifications will occur and, in particular, whether the expansion of the Ricci tensor will truncate beyond some relatively low order in $\lambda$. We are also interested to see whether the vector $l^a$ should be taken to satisfy some condition that complements the geodesic condition for $k^a$.
We begin by rescaling the vectors $k^a$ and $l^a$ in the xKS ansatz to absorb the functions $H$ and $K$ in (\[extended\]). Using the same symbols for the rescaled vectors, the xKS ansatz then takes the form $$g_{ab}=\bar g_{ab} +\lambda h_{ab},\qquad h_{ab} = k_ak_b + k_al_b + l_a k_b$$ with the vectors still assumed to satisfy $k_ak^a = k_al^a =0$. For the xKS ansatz one has $C_{ab}^c = \sum_{k=1}^{3} \lambda^k C_{ab}^{(k)c}$ and $R_{ab} = \sum_{l=1}^{6} \lambda^l R_{ab}^{(l)}$. Many computations simplify by using the relations between terms of successive order in the expansion for the connection coefficients $$C_{ab}^{(2)c} = -h^c{}_d C_{ab}^{(1)d},\qquad C_{ab}^{(3)c} = h^c{}_d h^d{}_eC_{ab}^{(1)e} ,$$ where the first order term is simply $C_{ab}^{(1)c} = {1\over 2}\left(\bnabla_a h_b{}^c +\bnabla_b h_a{}^c - \bnabla^ch_{ab}\right)$.
Proceeding initially with the expansion for the Ricci tensor with both indices down, it follows that $R_{ab}^{(6)}$ vanishes identically. Considering next the contracted equation $R_{ab}k^ak^b=0$, one finds that $R_{ab}^{(n)}k^ak^b$ with $n=5,4,3$ vanish identically, while at order $\lambda^2$ one finds $$R_{ab}^{(2)}k^ak^b = -{1\over 4}\alpha_{ab}\alpha^{ab}$$ where $\alpha_{ab}=l_a\dbar k_b -l_b \dbar k_a$. The vacuum equation implies that the anti-symmetric tensor $\alpha_{ab}$ must be null. Together with the identity $k^a\dbar k_a=0$, this implies that $\dbar k^a$ must have the form $$\label{dbarform}
\dbar k^a = \phi k^a +\eta l^a$$ for some functions $\phi$ and $\eta$. At order $\lambda^1$ one finds $$R_{ab}^{(1)}k^ak^b = -\dbar(l_a\dbar k^a) -(\bnabla_c k^c) l_a\dbar k^a
- (\dbar k_a)(\dbar k^a +\dbar l^a +l^b\bnabla_b k^a)$$ Substituting the form (\[dbarform\]) into this result gives $$\label{badequation}
R_{ab}^{(1)}k^ak^b = - \bnabla_c(\eta k^c l_b l^b) - \eta^2 l_b l^b -\eta l^bl^c\bnabla_b k_c .$$ It is clear that taking $k^a$ to be tangent to a geodesic of the background ([*i.e.*]{} taking $\eta=0$) solves $R_{ab}^{(1)}k^ak^b=0$. However, it is unclear whether null vectors $k^a$ satisfying (\[dbarform\]) with $\eta\ne 0$ are possible. We will proceed by assuming that $k^a$ is geodesic. As noted in section (\[CCLP\]) the null vector field in the CCLP spacetimes satisfies $\dbar k^a=0$. Given the geodesic condition, one can then show that $R_{ab}^{(5)}=0$. Continuing on with the calculation of $R_{ab}^{(4)}$, however, proves to be quite cumbersome. In order to proceed we will alter our approach in two ways. The first change in strategy is to work instead with the expansion of $R^{a}{}_b$ as discussed above. The second is to adopt a simpler, but still equivalent, form for $h_{ab}$. Given that the null vector $k^a$ is assumed to satisfy the geodesic condition we can rescale it by a function such that the rescaled vector satisfies $\dbar k^a =0$ ([*i.e.*]{} so that the geodesic congruence to which it is the tangent vector is now affinely parameterized). Similarly we can rescale the spacelike vector $l^a$ by a function such that the rescaled vector has unit norm with respect to the background metric. The quantity $h_{ab}$ will now have the form given in (\[extended\]) for some functions $H$ and $K$, where $k^a$ and $l^a$ now represent the rescaled vectors. Finally, we can define a new vector $m^a$ through $m^a = l^a + (H/2K)k^a$. Because the vectors $k^a$ and $l^a$ are orthogonal, the vector $m^a$ will also have unit norm. In terms of $m^a$, the tensor $h_{ab}$ then reads $$\label{newform}
h_{ab} = K (k_a m_b + m_a k_b),$$ where now $k_ak^a=0$, $m_am^a=1$, $k_am^a=0$ and $\dbar k^a=0$. This new form for $h_{ab}$ simplifies the calculations considerably. However, note that it is now harder to take a Kerr-Schild limit of the extended Kerr-Schild calculations.
Given this new form of $h_{ab}$, the quantity $R^{(4)a}{}_b$ can now be shown to vanish[^3], while for $R^{(3)a}{}_b$ we obtain the following expression $$\label{r3}
R^{(3)a}{}_b = {1\over 2}\bnabla_d\left (K^3k_b[k^av^d
- v^a k^d] \right)
-{1\over 2} K^3k^a v^d \bnabla_bk_d$$ where[^4] $$v_a = k^b\left\{ (\bnabla_bl_a-\bnabla_al_b) - l^c(\bnabla_b l_c-\bnabla_c l_b )l_a \right\}
% \dbar l^a+l^c\bnabla^a k_c-\rho l^a$$ A sufficient condition for $R^{(3)a}{}_b$ to vanish is that the vector $v^a$ should satisfy $$\label{newcondition}
v^a=\alpha k^a$$ for some function $\alpha$. This condition on $l^a$ may be viewed as a counterpart to the geodesic condition for $k^a$. It is independent of the metric functions $H$ and $K$, depending only on properties of the vectors $l^a$ and $k^a$ with respect to the background metric.
Given that the condition (\[newcondition\]) on $l^a$ has only been shown to be sufficient, rather than necessary, for the vanishing of $R^{(3)a}{}_b$, it is interesting to ask whether (\[newcondition\]) is satisfied by the CCLP spacetimes of section (\[CCLP\])? The spacelike vector in the CCLP spacetimes does not have unit norm. Therefore, let us rescale once again letting $\hat l^a = f l^a$ denote the CCLP spacelike vector having norm $f^2$. The vector $v^a$ is given in terms of $\hat l^a$ and $f$ by $$v_a = k^b\left\{{1\over f} (\bnabla_b\hat l_a-\bnabla_a\hat l_b) - {1\over f^3}\hat l^c(\bnabla_b \hat l_c-\bnabla_c \hat l_b) l_a \right\}$$ the derivatives of $f$ having cancelled out. As noted in section (\[CCLP\]), the quantity $k^a(\bnabla_a\hat l_b-\bnabla_b\hat l_a)$ vanishes for the CCLP spacetimes and hence condition (\[newcondition\]) is satisfied in this case with $\alpha=0$.
We have now established a set of sufficient conditions, the geodesic condition on $k^a$ and the condition (\[newcondition\]) relating $k^a$ and $l^a$, such that the Ricci tensor with indices in mixed position vanishes beyond quadratic order in $\lambda$ for xKS spacetimes. One is now left to consider only the quantities $R^{(2)a}{}_b$ and $R^{(1)a}{}_b$. In the KS case, one finds that $R^{(2)a}{}_b$ vanishes as a consequence of the geodesic condition for the null vector $k^a$, and consequently that the vacuum Einstein equations reduce to the equation $R^{(1)a}{}_b=0$, which is linear in $h_{ab}$. However, this does not appear to happen for the xKS ansatz. Although we have not shown it definitively, we believe that no manipulations of the expression for $R^{(2)a}{}_b$ in the xKS case, using the geodesic condition for $k^a$ in combination with (\[newcondition\]), will make $R^{(2)a}{}_b$ vanish. A more conclusive argument to this same end will be given in the next section when we consider electrovac xKS spacetimes. The remaining vacuum equations of motion are then $R^{(1)a}{}_b=0$ and $R^{(2)a}{}_b=0$, with the linear and quadratic contributions to the Ricci tensor given respectively by $$R^{(1)a}{}_b = {1\over 2}\bnabla_c\left(\bnabla^a h_b{}^c + \bnabla_b h^{ac} -\bnabla^c h^a{}_b\right )$$ $$\begin{aligned}
R^{(2)a}{}_b =& -{1\over 2}\bnabla_d\left\{
\bnabla_b(h^{ac}h_c{}^d) +h^d{}_e(\bnabla^ah_b{}^e-\bnabla^e h^a{}_b)
+h^a{}_c(\bnabla^c h_b{}^d - \bnabla^d h_b{}^c)\right \} \\ \nonumber &
-{1\over 4}(\bnabla^e h^{ac} +\bnabla^ch^{ae}-\bnabla^ah^{ce})
(\bnabla_eh_{bc} -\bnabla_bh_{ce}-\bnabla_ch_{be})\end{aligned}$$ In summary, we have shown that for $k^a$ and $l^a$ satisfying $\dbar k^a=0$ and equation (\[newcondition\]) that the terms $R^{(n)a}{}_b$ in the expansion of the Ricci tensor vanish for $n=3,\dots,8$. The vacuum Einstein equations then reduce to the two equations noted above. Condition (\[newcondition\]) depends only on properties of the vectors $k^a$ and $l^a$ with respect to the background metric and can be regarded as a counterpart to the geodesic condition on $k^a$. The vacuum Einstein equations continue to simplify considerably in the xKS case, although not to the full extent that they do in the original KS case.
Adding stress-energy {#stress-energy}
====================
The CCLP spacetimes [@Chong:2005hr] shown to be of xKS form in [@Aliev:2008bh] and presented above in section (\[CCLP\]) are non-vacuum spacetimes. Therefore, we should consider how the xKS ansatz works in the presence of matter fields. As in the KS case, a key step in our analysis has been considering the equation $R_{ab}k^ak^b = 0$, which led to the geodesic condition on the null vector $k^a$. Although one could consider more general cases where the null vector $k^a$ is not geodesic, we will continue to focus on the geodesic case, which implies that the stress-energy tensor should satisfy $T_{ab}k^ak^b = 0$. We will further restrict our attention to the electromagnetic case, with the stress-energy tensor given by $$\label{stressenergy}
T_a{}^b = F_{ac}F^{bc}-{1\over 4}g_a{}^b F^2$$ and assume that the gauge potential is related to the xKS null vector $k^a$ according to $$\label{gauge}
A_a = \sqrt{\lambda}\beta k_a$$ where $\beta$ is a function. This form of the gauge field holds in $D=4$ Kerr-Newman spacetimes, in the KS form of the Reissner-Nordstrom spacetime in any dimension, and also in the CCLP spacetimes [@Chong:2005hr] in xKS form [@Aliev:2008bh]. It is easily checked that the condition $T_{ab}k^ak^b =0$ is satisfied by this ansatz for the gauge potential.
Let us consider the Kerr-Schild case first. Given that it is necessary to raise two indices on the field strength tensor using the KS inverse metric (\[ksinverse\]) in order to compute the components of $T_a{}^b$, there could in principle be contributions out to order $\lambda^3$. However, calculation shows that this is not the case. With the ansatz (\[gauge\]) for the gauge potential, the only non-vanishing contributions to $T^a{}_b$ are linear in $\lambda$. This is consistent with the reduction in order of the Ricci tensor in mixed form $R^{a}{}_b$. Had there been a contribution to $T^a{}_b$ at [*e.g.*]{} order $\lambda^2$, this would have been inconsistent with the vanishing of $R^{(2)a}{}_b$.
Now consider the xKS case. Given the form of the xKS inverse metric (\[xksinverse\]), there could in principle be contributions to $T_a{}^b$ out to order $\lambda^5$. Computation shows that while the order $\lambda^n$ terms in $T_a{}^b$ vanish for $n=3,4,5$, they will generally be non-zero for both $n=1$ and $n=2$. This is consistent with our findings above in section (\[vacuumxks\]), where we found that, in contrast to the KS case, the term $R^{(2)a}{}_b$ does not generally vanish for xKS spacetimes[^5].
For completeness, we should also consider the gauge field equations of motion. For the standard Maxwell Lagrangian, the equations of motion are simply $\nabla_a F^{ab}=0$ and it is straightforward to substitute in the xKS ansatz. One finds that $F^{ab}=\lambda^{1/2}F^{(1/2)ab} + \lambda^{3/2} F^{(3/2)ab}$ with higher order terms vanishing. It is natural, however, to also include the contribution to the equations of motion coming from the Chern-Simons term in the action of minimal $D=5$ supergravity that is relevant for the CCLP spacetimes[^6]. The gauge field equation of motion is then given by $$\label{gaugeeom}
\nabla_a F^{ab} - {1\over 2\sqrt{3}}\epsilon^{bcedf}F_{cd}F_{ef} = 0.$$ At this point, however, a conflict arises in the order by order expansion in powers of $\lambda$. Because $\sqrt{-g}=\sqrt{-\bar g}$ for xKS spacetimes, one can replace the derivative operator in (\[gaugeeom\]) with the background derivative operator. The first term in (\[gaugeeom\]) thus has contributions at orders $\lambda^{1/2}$ and $\lambda^{3/2}$, while the second term is manifestly of order $\lambda^1$.
We expect that a more subtle analysis would be required in order to properly incorporate the gauge field of minimal $D=5$ supergravity into our analysis. In hindsight, this is evident from the form of the CCLP spacetimes given in section (\[CCLP\]). The gauge field is proportional to the charge, and we may therefore think of $\lambda^{1/2}$ as being proportional to the charge $Q$. In Reissner-Nordstrom spacetimes or in the four dimensional Kerr-Newman spacetimes, the metric depends only on the square of the charge. However, the metric function $K$ in (\[metricfunctions\]) is linear in $Q$. The CCLP metric then appears to include terms proportional to $\lambda^{1/2}$ as well as $\lambda^1$. The first term in (\[gaugeeom\]) is linear in $Q$, while the second term is quadratic. It can only be solved by virtue of terms in the metric that are linear in $Q$.
We will not attempt to carry out such a more subtle analysis here. We note that this issue does not affect our main result in section (\[vacuumxks\]), the truncation of the Ricci tensor $R^a{}_b$ beyond quadratic order in $\lambda$ for xKS metrics with $k^a$ geodesic and $k^a$ and $l^a$ jointly satisfying the condition (\[newcondition\]).
Conclusions
===========
In section (\[vacuumxks\]) we found that the Ricci tensor for xKS ansatz metrics simplified to the extent that the vacuum Einstein equations reduce to equations that are quadratic in $h_{ab}$. Although this falls short of the simplification that happens in the KS case, we suggest that the substantial reduction in order that does occur, taken together with the existence of PP-wave and black hole solutions of xKS form, provides strong evidence that xKS metrics are worthy of further attention.
In the KS case, most interesting new solutions have been found not by a broadly based attack on the equations, but rather by generalizing known solutions. That will even more likely be the case for xKS metrics, where the equations to solve are more complex. As a start in this direction, we are presently searching [@ek-in-progress] for xKS solutions of higher dimensional Einstein-Maxwell-Chern-Simons theories based on the Cartesian form of the CCLP spacetimes [@Chong:2005hr; @Aliev:2008bh] presented in section (\[CCLP\]). Additional directions would be asking whether all vacuum PP-waves in $D>4$ can be put in xKS form and studying the Weyl type [@Coley:2004jv] of xKS metrics along the lines of the analysis for KS metrics performed in [@Ortaggio:2008iq].
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
This work is supported by NSF grant PHY-0555304. The authors thank Marcello Ortaggio for helpful conversations and for pointing out reference [@bonanos] and the referees for making many suggestions for improvements to the paper. DK would like to thank the organizers of the Benasque workshop on “Gravity - New Perspectives from Strings and Higher Dimensions” where part of this work was completed.
Transforming CCLP spacetimes to Cartesian coordinates
=====================================================
In this appendix we show how to transform the xKS form of the the $\Lambda=0$ limit of the CCLP metrics given in [@Aliev:2008bh] into the Cartesian coordinates in section (\[CCLP\]). The xKS form (\[extended\]) of the $\Lambda=0$ CCLP spacetimes presented in [@Aliev:2008bh] is $$\begin{aligned}
d\bar s^2 &=& -dt^2 -2 dr(dt-a\sin^2\theta d\phi - b\cos^2\theta d\psi) + \Sigma d\theta^2\nonumber \\
&&+(r^2 +a^2)\sin^2\theta d\phi^2 +(r^2 +b^2)\cos^2\theta d\psi^2\nonumber\\
k_a\, dx^a &=& dt -a\sin^2\theta d\phi-b\cos^2\theta d\psi, \\
l_a\, dx^a &=& -b\sin^2\theta d\phi - a\cos^2\theta d\psi\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ with the functions $H$ and $K$ and the $1$-form gauge potential $A_adx^a$ as given in section (\[CCLP\]). The flat background metric $\bar g_{ab}$ can be transformed into more standard spheroidal coordinates via a transformation such that $$dt=d\tau - dr,\qquad
d\phi = d\varphi - {a\over r^2 +a^2} dr,\qquad
d\psi = d\chi - {b\over r^2 +b^2}dr.$$ giving $$\begin{aligned}
d\bar s ^2& = & -d\tau^2 + {r^2\Sigma\over (r^2 +a^2)(r^2 +b^2)} dr^2 +\Sigma d\theta^2 + (r^2+a^2)\sin^2\theta d\varphi^2
+ (r^2+b^2)\cos^2\theta d\chi^2 \nonumber\\
k_a\, dx^a &=& d\tau - {r^2\Sigma\over (r^2 +a^2)(r^2 +b^2)} dr - a\sin^2\theta d\varphi -b\cos^2\theta d\chi\\
l_a\, dx^a &=&{ab\Sigma\over (r^2 +a^2)(r^2 +b^2)} dr -b\sin^2\theta d\varphi - a\cos^2\theta d\chi \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ A further transformation may now be made to Cartesian spatial coordinates via $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cartesiancoords}
x &=& \sqrt{r^2+a^2}\sin\theta\cos\varphi,\qquad
y = \sqrt{r^2+a^2}\sin\theta\sin\varphi \\
w &=& \sqrt{r^2+b^2}\cos\theta\cos\chi,\quad
z = \sqrt{r^2+b^2}\cos\theta\sin\chi \nonumber .\end{aligned}$$ The spheroidal radial coordinate $r$ satisfies the relation (\[spheroidal\]). so that surfaces of large $r$ are approximately spherically symmetric, while as $r$ approaches to zero they degenerate into the product of a disk of radius $a$ in the $xy$-plane with a disk of radius $b$ in the $wz$-plane. The background metric and the vectors $k^a$ and $l^a$ are then those given in (\[cartesian\]).
[99]{}
R. P. Kerr and A. Schild, “Some algebraically degenerate solutions of EinsteinÕs gravita- tional field equations", Proc. Symp. Appl. Math. [**17**]{}, 199 (1965).
G. C. Debney, R. P. Kerr and A. Schild, “Solutions of the Einstein and Einstein-Maxwell Equations,” J. Math. Phys. [**10**]{}, 1842 (1969). M. Gurses and F. Gursey, “Lorentz Covariant Treatment of the Kerr-Schild Geometry," J. Math. Phys. [**16**]{}, 2385 (1975).
T. Dereli and M. Gurses, “The Generalized Kerr-Schild Transform In Eleven-Dimensional Supergravity,” Phys. Lett. B [**171**]{}, 209 (1986).
R. C. Myers and M. J. Perry, “Black Holes In Higher Dimensional Space-Times,” Annals Phys. [**172**]{}, 304 (1986). G. W. Gibbons, H. Lu, D. N. Page and C. N. Pope, “The general Kerr-de Sitter metrics in all dimensions,” J. Geom. Phys. [**53**]{}, 49 (2005) \[arXiv:hep-th/0404008\]. R. Emparan, T. Harmark, V. Niarchos and N. A. Obers, “Blackfolds,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 191301 (2009) \[arXiv:0902.0427 \[hep-th\]\].
D. Kastor and R. B. Mann, “On black strings and branes in Lovelock gravity,” JHEP [**0604**]{}, 048 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-th/0603168\]. G. Giribet, J. Oliva and R. Troncoso, “Simple compactifications and black p-branes in Gauss-Bonnet and Lovelock theories,” JHEP [**0605**]{}, 007 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-th/0603177\].
A. Anabalon, N. Deruelle, Y. Morisawa, J. Oliva, M. Sasaki, D. Tempo and R. Troncoso, “Kerr-Schild ansatz in Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity: An exact vacuum solution in five dimensions,” Class. Quant. Grav. [**26**]{}, 065002 (2009) \[arXiv:0812.3194 \[hep-th\]\].
R. Emparan and H. S. Reall, “A rotating black ring in five dimensions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 101101 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-th/0110260\]. M. Ortaggio, V. Pravda and A. Pravdova, “Higher dimensional Kerr-Schild spacetimes,” Class. Quant. Grav. [**26**]{}, 025008 (2009) \[arXiv:0808.2165 \[gr-qc\]\]. A. Coley, R. Milson, V. Pravda and A. Pravdova, “Classification of the Weyl tensor in higher-dimensions,” Class. Quant. Grav. [**21**]{}, L35 (2004) \[arXiv:gr-qc/0401008\].
V. Pravda and A. Pravdova, “WANDs of the black ring,” Gen. Rel. Grav. [**37**]{}, 1277 (2005) \[arXiv:gr-qc/0501003\].
A. N. Aliev and D. K. Ciftci, “A Note on Rotating Charged Black Holes in Einstein-Maxwell-Chern-Simons Theory,” Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{}, 044004 (2009) \[arXiv:0811.3948 \[hep-th\]\]. Z. W. Chong, M. Cvetic, H. Lu and C. N. Pope, “General non-extremal rotating black holes in minimal five-dimensional gauged supergravity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 161301 (2005) \[arXiv:hep-th/0506029\]. G. T. Horowitz and A. R. Steif, “Space-Time Singularities in String Theory,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**64**]{}, 260 (1990).
H. Stephani, D. Kramer, M. A. H. MacCallum, C. Hoenselaers and E. Herlt, “Exact solutions of Einstein’s field equations,” [*Cambridge, UK: Univ. Pr. (2003) 701 P*]{}
S. Bonanos, “A Generalization of the Kerr-Schild Ansatz,” Class. Quant. Grav. [**9**]{}, 697 (1992).
B. Ett and D. Kastor, work in progress.
B. C. Xanthopoulos, “Exact vacuum solutions of Einstein’s equations from linearized solutions," J. Math. Phys. [**19**]{}, 1607 (1978).
S. Chandrasekhar, “The mathematical theory of black holes,” [*Oxford, UK: Clarendon (1992) 646 p.*]{}
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: [email protected]
[^3]: We should also check the higher order terms in the expansion of $R^a{}_b$ which goes out to order $\lambda^8$. Making use of the results stated above can show that $R^{(n)a}{}_b=0$ for $n=5,\dots,8$.
[^4]: In the expression for $v_a$, the vector $l^a$ may be replaced by the vector $m^a$ without changing the result for $R^{(3)a}{}_b$.
[^5]: It is potentially interesting to note that this same truncation of the stress energy tensor holds if a term $ \sqrt{\lambda}\gamma\, l_a$ is added to the gauge potential (\[gauge\]) for $\gamma$ an arbitrary function, if $l_a$ is assumed to satisfy condition (\[newcondition\]) that implies the vanishing of $R^{(3)a}{}_b$.
[^6]: Note that the Chern-Simons term does not contribute to the stress energy tensor.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Shaon Ghosh
- Steven Bloemen
- Gijs Nelemans
- 'Paul J. Groot'
- 'Larry R. Price'
bibliography:
- 'References.bib'
title: 'Tiling strategies for optical follow-up of gravitational wave triggers by wide field of view telescopes'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The discovery of the gravitational-waves (GW) event GW150914 from a coalescence of a binary stellar-mass black hole system by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) has established our ability to detect and measure perturbations of spacetime due to events of astrophysical origin on earth based detector. [@PhysRevLett.116.061102]. Further upgrades of the LIGO [@0264-9381-32-7-074001] will improve its sensitivity by a factor of few resulting in an increase in the detection volume. The advanced Virgo [@0264-9381-32-2-024001] scheduled to come online later this year will add to the network a third kilometer-scale detector that would improve the sky-localization of sources. As a consequence of these two developments we will be able to conduct gravitational-wave astronomy for the first time. The estimated rates of double neutron star binary mergers, both from theoretical estimates as well as extrapolations based on the known sample of binary radio pulsars, suggest a detection rate of several tens per year for the final advanced LIGO-Virgo network at their design sensitivity [@Abadie:2010cf]. The detection rate of neutron star – black hole mergers is based solely on theoretical estimates and could well be similar in part due to a larger detection horizon at a given detector sensitivity.
Compact binary coalescences (CBC) are extremely energetic event which may also provide us an electromagnetic (EM) counterpart if one of the binary components is a neutron star [@Eichler:1989fk; @Narayan:1992iy; @1538-4357-507-1-L59]. In case both EM as well as GW data are available the scientific yield of the detection will be significantly enhanced: the EM counterpart will for instance provide a very accurate position and possibly redshift. Additional information on the type of object may also be obtained, for example EM signals can help us distinguish between neutron star - black hole binaries with a massive neutron star from binary black hole systems. One can also expect to understand the physics of the merger better as encoded in the properties of the ejecta and an estimate of the orbital inclination can be more accurately constrained [@1538-4357-487-1-L1]. The accurate position can not only be used to aid the GW data analysis, but also allows a detailed study of the environment of the merger, which in turn could provide crucial information about the pre-merger evolution of the system (circumstellar material, host galaxy information, position in/outside galaxy etc).
One of the most promising candidate for joint observation of EM counterpart of a GW signal is a kilonova [@1538-4357-507-1-L59; @Kulkarni:2005jw; @Metzger21082010; @0004-637X-775-1-18; @Rosswog21032014]. A kilonova is an optical/infrared signal generated from the radioactive decay of small amounts $(\sim 0.01 M_{\odot})$ of high-angular momentum neutron star material that are ejected in the merger of a binary neutron star or a neutron star black hole binary. Kilonovae are expected to be emitted isotropically, although a slight polar dependence may be present and potentially can be used to constrain the orbital inclination [@Kasen21062015; @Grossman21032014]. Current models indicate that the emission from kilonovae is weaker than supernovae. Assuming heavy element r-process nucleosynthesis, the peak bolometric luminosity for these events is $\sim 10^{40.5}$ -$10^{41.5}$ erg/s. This corresponds to an absolute magnitude of $-12$ to $-15$ in the optical Sloan $i$ band [@0004-637X-775-2-113; @0004-637X-775-1-18; @Grossman21032014]. Currently the best hope to observe kilonovae is to receive external triggers from other observatories and conduct a targeted search around the triggered sky position. This is precisely the method that led to the discovery of the first kilonova by Hubble [@kilonova; @BergerRProcess], which was triggered by GRB 130603B. The constrained beaming angles of GRBs imply that most of these triggers for kilonovae would be located at very large distances. That is why the apparent magnitude of this event in the near-infra-red and optical was $\sim 25 - 28$. Therefore, detecting kilonova events at their typical GRB triggered distances will be a challenge for most telescopes. However, due to the isotropic nature of GW emission, one can expect to get triggers for kilonova events associated with binary neutron star coalescences at closer distances than what has been observed for the short GRB triggered kilonova. A kilonova with absolute magnitudes in the aforementioned range, within a typical LIGO-Virgo BNS detectable distance of $\sim 200$ Mpc, will have an apparent $i$ band magnitude of $\sim 21.5 - 24.5$. Furthermore, the longer duration of these events ($\sim$ days) provides us the opportunity for detailed follow-up with photometric and possibly, spectroscopic tools. These properties, namely temporal coincidence with the coalescence, isotropy of emission and long duration make kilonovae ideal candidates for EM follow-up of GW events.\
[This brings us to the main challenges of EM follow-up of GW triggers:]{}
1. [Rapid detection and sky localization based on the GW data,]{}
2. [An operational set-up in which EM facilities with sufficiently large field of view (FOV) and sensitivity can react quickly to survey the GW sky-localizations, and]{}
3. [An efficient selection scheme in which the (candidate) counterparts can be identified in a potential sea of false positives.]{}
The key element in EM follow-up of gravitational wave triggers is that we are able to detect the gravitational wave events in real time. If the gravitational wave events have associated optical counterparts, then these could last for hours to days [@1538-4357-507-1-L59; @Berger20111; @kilonova; @BergerRProcess]. During the first few hours to about a day we expect the optical/infrared luminosity from these sources to be at their highest. The time and sky localization of a GW candidate are known within a minute or two after the merger signal has passed the detectors [@first2years; @0004-637X-804-2-114]. [**The GW sky-localizations will typically be as large as hundreds of square degrees [@lrr-2016-1; @first2years]**]{}. Following up such wide sky localization patches, within this time window, as deep as 22nd-23rd magnitude in at least two bands is a challenging task.
Once the GW sky-localization is known the task for the optical telescopes would be to observe that area with the minimum number of telescope pointings. Since a telescope pointing would cover a [*tile*]{} in the sky commensurate to its field of view, the observation of any desired confidence interval of the sky-localizations would require generating a set of tiles that most efficiently captures the confidence interval. This act of capturing the confidence interval with the telescope tiles will be termed [*coverage*]{} in this study (Sect. \[Sec:skyPointing\]). In this paper we discuss and compare, for the first time, the various strategies (Sect. \[Sec:skyPointing\]) that one can implement for generating the sky-tiles for observing the GW sky-localizations using wide FOV telescopes. Based on the analysis conducted on the sky-localizations simulated by @first2years, we make recommendations on the optimal tiling strategy taking into account key aspects such as the number of telescope pointings (Sect. \[Sec:TileReduction\]), issues of image subtraction (Sect. \[Sec:freeGrid\]) and false-positive probabilities (Sect. \[Sec:FalsePositive\]).
We then use the optimal tiling strategy to investigate how to optimize coverage of the sky-localization regions for a given observation area (total sky-area covered by the tiles) (Sect. \[Sec:DistributedFOV\]). Here the notion of a distributed FOV array will be introduced and the performance in covering a population of simulated GW sky-localizations with that of traditional monolithic FOV telescopes is compared. A distributed FOV array could simply be a group of smaller wide FOV telescopes operating in a coordinated fashion from different geographical location. Finally, using the tiling strategy developed, we study the observing strategy for EM counterpart of GW events (Sect. \[Sec:DepthCoverage\]). Here we analyze how to optimize the depth of the observation, tuning it against the coverage of the GW localization.
Sky-tiling for gravitational wave localization {#Sec:skyPointing}
==============================================
The rapid gravitational wave sky-localization algorithm, BAYESTAR [@first2years; @Singer:2015xha] pixelates the sky using the HEALPix (Hierarchical Equal Area isoLatitude Pixelization) projection, computes the sky localization probability distribution function (p.d.f) of the GW event at every pixel, and then outputs this information in FITS file format. Let us define this p.d.f as a function $L(\alpha, \delta)$, where $\alpha$ and $\delta$ are the sky coordinates. We define $S_{95}$ as the surface on the sky with the smallest possible area that contains $95\%$ of the total localization p.d.f [@PhysRevD.89.084060] [^1] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:LocContour}
\iint \limits_{S_{95}} L(\alpha, \delta) \,{\mathrm d} \Omega = 0.95\,,
\end{aligned}$$ where $d\Omega$ is the solid angle subtended by an infinitesimal surface element on the celestial sphere at the center of the earth. Any telescope observing this confidence interval of GW sky-localization can choose the minimum number of telescope pointings required to enclose $S_{95}$. For every such area $S_{95}$ there exists (at least) an area $\tau_{95} (\geq S_{95})$ that is constructed out of the tiles needed for covering it. The tiles enclosing $S_{95}$ forms a subset of the tiles that cover the full sky defining a [*sky-grid*]{}. The $N_{CC}$ tiles constituting this area, $\tau_{95}$, are the required sky-tiles that enclose the $95\%$ confidence interval and we call them [*contour-covering tiles*]{} or CC-tiles. This is the most straightforward and simple tiling strategy.
If the coordinates of the grid are not fixed on the plane of the sky ([*free-grid*]{}), then the area $\tau_{95}$ can be obtained by optimizing the grid location in the sky. On the other hand, if the grid is fixed on the sky ([*fixed-grid*]{}), then $\tau_{95}$ is uniquely defined. Many optical surveys, including the currently active PTF [@PTFRau; @PTFLaw] and Skymapper projects [@2007PASA...24....1K] and the future BlackGEM [^2] and ZTF facilities [@ZTF; @ZTFBellm; @ZTFSmith], use a fixed grid on the sky. This grid is predefined and covers the whole sky that is visible from the observatory’s location. Although a more flexible grid will in general lead to more efficient contour coverage, a fixed grid approach has advantages. Firstly, the search for optical transients is typically performed by subtracting a reference image taken at an earlier epoch, and looking at the residual image to find new sources. Distortions caused by optical elements in the telescope and the camera vary with the position in the FOV of the telescope. Looking at the same part of the sky on roughly the same position in the FOV all the time limits the complexity of image resampling. The more complex this process, the more artifacts would be present in the residuals, which can be picked up as false-positive detections. Finally, a fixed grid simplifies the data flow, storage and access, since the images taken at a certain sky coordinate of interest can easily be retrieved based on the ID of the field that contains the coordinate.
The area $S_{95}$ defined in Eq. \[eq:LocContour\] is unique for a given event. For an EM observer what is more important however is the $\tau_{95}$ and not the $S_{95}$. Minimizing the $\tau_{95}$ will result in the most effective tiling strategy. Instead of choosing the minimum number of tiles required to enclose the smallest confidence interval contour, we can sample the entire sky-localization map with discrete 2D-intervals equal to the FOV of the telescope and select the smallest number of these sampled intervals that constitutes $95\%$ localization posterior probability.
Consider a telescope with a FOV of $\Delta \alpha \Delta \delta$ for which we would want to construct the sky-tiles required for observation. We can construct an equal area grid on the sky with grid spacing $\Delta \alpha$ and $\Delta \delta$ along the right ascension and declination respectively to cover the entire sky with an integral number of tiles. The probability of localization at an arbitrary sample on the grid would thus be given by $$\label{Eq:tileValue}
\begin{aligned}
T_{ij} = \int_{\alpha_i}^{\alpha_i + \Delta \alpha} \int_{\delta_j}^{\delta_j + \Delta \delta} L(\alpha, \delta) \,{\mathrm d} \Omega\,,
\end{aligned}$$ where, $(i,j)$ are the coordinates of the sample in the sky-localization map. After ranking based on the value of the integral in Eq. \[Eq:tileValue\] we can select from the top of the list of these samples until we have reached a cumulative probability $\geq 95\%$. We call these sampled intervals of sky-localizations the [*ranked-tiles*]{} (RT). It is straightforward to show that this strategy is guaranteed to give us a number of tiles $N_{RT}$ that is less than or equal to $N_{CC}$ (App. \[app:proof\]).
In Fig. \[fig:3DetComp\] we show the CC-tiles and the ranked-tiles for a gravitational-wave sky-localization observed by a wide field telescope with FOV = 2.7 deg$^2$. The ranked-tiles are shown by blue solid tiles and the CC-tiles are all the tiles including the blue solid tiles and the dashed unfilled tiles. The $S_{95}$ surface is enclosed by the red contour. In this case, the ranked-tiles are a subset of the 42 CC-tiles, reducing the number of tiles by 14.
![Comparison between tiling generated for a three detector network for the two tiling strategies. The contour shows the smallest $95\%$ credible area on the sky as obtained from BAYESTAR. The tiles (both dashed and solid lines) constitutes the tiles required to cover this contour (CC-tiles). This set of tile contains $96.5\%$ localization likelihood. Shaded tiles are the ones that we obtain from the ranked-tiles. We note that less number of ranked-tiles are required to cover the $95\%$ localization than what we would require if we were to cover the contour.[]{data-label="fig:3DetComp"}](compareType1_vs_Type2.eps){width="6.0cm"}
Sky tiling in the first two years LIGO - Virgo observation scenarios {#Sec:firstTwoYears}
====================================================================
An astrophysically motivated simulation of low latency detection and rapid sky localization for the first two years of LIGO and Virgo operation was presented in [@first2years]. About a hundred thousand binary neutron star sources with different intrinsic parameters were injected in simulated 2015 and 2016 detector noise power spectral density (PSD). Out of these Singer et al. detected around 1000 injections using the low latency detection pipeline [@svdPaper]. They localized all the detected sources using BAYESTAR. For a thorough understanding of the observing scenarios during the first two years using optical telescopes we generated tiles for localizations employing both the methods discussed earlier. First, we will present the results of the comparison between the two methods. Then we will relax the fixed-grid constraint and investigate the coverage resulting from the optimization.
Comparison of the ranked-tile method and the $95\%$ confidence interval tiling in the first two years {#Sec:TileReduction}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We show the percentage reduction in the number of tiles required from using the ranked-tile strategy instead of the CC-tiling strategy in Fig. \[fig:ReductionComparison\]. Once again we cover the 95% localization as an example with a 2.7 deg$^2$ FOV telescope. The tile reduction percentage is $\frac{\Delta N}{N_{CC}}\times 100$, where $\Delta N = N_{CC} - N_{RT}$. The positive values of the reduction for all the GW events from the first two years clearly show that the ranked-tiling method minimizes the number of tiles required to observe a given confidence interval of GW sky-localization. What is not immediately evident from Fig. \[fig:ReductionComparison\] is whether this reduction in the number of tiles is always because ranked-tiles are a subset of CC-tiles (as we observed in Fig. \[fig:3DetComp\]).
![Fractional reduction (%) in the number of tiles required to cover 95% GW sky-localization in 2015 and 2016 due to implementation of the ranked-tiling strategy. Note the trend of lower reduction for larger sky-localization. (The apparent bimodality in the tile reduction is accidental and disappears for other confidence intervals and FOVs. ) []{data-label="fig:ReductionComparison"}](comparePointingFirstTwoYears_diff_squares.png){width="8.0cm"}
For any given GW event the sky-localization distribution is such that the lowest probability tiles are at the periphery of the set of CC-tiles. The localization area scales as $N$, the number of tiles. If it is true that the ranked-tiles are just a subset of the CC-tiles, and that they are obtained by simply dropping the least probable CC-tiles, then one would expect that the tile-reduction must scale as $\sqrt{N}$ since the circumference scales with $\sqrt{N}$. Hence, the tile reduction percentage over the CC-tiles should scale as $1/\sqrt{N}$. In Fig. \[fig:3DetCompBins\] we plot the bin-wise median percentage reduction as a function of number of tiles. It does show the decreasing trend of the tile reduction percentage with the total number of tiles, but much less steeply than $1/\sqrt{N}$ (shown in dashed line), or, in other words, there is considerably greater gain from using ranked-tiles for larger sky-localization than one would expect if ranked-tiles were a subset of CC-tiles.
![Median reduction in the number of tiles in the various tile bins illustrating the lowering of the reduction as a function of the GW sky-localization size in 2015 and 2016. The shaded regions represent the root mean square variation of the percentage reduction of tiles in the bins. The dip near the 250 tiles is an artifact of the discrete FOV. The dashed lines represents tile reduction if ranked tiles are obtained by dropping less probable peripheral CC-tiles.[]{data-label="fig:3DetCompBins"}](comparePointingFirstTwoYears_10bins.png){width="8.0cm"}
We found that, if we consider the same number of ranked-tiles and CC-tiles, in $92\%$ of all the GW triggers ranked-tiles enclose more localization probabilities than CC-tiles.
We repeated this exercise for telescopes with different FOVs and found that smaller FOV telescopes are more likely to have such cases where localization probability contained within ranked tiles is greater than that contained within same number of CC-tiles. Furthermore, we also found that in fair number of cases there are ranked tiles that fall completely outside the contour enclosing the smallest $95\%$ localization. Once again this happens more frequently for smaller FOV telescopes. For example our analysis has shown that out of the 475 GW sky-localizations in the 2016 era simulation, in 65 cases there are at least one ranked-tile that has fallen outside the smallest $95\%$ GW localization contour for a 2.7 deg$^2$ telescope. For a 1.0 deg$^2$ telescope this number is 283 out of 475, while for a 43.2 deg$^2$ telescope it drops to just 2. These number are far greater if we target smaller confidence intervals. Thus, we have 156, 338 and 5 ranked-tiles falling completely outside the smallest $50\%$ confidence contour for the 2.7, 1.0 and 43.2 deg$^2$ FOV telescopes respectively. In Fig. \[fig:gainFromRankedTiles\] we show the reduction in the required area of coverage resulting from the adoption of the ranked-tiling strategy for six different FOVs (1.0, 2.7, 5.4, 10.8, 21.6 and 43.2 deg$^2$) and six different localizations confidence intervals ($50\%, 60\%, 70\%, 80\%, 90\%$ and $95\%$). We find that the reduction in required sky-area is the greatest for the largest FOV telescopes and for the smallest localization confidence regions. The reduction of the sky-area has implication on false positive probability of the search which we discuss next.
![The median reduction in sky-area required to be observed for various telescope FOVs and confidence intervals using ranked-tiles. CC-tiles are more numerous than ranked-tiles to cover the same localization likelihood. Note that since the false positive probability scales with the amount of sky-area observed, this can be interpreted as a false probability reduction as well. The reduction is greater for smaller confidence intervals and larger FOVs.[]{data-label="fig:gainFromRankedTiles"}](reductionInArea.png){width="9.0cm"}
False positives {#Sec:FalsePositive}
---------------
One of the main challenges of optical follow-up of GW triggers is that the optical-sky will have a larger number of transients than in any other wavelengths, that can serve as false-positives. Extragalactic transients such as supernovae are distributed uniformly over the sky. Galactic interlopers such as M-dwarf flares, binaries that were in eclipse when the reference catalog was made, outbursting CVs (novae and dwarf novae) follow the distribution of stars in the Milky Way, i.e. higher rate of false positives closer to the Galactic Plane. However, both contour covering and ranked-tiling methods cover similar parts of the sky and hence on an event-by-event basis both methods probe the same population of interlopers. Thus, a false positive probability comparison between the methods can be made assuming that the number of false-positives per square degree of sky-area is constant within the error-box, and hence the number of false-positives is proportional to the observed area. In the preceding sections we have established that the ranked-tiling strategy allows us to reduce the number of tiles required to capture the sky-localization region of any given confidence level. Thus, the percentage decrease in false positives upon employing ranked-tiles as the observing strategy instead of the CC-tiles can be written as $100\times(N_{CC} - N_{RT})/N_{CC}$. Therefore, the color coding in Fig. \[fig:gainFromRankedTiles\] can be interpreted as the reduction in the false positive rate. Of course if one would decide to only analyze an area containing a fixed localization percentage (e.g 95%) that is enclosed within the tile set, the CC method would by definition cover the smallest area, ($S_{95}$) that contains that percentage and thus have the smallest number of false positives. But in practice observers will be analyzing the whole area observed by the telescope and any transient candidate found outside the $S_{95}$, but within the area defined by $N_{CC}$ tiles will also be analyzed.
Optimization in free-grid {#Sec:freeGrid}
-------------------------
In Sect. \[Sec:TileReduction\] we presented the results of the two strategies to cover the GW sky-localizations using the FOV of telescopes when the sky-grid is predefined. It is expected that further minimizations of tiles can be achieved if this constraint is lifted and we are allowed to move coordinates of the tiles in the grid. The covering of the GW localizations, which are essentially irregular polygons, with the least number of square tiles is a member of a class of problems called NP-complete problems [^3]. Any known solution of this class of problem can be verified within polynomial time (i.e., solvable in $N^k$ steps, where $N$ is the complexity of the problem and $k$ is a non-negative integer). However, there is no known method of finding the solution from first principles. In the absence of a general recipe of finding the solution we resorted to an iterative optimization, where we iteratively shifted the tiles in the grid covering the GW sky-localization to see which configuration gives us the best result. This is done in the following two steps:
1. [[**Create the initial grid to cover the GW sky-localization:**]{} For every sky-localization we find the smallest size of the grid that is required to cover it. The right ascension (RA) and declination (Dec) values at the center of the grid lie at the mean RA and Dec value of the localization’s credible region. ]{}
2. [[**Optimize rows of tiles at constant declination angle:**]{} Once the initial grid is laid, every row in the grid is slid in the horizontal direction (along the right ascension angle) by steps of $0.1^{\circ}$ to look for the configuration that requires the lowest number of tiles in that particular row. Continuing the same process for all the rows we optimize the tiling.]{}
Due to the periodic nature of the initial grid, the shifting of the rows needs to be done for one tile length. We then conducted this exercise for ranked-tiles:
1. [Once again we started from a primary sky-grid. We created a ranked list of $T_{ij}$ values for all the samples in this grid. This gives us the ranked-tiles for this instance of sky-grid. ]{}
2. [Then we slide the first row of the grid in steps of $0.1^{\circ}$, record the $T_{ij}$ values of all the tiles and create the ranked-tiles for each of these instances of the sky-grid. Note that unlike in the case of the CC-tiles, here there is no [*a priori*]{} way of optimizing each row of ranked-tiles but must optimize the entire grid after every iteration.]{}
3. [Conducting this exercise for all the rows we collect the ranked-tiles for all the instances and choose the minimum of these which should be the optimal solution.]{}
In Table. \[tab:tilingComp\] we show the results of the optimization carried out on ten randomly selected sky-localizations from the first two years simulation. Note that reasonable reduction in the required number of tiles is achieved by optimization of the CC-tiles. However, similar reduction was not observed for ranked-tiling. This indicates that the ranked-tiling strategy gives us a solution that is already close to the optimal solution. The ranked-tiles are therefore an excellent approximation of the continuum sky-localization and with virtually no need for optimization. This is an important point since it liberates the observation efficiency from the choice of the sky-grid. As we argued that many wide FOV telescopes will be using a fixed sky-grid to simplify image subtraction, the independence of the ranked-tiling strategy from the choice of the grid is a major advantage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
**[ID]{} & **[CC tiles]{} & **[CC-Optimized]{} & **[Tile reduction (%)]{} & & **[RT tiles]{} & **[RT-Optimized]{} & **[Tile reduction (%)]{}\
288172 & 531 & 462 & 12.99 & & 422 & 418 & 0.95\
288830 & 38 & 37 & 2.63 & & 29 & 29 & 0.0\
303684 & 129 & 117 & 9.3 & & 96 & 96 & 0.0\
313831 & 5 & 4 & 20.0 & & 3 & 3 & 0.0\
1087 & 385 & 359 & 6.75 & & 302 & 302 & 0.0\
468530 & 307 & 273 & 11.07 & & 217 & 213 & 1.84\
588762 & 466 & 437 & 6.22 & & 365 & 364 & 0.27\
1065078 & 264 & 237 & 10.23 & & 192 & 189 & 1.56\
1027955 & 10 & 9 & 10.0 & & 9 & 9 & 0.0\
687313 & 469 & 453 & 3.41 & & 426 & 425 & 0.23\
**************
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
\[tab:tilingComp\]
Optimization of observation area - monolithic vs distributed field of view {#Sec:DistributedFOV}
==========================================================================
In order to scan the GW sky-localizations spanning over hundreds of square degrees with a reasonable chance of detecting an optical counterpart one needs wide FOV telescopes. Other telescopes may only be successful in this endeavor if they incorporate additional information like galaxy catalogs and distance localization [@3Destimate; @Gehrels:2015uga]. Such telescopes would target galaxies within the sky-localization region to search for the counterpart and are unlikely to base their search on any sky-tiling strategy, hence in the present analysis we exclude them. A list of currently operating wide FOV telescopes that participated in the first observing run of LIGO can be obtained in @Abbott:2016gcq. Also, new facilities that could participate in the electromagnetic follow-up of GW triggers in the near future can be found in [@0004-637X-767-2-124], [@2041-8205-789-1-L5] and [@Chu:2015jxa].
Of course the larger the FOV of a telescope, the greater is its capability to scan any given sky-localization. Although the observing area scales linearly with the FOV, the coverage of the sky-localization might scale less strongly due to the fact that above a certain size, wider angle telescopes will end up covering a lot more area extraneous to the confidence region contour than less wide angle FOV telescopes. Since smaller FOV telescopes can tile the localization contour more efficiently, one can imagine the possibility of incorporating multiple such telescopes in the form of a [*distributed FOV array*]{} of telescopes with a combined FOV equal to that of a large FOV telescope and expect to cover the credible region more efficiently. We performed the following analysis to test the implementation of distributed FOV arrays for ranked-tiles. Let us imagine a large FOV telescope with which we would like to scan the sky to detect the optical counterpart corresponding to the mock GW triggers from 2015 and 2016 eras. In our studies we use the largest FOV telescope from the previous analysis, namely, 43.2 deg$^2$. For each GW event we count the number of ranked-tiles that we need to observe till we reach the location of the simulated GW source. As we go down the list of the ranked-tiles and we observe a larger fraction of the sky, more event locations are covered. This is shown in the blue curves of Fig. \[fig:DetectionFracCompAllTelescopes\] where we can see that with the increase of the total observing area the fraction of source locations that were covered increases.
![Comparison between detection fraction as a function of sky coverage for different FOV optical observing facilities in 2015 (top) and 2016 (bottom). Here we have selected six different arrays that have the same total observing area. We see that arrays with smaller FOV in the individual telescopes are more efficient in covering the gravitational wave sky-localization.[]{data-label="fig:DetectionFracCompAllTelescopes"}](compareArrays_2015_NEW.png "fig:"){width="9.0cm"} ![Comparison between detection fraction as a function of sky coverage for different FOV optical observing facilities in 2015 (top) and 2016 (bottom). Here we have selected six different arrays that have the same total observing area. We see that arrays with smaller FOV in the individual telescopes are more efficient in covering the gravitational wave sky-localization.[]{data-label="fig:DetectionFracCompAllTelescopes"}](compareArrays_2016_NEW.png "fig:"){width="9.0cm"}
Next we distribute the 43.2 deg$^2$ FOV into two equal observing area telescopes with 21.6 deg$^2$ FOV each. Fig. \[fig:DetectionFracCompAllTelescopes\] shows that this results in a greater fraction of coverage. Two telescopes of half the observing area are able to utilize their FOVs more efficiently to cover the highest localization regions, thereby converging to the source location faster than the original telescope with twice the FOV. Continuing this distribution of FOV further we note that the increase in detection fraction steadily increases, underscoring the benefit of using a distributed FOV array over a monolithic FOV telescope in scanning the GW sky-localizations.
In the upper plot of Fig. \[fig:DetectionFracCompAllTelescopes\] we see that in the synthetic 2015 sky-localization, while scanning the top 100 deg$^2$ of the ranked-tiles of the sky-localizations, the gain in the coverage of the triggers would have been $\sim 100\%$ for an array consisting of forty-three 1.0 deg$^2$ or sixteen 2.7 deg$^2$ FOV telescopes compared to a monolithic 43.2 deg$^2$ FOV telescope. The presence of the third detector in 2016 greatly improves the GW sky localizations, making the sky-localizations smaller and less elongated in general. For such localizations the coverage is less sensitive to the distribution of the FOV of the telescope. This is the reason why the improvement in the 2016 era is more modest compared to 2015 (see lower plot of Fig. \[fig:DetectionFracCompAllTelescopes\]). Nevertheless we found a $\sim 50\%$ gain when we scan the top 100 deg$^2$ of the ranked-tiles using the smaller FOV telescope arrays (1.0 deg$^2$ and 2.7 deg$^2$ FOV) instead of a single 43.2 deg$^2$ FOV telescope. It is important to emphasize here that even though Virgo is expected to join the second observing run (O2), a significant fraction of the detections would be Hanford-Livingston double coincident events due to the combined effect of finite duty cycles and lower Virgo sensitivity [@Abbott:2016gcq]. Thus, the information from the localizations of the 2015 era is pertinent to the 2016 era and hence have been included in the results of this work.[^4]
![Improvement($\%$) in the number of sources covered from using distributed FOV arrays instead of a single monolithic telescope in the highest likelihood 100 deg$^2$ sky-area. Note that in 2016 the coverage improves by as much as 50% if we use a 16 fold distributed array instead of a single large FOV telescope. In 2015 this improvement was supposed to be even larger (as much as 100%). This implies that the coverage improvement from using distributed FOV is even greater for double coincident events (see discussion in Sect. \[Sec:DistributedFOV\]).[]{data-label="fig:DetectionFracComp100SqDeg"}](hundredSquareDegs_improvement.png){width="9.cm"}
Note that the gain in coverage diminishes rapidly below 2.7 deg$^2$ FOV telescopes for the 2015-16 sky-localizations as is evident from the lack of any significant gain in detection upon distributing the FOV further from an array of 2.7 deg$^2$ to an array of 1.0 deg$^2$ FOV. Figure \[fig:DetectionFracCompAllTelescopes\] also shows that the differences between the distributed FOV arrays and the monolithic FOV telescope are minimal for very large observed areas, which is to be expected since if we were to observe a very large area in the sky, we expect to cover most of the event locations regardless of the tiling strategies or whether we use a monolithic FOV telescope or a distributed FOV array. However, we will be able to observe such large areas only for very slowly varying light curves. The most interesting and meaningful part of the plots in Fig. \[fig:DetectionFracCompAllTelescopes\] is around $\sim 100$ square degrees where distributed FOV arrays improves the coverage. This is shown in Fig. \[fig:DetectionFracComp100SqDeg\] where we show, for the highest likelihood 100 deg$^2$, the improvement (in $\%$) of the sources covered over the single monolithic FOV telescope for the various arrays. The coverage of the source location improves by as much as $50\%$ if the observers uses distributed FOV arrays instead of a single monolithic FOV telescopes. The improvement is expected to be even better for cases where the GW events were observed by only two detectors.
Depth and coverage {#Sec:DepthCoverage}
==================
Until now we have been discussing the tiling strategies in the context of efficient covering of the GW localization regions. However, the detection of the optical counterpart will depend on the depth of the observation and not just the mere coverage of the localization area. The depth of observation by a particular telescopes depends on various factors, including the optical seeing quality of the site, the phase of the moon on the night of observation, the air-mass of the observation, etc. However, the most important quantity is the integration time of the observation and the mirror size. Thus, for the present study we will make the simplifying assumption that all the other factors are held constant at their optimum values at a typical site (seeing $= 1.0$, airmass $= 1.0$, moon phase $= 0$ (new moon)). We present studies for three different apertures sizes, 0.6, 0.9 and 4.0 meters. The limiting magnitude as a function of the integration time is shows in Fig. \[fig:timeMag\] [^5].
![The variation of the limiting magnitude for observation with integration time for telescopes with three different apertures.[]{data-label="fig:timeMag"}](time_magnitude.png){width="8.0cm"}
To make our study more general, we will not assume any geographical location of the observer. During actual observations, the GW localizations would not always be visible from the any given location. For this general study we assume that all sky-locations are entirely visible all the time.
Expected number of accessible sources {#Sec:accesibleSources}
-------------------------------------
Increasing the integration time allows us to see deeper into the universe. If we can see deeper by a factor of $f$ then, assuming a uniform density of GW sources (which is true for non-cosmological distances), we have a factor of $f^3$ increase in the number of sources that are observable. However, larger integration time also means that in the same total observation time we will be able to observe a smaller fraction of the GW localization. Thus, the increase in depth comes at the expense of coverage. Here we will present a study in which we investigate how the number of observable sources varies with the changing integration time and coverage for a uniform volume distribution of sources if we have a total of two hours of observation time. Identification of the optical counterpart would require more than a single epoch of observation of the candidates, preferably in multiple filters to get photometric and light curve information. Thus two hours of observation per epoch is a reasonable choice. Let us assume that integrating for $t_{A}$ seconds allows us to observe at a limiting magnitude of $m_A = m(t_A)$, where $m(t_A)$ is obtained from Fig. \[fig:timeMag\]. Similarly, integrating for $t_B$ seconds we reach a magnitude of of $m_B = m(t_B)$. If $M$ is the absolute magnitude of the source then, the ratio of the accessible distances (disregarding extinction) for the two integration times $x = D_L^A/D_L^B$ is given by, $$x = \frac{D_L^A}{D_L^B} = 10^{\frac{1}{5}[m(t_A) - m(t_B)]}\,,
\label{Eq:magnitudeExpression}$$ where $D_L^A(D_L^B)$ are the limiting accessible distance for observations conducted with integration time of $t_A(t_B)$ seconds. Furthermore, let the total GW localization probability that the observer is able to cover if each pointing requires $t_A(t_B)$ seconds of integration be $P_A(P_B)$. Therefore, the ratio of the expected number of accessible sources for the two observations is: $$\frac{n_A}{n_B} = x^3 \left(\frac{P_A}{P_B}\right)\,.
\label{Eq:factionOfSources}$$ We present a comparative study between different depths of observation where, as a reference, we are using the $95\%$ localizations region tiling. For an event the number of ranked-tiles required to cover a particular confidence interval gives us the integration time for each pointing. Using this time and Fig. \[fig:timeMag\] we compute the value of $x$. Thus, the integration time in the event-by-event basis is not the same, however the covered GW localization likelihood is constant.
![The median of the ratio of accessible source population for various confidence intervals w.r.t accessible source population for $95\%$ confidence interval. Note that the expected number of detection for uniform volume distribution of sources peaks at an intermediate localization confidence interval. This shows the likelihood of the detection of the optical counterparts is more if the observer goes deeper at the expense of coverage of the localization. []{data-label="fig:RatioOfInaccessible"}](ratioOfAccessibleSources.png){width="8.0cm"}
We note from Fig. \[fig:RatioOfInaccessible\] that the competing effects of larger integration time and reduced coverage result in a maximum in the expected number of accessible sources at localizations likelihood $\sim50\%$. Observing deeper gives access to a greater number of sources than covering larger localization regions.
Number of detectable optical counterparts of binary neutron star coalescences {#Sec:ActualSources}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, there is one caveat to this geometrical argument given above, namely here we have assumed a uniform volume distribution of sources. While this is a reasonable assumption for all sources in the universe, the distribution of the number of binary neutron stars from which gravitational waves are detectable by LIGO and Virgo are not uniform in volume. The strength of the gravitational wave signal depends strongly on the inclination angle of the binary with face-on systems being stronger emitters than edge-on systems. This introduces a bias in our detectability, namely we are more likely to detect face-on system at larger distances [@0004-637X-767-2-124]. Thus the distribution of the detectable sources by LIGO and Virgo will not scale as $r^3$. This is evident from Fig. \[fig:DistanceDistribution\] where we show the histogram of the detected events from the 2016 scenario study.
![Simulation of distance distribution of the detected events from 2016. []{data-label="fig:DistanceDistribution"}](GWdetectedSources.png){width="8.0cm"}
This implies that the apparent benefit that we saw in Fig. \[fig:RatioOfInaccessible\] from observing deeper at the cost of covering less of the localization region would be less profound (if any). To check this we conducted the following study. For the nine different telescopes with FOVs $= 2.7, 10.8$ and 43.2 deg$^2$ and apertures $= 0.6, 0.9$ and 4.0 meters, we determine the distance that can be reached as a function of the sky-area covered if we have two hours of observation time at our disposal. The detectability of the source depends on the intrinsic brightness of the sources just as they depend on the telescope’s FOV and aperture size. However, currently the kilonova light-curve models are not very well constrained. Therefore, we conducted this analysis for four models with absolute magnitudes $M = -12, -13, -14$ and $-15$ [@2041-8205-736-1-L21; @0004-637X-775-2-113]. These values are believed to capture the range of kilonova brightness within reasonable accuracy. In Fig. \[fig:DetFrac\_dist\_area\] we show the result of this analysis. The fraction of the optical counterpart that can be detected from the 2016 scenario is shown in the color scale.
![Detection fraction as a function of sky area covered and the distance reached in two hours is shown for nine different types of telescopes. Due to uncertainty in kilonova light-curve models we show the detection percentage for four kilonova absolute magnitude cases, $M =-12$, $-13, -14 $ and $-15$. In the $M=-14$ and $-15$ cases for the 4.0 meter class telescope all sources are detectable, hence not shown. []{data-label="fig:DetFrac_dist_area"}](depth_vs_coverage_1x.png "fig:"){width="7.55cm"} ![Detection fraction as a function of sky area covered and the distance reached in two hours is shown for nine different types of telescopes. Due to uncertainty in kilonova light-curve models we show the detection percentage for four kilonova absolute magnitude cases, $M =-12$, $-13, -14 $ and $-15$. In the $M=-14$ and $-15$ cases for the 4.0 meter class telescope all sources are detectable, hence not shown. []{data-label="fig:DetFrac_dist_area"}](depth_vs_coverage_4x.png "fig:"){width="7.55cm"} ![Detection fraction as a function of sky area covered and the distance reached in two hours is shown for nine different types of telescopes. Due to uncertainty in kilonova light-curve models we show the detection percentage for four kilonova absolute magnitude cases, $M =-12$, $-13, -14 $ and $-15$. In the $M=-14$ and $-15$ cases for the 4.0 meter class telescope all sources are detectable, hence not shown. []{data-label="fig:DetFrac_dist_area"}](depth_vs_coverage_16x.png "fig:"){width="7.55cm"}
Firstly, note that there is no detectability maximum in the observed sky-area (on any slice along the x-axis). This is contrary to what we observed for the case of uniform distribution of sources. Secondly, it is obvious from Fig. \[fig:DetFrac\_dist\_area\] that for smaller observed sky-area ($\lesssim$ 150 deg$^2$) there is virtually no benefit from increasing the depth of the observation beyond $\sim 150$ Mpc. An observer will be constrained by time and will not be able cover an arbitrarily large sky-localization area to an arbitrarily high depth. Thus an observer would typically fall on the curves like the ones shown in blue-solid, red-dotted and black-dashed lines in Fig. \[fig:DetFrac\_dist\_area\] for the 0.6m, 0.9m and 4.0m class telescopes respectively. If an observer wants to cover greater fraction of the localization region, then the observation must be carried out towards the right-end of these curves, while if the observer intends to observe at greater depth then the observation should be conducted at the left-end of the curves. The background color gives us the corresponding detection probability. The location of the star on the lines indicates the depth and coverage at which maximum detectability of optical counterparts is achieved. From the top panel it is evident that for the smaller FOV telescope it is almost never productive to cover less area in favor of observing deeper unless kilonovae are intrinsically very faint. For an intermediate FOV telescope (middle panel) the benefits of observing deeper at the expense of coverage is absent for very large aperture telescopes. For smaller aperture telescopes there is benefit in observing deeper especially if kilonovae are intrinsically faint. For the very large FOV telescope (bottom panel) it appears that it is almost always beneficial to observe deeper at the expense of coverage, which is understandable since they can cover most of the source locations within few pointings. The observed variation of detection probability as a function of sky-coverage and depth of search is in qualitative agreement with what was found by [@0004-637X-767-2-124] for the advanced LIGO-Virgo design sensitivity.
Conclusion
==========
The discovery of gravitational-wave (GW150914) from the binary black hole has opened a new window in transient astronomy. We expect to detect GW from compact binary systems involving neutron star(s) in the coming years as the LIGO detectors improve their sensitivity and new detectors come online worldwide. A scenario study for the 2015-16 era performed for the binary neutron star systems showcased what we can expect during the initial years in GW localization. This work uses the results of that study to investigate how well we would be able to cover these localizations on the sky using wide FOV optical telescopes. We examined the performance of the coverage for various different types of telescopes with square FOVs. We compared two different ways to tile up the sky to facilitate the observation of the GW sky-localization. The most obvious and simple-minded approach would be to figure out the smallest area of a given confidence interval ($90\%$, $95\%$ etc) on the sky and cover that using the telescopes. We showed in our work that due to the discreteness of the FOV of the optical telescopes, a ranked-tile strategy leads to a better performance as far as number of tiles required is concerned. In this method, we first generate a grid that covers the entire sky. Each grid element (which we call a tile) in this grid is of the size of the FOV of the telescope. Next, instead of finding the GW localization contour we compute the localization probability in each tile. We rank these tiles based on their localization probability values and select the top tiles (ranked-tiles) that cumulatively constitute the required confidence interval. We found in our study that ranked-tiling makes the optimization of the location of the tiles irrelevant. It ensures that the observer can use a fixed grid of tiles, making it more suitable for image subtraction. We compared the performance of the two methods of tiling up the sky for observation for various FOVs and different confidence intervals. Larger FOV telescopes and observations conducted over smaller confidence interval regions showed greater benefits from using the ranked-tiles. The reduced search sky-area required to reach any confidence interval also implies a reduction in the number of false positives. The fact that for an equal number of tiles the ranked-tiles accommodates a greater localization percentage indicates that in an actual search for optical counterpart of GW events, where (in most cases) observers will be constrained by the number of telescope pointings, adopting ranked-tiling strategy will give the observers a better chance of covering the true sky-position of the event.
We investigated the performance of distributed FOV arrays of wide field of view telescope ($\geq$ 1.0 deg$^2$) with that of the traditional monolithic FOV telescopes in scanning of the simulated gravitational wave sky-localization regions. Our studies showed clear benefit from using such arrays with maximum impact being at search areas $\sim 100$ deg$^2$. The distributed FOV arrays need not be a single facility containing an array of identical telescopes. It could very well be multiple wide FOV optical telescopes around the world with diverse FOVs operating in a joint fashion. Non local telescopes in such arrays will have greater sky coverage which could be extremely beneficial in the initial years given the size and structures of the expected GW sky-localizations.
Finally, we studied the effects of depth of observation. Here we analyzed the detectability of the sources using nine different types of telescopes of various FOVs and aperture sizes, each for four different kilonova brightnesses. Our investigation shows that for smaller FOV telescopes there is no advantage in sacrificing coverage of the sky-localization area to observe deeper unless kilonovae are intrinsically extremely faint. Larger FOV telescopes ($>10$ deg$^2$) can afford to observe deeper by increasing their integration time.
The authors would like to thank Leo Singer, for his meticulous review and suggestions for the work and the contents of the paper. SB and SG were supported by the research programme of the Foundation for Fundamental Research on Matter (FOM), which is partially supported by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO). SB and PJG acknowledge the Aspen Center for Physics, which is supported by National Science Foundation grant PHY-1066293, where part of this work was performed.
Ranked-Tiling requires less number of tiles {#app:proof}
===========================================
Let us denote the set of all tiles in the grid sorted in descending order as $\{\Theta: \Theta_i > \Theta_{i+1}\,\,\forall \,i\}$, where $\Theta_i$ is the $i$th tile of the sorted grid. The set of all tiles that are required to cover the $A_{95}$ region $(T)$ is a subset of $\Theta$. We define the elements of $T$ as $$\begin{aligned}
T = \{T_1, T_2,..., T_{N_0}\}, \,.
\end{aligned}$$ Thus we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=1}^{N_0} \Theta_k \geq \sum_{l=1}^{N_0} T_l\,,
\end{aligned}$$ where the subscript $k$ indexes the set of tiles denoted by $\Theta$ and $l$ indexes set of tiles denoted by $T$. The equal sign is for the trivial (and extreme) case that the set $T$ happens to be the highest $N_0$ elements of $\Theta$. If we denote the quantity in the left hand side of the inequality as $\mathcal{C}$ and the one in the right as $C$ then $\exists \,c \in [C, \mathcal{C}]$ that satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
c = \sum_{k=1}^{N_1} \Theta_k\,.
\end{aligned}$$ If the smallest value of $c$ that satisfies this happens to be $\mathcal{C}$ then $N_1 = N_0$ for any other values of $c < \mathcal{C}$, we get $N_1 < N_0$, i.e, the number of ranked-tiles needed to reach up to a required localization probability, $N_1$, is less than the number of tiles required to cover a given smallest confidence contour.
[^1]: The $95\%$ localization probability is chosen as an example for the purpose of illustration.
[^2]: https://astro.ru.nl/blackgem/
[^3]: NP stands for nondeterministic polynomial time
[^4]: Note that in 2016 the sensitivity of the LIGO detectors will also increase. The same event from 2015 will be better localized in 2016, however, it also means that the detectors will be sensitive to weaker sources that were undetectable in 2015. Thus, as a fraction of the population the localizations of the sources do not improve due to better sensitivity of 2016.
[^5]: We have used the exposure time calculator from http://www.noao.edu/scope/ccdtime/ to get the limiting magnitudes for the 0.9 and 4.0 meter class telescopes and scaling them we got the same for the 0.6 meter class telescope.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
In this paper we develop three different subjects. We study and prove alternative versions of Hrushovski’s “Stabilizer Theorem”, we generalize part of the basic theory of definably amenable NIP groups to NTP$_2$ theories, and finally, we use all this machinery to study groups with f-generic types definable in bounded PRC fields.
**Keywords:** Model theory, PRC, f-generics, definable groups, NIP, NTP$_2$.
**Mathematics Subject Classification:** Primary 03C45, 03C60; Secondary 03C98.
author:
- Samaria Montenegro
- 'Alf Onshuus[^1]'
- 'Pierre Simon[^2]'
bibliography:
- 'PRC.bib'
title: 'Stabilizers, groups with f-generics in NTP$_2$ and PRC fields'
---
Introduction
============
This paper has three main parts, each of which we believe may be of independent interest.
Section 2 is very much self contained, and only requires knowledge of basic concepts of model theory, all of which are contained in (for instance) the introduction of [@HrPi]. It is devoted to the study of S1 ideals and various versions of Hrushovski’s Stabilizer Theorem (Fact \[fact\_stab\]). We prove two variations on it. Theorem \[th\_babystab\] is very close to Hrushovski’s original theorem but allows what we feel is a simpler proof and more natural hypothesis. Theorem \[th\_stabilizer\] on the other hand, substantially weakens the hypothesis on the S1 ideal. We use it to generalize several results in [@HrPi] and [@Ba] by proving an “algebraic group chunk theorem” (Theorem \[algebraic group chunk\]) in many geometric theories. Reading [@Ba] and conversations with Barriga made us realize that Theorem \[algebraic group chunk\] implied that every torsion free group definable in a real closed field $R$ is semi-algebraically isomorphic to the $R$ points of an algebraic group $H$, a result we believe was previously unknown which we include as a corollary.
In Section \[SGroups\] we prove some results about groups definable in an NTP$_2$ theory admitting f-generic types. We generalize some basic statements proved in [@CS] for definably amenable NIP groups. Apart from the use of Theorem \[th\_babystab\], this section is self contained.
The rest of the paper is devoted to the study of groups definable in bounded PRC fields.
A field is PRC if every absolutely irreducible variety which has zeros in every real closed extension has a zero in the field. Hence PRC fields generalize both the notions of real closed fields and of pseudo algebraically closed fields (PAC). It is shown in [@Mon] that bounded PRC fields are NTP$_2$, a notion which generalizes the better known concepts of dependent theories and simple theories. Since bounded PAC fields have been a very inspirational example of a simple unstable field, and real closed fields are one of the main examples of dependent fields, bounded PRC fields are examples of NTP$_2$ fields, the study of which might enable us to predict which properties can and cannot hold in an NTP$_2$ theory.
In Section \[STheorem\] we try to understand definable groups in a bounded PRC field, assuming in addition existence of f-generic types. We prove that such a group is isogeneous to a finite index subgroup of a quantifier-free definable group (Theorem \[th\_main\]). In fact, the latter group admits a definable covering by multi-cells on which the group operation is algebraic. This generalizes similar results proved in [@HrPi] by Hrushovski and Pillay for (not necessarily f-generic) groups definable in both pseudofinite fields and real closed fields. Our theorem applies in particular to all solvable groups.
In Section \[SPRC\] we recall some results on PRC fields and prove that the expansion of a bounded PRC field obtained by adding all quantifier-free externally definable sets has elimination of quantifiers.
The sketch of the proof of the main theorem is as follows: After an initial reduction to groups of finite index, we use Theorem \[algebraic group chunk\] to show that given a group $G$ with f-generics definable in a bounded PRC field, there is an algebraic group $H$ and a (relatively) definable isomorphism between type-definable subgroups $G^{00}_M$ of $G$ and $K$ of $H$ where $G^{00}_M$ is the maximum type definable over $M$ subgroup of $G$. In Section \[SAlgebraic\] we show that for any such $K$ (a type definable subgroup of an algebraic group), if $\overline{K}$ denotes the topological closure of $K$, then $\overline{K}/K$ is profinite. The proof then continues adapting the proofs in [@HrPi] for the pseudo-finite case and for the real closed case.
S1 ideals and Stabilizer theorems {#SStabilizer}
=================================
Let $M$ be a model and let $G$ be an $M$-definable group. Let $\mu$ be an $M$-invariant ideal of definable subsets of $G$ which is invariant by left translations by elements of $G$. We say that a type $p(x)$ in $G$ is *$\mu$-wide* if it is not contained in a set $D\in \mu$. If the ideal $\mu$ is fixed and no confusion can arise, we will refer to $\mu$-wide types as “wide”.
A key concept we will need is Hrushovski’s definition of an S1 ideal.
An $A$-invariant ideal $\mu$ has the *S1 property* if whenever $(
a_j)_{j \in \omega}$ is an $A$-indiscernible sequence and $\phi(x,y)$ is a formula, then if $\phi(x,a_i)\wedge \phi(x,a_j)$ is in $\mu$ for some/all $i\neq j$, then $\phi(x,a_i)$ is in $\mu$ for some/all $i$.
We will say that the ideal $\mu$ is *S1 on the $A$-definable set $X$* if $X$ is not in $\mu$ and the property above holds for formulas $\phi(x,a_i)$ included in $X$. Finally, we say that $\mu$ is *S1 on a partial type $\pi(x)$* if $\pi(x)$ is $\mu$-wide and included in a definable set on which $\mu$ is S1.
The following results all appear in [@Hru12].
\[HrStable\] Let $p$ be a type and assume that $\mu$ has the S1 property. Then for any type $q$ the relation $$R(a,b) \iff a^{-1}p(x) \cap b^{-1}q(x) \text{ is $\mu$-wide},$$ where we identify a type with its realizations in the monster model, is a stable relation.
\[wide\] Let $\mu$ be an $M$-invariant ideal which is S1 on some set $X$. Then for any type $p(x)$ whose realizations are contained in $X$, if $p(x)$ is $\mu$-wide, then $p(x)$ does not fork over $M$.
Finally, the following is Lemma 2.3 in [@Hru12].
Let $p,q$ be complete types over a model $M$ and let $R(x,y)$ be a stable $M$-invariant relation in the realizations of $p(x)\times q(y)$. Then the truth value of $R(a,b)$ is constant for all $a\models p(x)$ and $b\models q(y)$ as long as either ${\mathrm{tp}}(a/Mb)$ or ${\mathrm{tp}}(b/Ma)$ does not fork over $M$.
The usefulness of S1 ideals can be seen in the following proposition (which we will use in Section \[ShelahExpPRC\]). It is basically Lemma 6.1 in [@HrPi], but the contexts are not exactly the same.
A *definable ideal*, is defined to be an ideal $\mu$ such that for any $\phi(x;y)$, the set $\{b : \phi(x;b)\in \mu\}$ is definable.
\[TdefGps\] Let $G$ be a definable group equipped with a definable (left-) $G$-invariant S1 ideal $\mu$. Let $H\leq G$ be a type-definable subgroup of $G$ which is $\mu$-wide, then $H$ is the intersection of definable subgroups of $G$.
Write $H=\bigcap_{n<\omega} H_n$, where each $H_n$ is definable, stable under inverse and $H_{n+1} \cdot H_{n+1} \subseteq H_n$. Let $\delta_n(x;y)= x\in G \wedge y\in G \wedge xH_n \cap yH_n
\notin \mu$. Then $\delta_n$ is a definable, stable (as $\mu$ is S1), $G$-invariant relation. Let $S_{\delta_n,H}$ be the set of global $\delta_n$-types (in variable $x$) which are consistent with $H$. By stability, all $\delta_n$-types are definable. Recall that an element of $S_{\delta_n,H}$ is generic if every set in it covers $G$ in finitely many translates. By Lemma 5.16 in [@HrPi], there are finitely many generic types in $S_{\delta_n,H}$.
Let $Q_n$ be the definable set $\{b\in H_0 : \delta_n(x;b)$ is in all generic types of $S_{\delta_n,H}\}$.
$H= \bigcap Q_n$.
Let $a\in H$, then for $b\in H$ realizing a generic type of $S_{\delta_n,H}$ over $a$, $H\subseteq aH_n \cap bH_n$, hence $aH_n \cap bH_n\notin \mu$ and $a\in Q_n$.
Conversely, let $a\in \bigcap Q_n$ and take $b\in H$ generic over $a$ as above. By definition of $Q_n$, we have $aH_n \cap bH_n
\notin \mu$ for all $n$ so that in particular it is non-empty. Hence by compactness, $aH\cap bH$ is non-empty, so $a\in H$.
$HQ_n \subseteq Q_n$.
Let $a\in H$ and $b\in Q_n$. Let $c$ be generic over $a,b$. We need to show that $abH_n \cap cH_n\notin \mu$. By invariance, this is equivalent to $bH_n \cap a^{-1}cH_n\notin \mu$. But $a^{-1}c$ realizes a generic over $b$, hence this follows from the fact that $b\in Q_n$.
Finally, let $G_n = \{x \in H_n : xQ_n \subseteq Q_n \wedge
x^{-1}Q_n \subseteq Q_n\}$. Then $G_n$ is a subgroup and $H\subseteq G_n \subseteq H_n$, so $H=\bigcap G_n$.
Stabilizer Theorems
-------------------
A good insight for invariant and S1 ideals (which prompted some of the terminology we use) comes from measures. If we have a finitely additive measure on definable sets which is invariant under automorphisms fixing some set $A$, a natural $A$-invariant ideal is that of sets of measure 0. In this context, *wide* sets are those which have positive measure. This ideal does not need to be S1 since an infinite union of positive measure sets need not intersect if the ambient universe has infinite measure. However, if we restrict ourselves to a finite measure set, then the ideal of measure 0 sets is in fact S1.
Because of this analogy, given an ideal $\mu$ we will call a definable set $X$ *medium* if $\mu$ is S1 when restricted to $X$. Note that medium sets form an ideal. A type is medium if it concentrates on a medium set. If $p$ is medium and $a\models p$ with ${\mathrm{tp}}(a/Mb)$ wide, then ${\mathrm{tp}}(a/Mb)$ does not fork over $M$.
Recall that we assume the ideal $\mu$ to be both $A$-invariant and invariant under translations by elements of $G$. If $q$ and $r$ are wide types, then we define $St(q,r):=\{g : gp
\cap r$ is wide$\}$. If $p$ is wide, we will denote $St(p,p)$ by $St(p)$ and $St_r(p)= \{g : pg\cap p$ is wide$\}$. Hence $g\in
St(p)$ if and only if there is some $a\models p$, ${\mathrm{tp}}(a/Mg)$ wide and $ga\models p$ (then also ${\mathrm{tp}}(ga/Mg)$ is wide by $G$-invariance of $\mu$). Observe that $St(p)$ is stable under inversion. Finally, $Stab(p)$ is the subgroup generated by $St(p)$.
If $p$ and $q$ are two types, we let $p{\times_{nf}}q=\{(a,b) : a\models p, b\models q, {\mathrm{tp}}(b/Ma)$ does not fork over $M\}$.
We recall one version of Hrushovski’s stabilizer theorem from [@Hru12].
\[fact\_stab\] Let $\mu$ be an $M$-invariant ideal on $G$ stable under left and right multiplication. Let $X\subseteq G$ be a symmetric $M$-definable set such that $\mu$ is S1 on $X^3$. Let $q$ be a wide type over $M$ concentrating on $X$. Assume
(F)
: There are $a,b \models q$ such that ${\mathrm{tp}}(a/Mb)$ and ${\mathrm{tp}}(b/Ma)$ are both non-forking over $M$.
Then there is a wide type-definable subgroup $S$ of $G$. We have $S=(q^{-1}q)^2$ and $qq^{-1}q$ is a coset of $S$. Moreover $S$ is normal in the group generated by $X$ and $S\setminus (q^{-1}q)$ is included in a union of non-wide $M$-definable sets.
We will not actually use this theorem, but some modified versions of it, which we prove in this section. Theorem \[th\_babystab\] below is very close to Fact \[fact\_stab\]. The proof is of course very much inspired, at times literally copied, from that of Hrushovski. One difference is that we assume the ideal to be S1 on up to four products of the type and its inverse (instead of three), and this allows us to simplify slightly the arguments. On the other hand, we weaken the requirements by dropping assumption (F) and under assumption (B1), we forgo right-invariance.
The proof in [@Hru12] operates by acting on the right on $q$, we decide to act on the left, which explains some differences in the statements.
We will need a stronger version of Fact \[HrStable\], where we restrict the requirement that $\mu$ has the S1 property in all sets.
Let $p, q$ be medium, then the relation $R(g,h)$ defined as “$gp\cap hq$ is wide" is a stable relation.
Note that by invariance of $\mu$, every translate of $p$ and $q$ is medium. Let $(g_i h_i :i \in \mathbb Z)$ be an indiscernible sequence and assume that $R(g_i,h_j)$ holds if and only if $i\leq j$.
: $g_0 p \cap g_1 p \cap h_2 q$ is wide.
We then have that for all $i>0$, $g_0 p \cap g_i p \cap h_{i+1} q$ is wide by indiscernibility. Also for $i<j$, we have $(g_i p \cap h_{i+1}q) \cap( g_{i+2} p \cap h_{i+3}q)$ is not wide as already $h_{i+1}q \cap g_{i+2}p$ is not wide. Therefore the sequence $(g_0 p \cap (g_{2i}p \cap h_{2i+1}q):i>1)$ contradicts the S1 property inside $g_0 p$.
: $g_0 p \cap g_1 p \cap h_2 q$ is not wide.
We know that for all $i<2$, $g_i p \cap h_2 q$ is wide. Hence the sequence $(h_2 q \cap g_i p : i<2)$ contradicts the S1 property inside $h_2 q$.
\[lem0\] Let $q,r$ be medium and wide, and let $p\in St(q,r)$. Take $(a,b)\in p{\times_{nf}}p$, then $a^{-1}b, b^{-1}a \in St(q)$.
Take $(a,b)\in p{\times_{nf}}p$. Since $St(q)$ is stable under inverses, it suffices to show that $a^{-1}b q\cap q$ is wide, which is equivalent to $b q \cap a q$ is wide. As $q$ is medium, by stability it is enough to prove this for one pair $(a,b)\in p{\times_{nf}}p$. Take $(a_i:i<\omega)$ an indiscernible sequence in $p$ such that ${\mathrm{tp}}(a_1/Ma_0)$ is non-forking over $M$. Then $a_i q \cap r$ is wide for all $i$, as $p\in St(q,r)$. As $r$ is medium, it follows that $a_0 q \cap a_1 q \cap r$ is wide. In particular $a_0 q \cap a_1 q$ is wide, as required.
\[lem1\] Let $p$ be wide and medium, and let $q\in St(p)$, take $(a,b)\models q{\times_{nf}}q$, then $a^{-1}b, b^{-1}a \in St(p)$. If $\mu$ is right invariant and if $q\in St_r(p)$, then $ab^{-1}, ba^{-1}\in St_r(p)$.
The first part follows from the previous lemma by taking $q,r$ there to be $p$ here. The second part of the statement is proved in the same way by multiplying on the right.
We will also show the following.
\[repeatedClaim\] Let $p$ and $r$ be medium types with $r$ wide, let $(a,b)\models p \times_{nf} p$, and assume that $p^{-1}r$ is medium. Then $ba^{-1}\in St(r)$.
We need to show that $a^{-1} r \cap b^{-1} r$ is wide. Let $(a_i)_{i<\omega}$ be an indiscernible sequence of realizations of $p$ such that ${\mathrm{tp}}(a_n/Ma_{<n})$ is non forking for all $n$. By stability, it is enough to show that $a_0^{-1} r \cap a_1^{-1} r$ is wide. The type-definable sets $(a_i^{-1} r)_{i<\omega}$ are wide and included in $p^{-1}r$ which is medium by hypothesis, so by the S1 property $a_0^{-1} r\cap a_1^{-1} r$ is wide as required.
\[th\_babystab\] Let $\mu$ be an $M$-invariant ideal on $G$ stable under left multiplication. Let $p\in S_G(M)$ be wide. Assume either (B1) or (B2), where:
(B1)
: For some symmetric definable set $X\in p$, $\mu$ is S1 on $X^4$;
(B2)
: $\mu$ is S1 on $(pp^{-1})^2$ and invariant under (left and) right multiplication.
Then $Stab(p)=St(p)^2 = (pp^{-1})^2$ is a connected, wide type-definable group on which $\mu$ is S1. Furthermore $Stab(p)\setminus St(p)$ is included in a union of non-wide $M$-definable sets.
Note that under either of (B1) or (B2), we have that both $p$ and $p^{-1}p$ are medium.
The proof will proceed by a series of steps. Only in the beginning will there be differences depending on whether (B1) or (B2) is assumed.
Let $(a,b)\in p {\times_{nf}}p$, then $ba^{-1}\in St(p)$.
This follows immediately from Lemma \[repeatedClaim\].
If (B1) holds, then for any $(a,b)\in p {\times_{nf}}p$ we have $a^{-1}b\in St(p)$.
By symmetry of $X$, we have that $p^2$ is medium, so the result follows from Lemma \[repeatedClaim\] with $p=p^{-1}$ and $r=p$.
Take now $(a,b)\in p{\times_{nf}}p$, ${\mathrm{tp}}(b/Ma)$ wide. We define $q={\mathrm{tp}}(a^{-1}b/M)$ under assumption (B1) and $q={\mathrm{tp}}(ba^{-1}/M)$ under assumption (B2). Then in both cases $q\in St(p)$, $q$ is wide (using right-invariance in the (B2) case) and medium. Notice that under either assumption $p^{-1}q$ is medium: under (B1) $p^{-1}q\subseteq X^3$ and under (B2) $p^{-1}q \subseteq p^{-1}pp^{-1}$.
So Lemma \[repeatedClaim\] implies
Let $(a,b)\in p {\times_{nf}}p$, then $ba^{-1}\in St(q)$.
Let $(b,c)\in Stab(q){\times_{nf}}q$, then $bc\in
St(p)$. So in particular $Stab(q)\subseteq St(p)^2 \subseteq
(pp^{-1})^2$.
As $St(q)$ is stable under inverse, we can write $b=b_1\cdots b_n$, with each $b_i \in St(q)$. We show the result by induction on $n$. For $n=0$, it follows from the fact that $q\in St(p)$.
Assume we know it for $n-1$ and take $b=b_1\cdots b_n$. We have to show that $b_n^{-1}\cdots b_1^{-1} p \cap cp$ is wide. As $b_n \in St(q)$, there is $c'\models q$, ${\mathrm{tp}}(c'/Mb_n)$ wide such that $b_n c' \models q$. We may also assume that ${\mathrm{tp}}(c'/Mb_0\ldots b_n)$ is wide. Then by translation invariance, ${\mathrm{tp}}(b_nc'/Mb_0\ldots b_n)$ is wide. By induction, $b_{n-1}^{-1}\cdots b_1^{-1} p \cap b_nc' p$ is wide, then so is $b_n^{-1}\cdots b_1^{-1}p \cap c'p$ and we conclude by stability.
Let $a,b\models p$, then $ab^{-1}\in St(q)^2$.
Take $c\models p$ such that ${\mathrm{tp}}(c/Mab)$ is non-forking over $M$. Write $ab^{-1} = (ac^{-1})(cb^{-1})$. By Claim 2 and the fact that $St(q)$ is closed under inverses, both $ac^{-1}$ and $cb^{-1}$ are in $St(q)$ and the claim follows.
$Stab(p)=Stab(q)=(pp^{-1})^2$ is wide and medium.
By Claim 3, we have $Stab(q)\subseteq St(p)^2 \subseteq (pp^{-1})^2$. By Claim 4, $pp^{-1} \subseteq Stab(q)$ so also $(pp^{-1})^2 \subseteq Stab(q)$, hence $(pp^{-1})^2 = St(p)^2=Stab(q)$. Finally, since $Stab(q)$ is a subgroup, we have $Stab(p)=St(p)^2=Stab(q)$. By hypothesis $(pp^{-1})^2$ is medium, and it is wide since it contains $q$.
All that is left to prove is that $Stab(p)$ has no type-definable over $M$ proper subgroup of bounded index, and that any wide type in $Stab(p)$ lies in $St(p)$.
Let $T\leq Stab(p)$ be a type-definable over $M$ subgroup of bounded index. We have $pp^{-1}\subseteq Stab(p)$, hence for $a\models p$, $p\subseteq Stab(p)a$. So $p$ lies in a right coset $S_p$ of $Stab(p)$. This coset is $M$-invariant and hence type-definable over $M$. All right cosets of $T$ in $S_p$ are type-definable over $M$ and as $p$ is a complete type over $M$, it must lie entirely within one of them. Therefore $pp^{-1}\subseteq T$ and $T=Stab(p)$.
Now, let $s$ be a wide type in $Stab(p)=Stab(q)$. For any $b\in
Stab(q)$ we have $b^{-1}\in Stab(q)$. By Claim 3, if $c\models q$ is such that ${\mathrm{tp}}(c/Mb^{-1})$ wide we have that $b^{-1}cp\cap p$ is wide, so by invariance $cp\cap bp$ is also wide. By stability, the same holds assuming instead that ${\mathrm{tp}}(b/Mc)$ is wide. Let $c\models q$ and $b\models s$ such that ${\mathrm{tp}}(b/cM)$ is wide. Then by left invariance, ${\mathrm{tp}}(cb/cM)$ is wide. But we also have $cb \in
Stab(q)$, hence $cbp\cap cp$ is wide. From which it follows that $bp \cap p$ is wide, so $s$ lies in $St(p)$, as required.
The proofs of the following two propositions are taken essentially without change from [@Hru12].
\[prop\_normal\] Let $\mu$ be an $M$-invariant ideal on $G$ stable under left and right multiplication. Let $p\in S_G(M)$ be wide. Assume also (B1).
Then $Stab(p)$ is normal and of bounded index in the group generated by $X$ and $X^n$ is medium for all $n$.
Write $S=Stab(p)$. Let $r$ be a type over $M$ of elements of $X$. Then the image of $r$ in $G/S$ is bounded. Indeed, assume not, then we can find an indiscernible sequence $(a_i:i<\omega)$ of realizations of $r$ such that the cosets $a_i S$ are pairwise disjoint. Hence so are the types $a_i pp^{-1}$ (as $pp^{-1}\subseteq S$), but this contradicts S1 inside $X^3$. As $r$ is a complete type over $M$ it must be included in one left coset of $S$. Applying the same reasoning to $r^{-1}$, we see that $r$ is also included in a unique right coset of $S$. Thus $X/S$ is bounded and if $c,c'\models r$, then $c S c^{-1} = c' S c'^{-1} =: S^r$ is type-definable over $M$.
We now claim that $p^{-1}$ has bounded image in $G/S^r$: for if not, we would have an $Mc$-indiscernible sequence $(a_i:i<\omega)$ of realizations of $p$ with $a_i^{-1}c Sc^{-1}$ pairwise disjoint and again $a_i^{-1}cpp^{-1}$ would be pairwise disjoint contradicting S1 in $X^4$. Hence $p^{-1}$ lies entirely within one left coset of $S^r$ and $pp^{-1} \subseteq S^r$. Therefore $S\leq S^r$. We also have $S\leq S^{r^{-1}}$ and then $S=S^r$.
We have shown that $S$ is normalized by $X$ and has bounded index in it. It follows that $S$ has bounded index in any $X^n$, thus $X^n$ is medium.
If we assume that both conditions (B1) and (B2) (equivalently (B1) and right-invariance) hold, then $pp^{-1}p$ is a coset of $Stab(p)$.
Let $c\models p$. By the previous proposition $Stab(p)$ is normal in the group generated by $X$. Since $pp^{-1}\subseteq Stab(p)$, $p$ lies entirely within one coset of $Stab(p)$ and hence $pp^{-1}p\subseteq Stab(p)c$. Conversely, take any $a\in Stab(p)c$ and let $b\models p$ such that ${\mathrm{tp}}(b/Ma)$ is wide. Then $ba^{-1}\in Stab(p)$ and ${\mathrm{tp}}(ba^{-1}/M)$ is wide by right-invariance. By Theorem \[th\_babystab\] any wide type in $Stab(p)$ is in $St(p)$, so $ba^{-1}\in St(p) \subseteq pp^{-1}$. So $a=ab^{-1}b \in pp^{-1}p$.
We will now prove a stabilizer theorem which changes the hypothesis of the previous ones in a manner which is tailored to prove Theorem \[algebraic group chunk\]. Possibly the best way to understand the strength and need for the new hypothesis (compared for example with Fact \[fact\_stab\]) is to read the proof of the Theorem \[algebraic group chunk\] and the footnote we added there.
The main change of the hypothesis consists of relaxing the requirement that $\mu$ is S1 on $(pp^{-1})^2$ and assume only that $\mu$ is S1 on *generic* products in $p^{-1}p$ (see condition (B) below). As mentioned before, the need for this will be clear in the proof of \[algebraic group chunk\], where we cannot require S1 in all of $p^{-1}p$. We manage to achieve this at the cost of introducing a technical assumption (A) for which we need to introduce a second ideal $\lambda$ that will serve as a more restrictive notion of medium. We will assume that $\lambda$ is also invariant under left translations by elements of $G$. A type which is not $\lambda$-wide will be called *$\lambda$-medium*. In Theorem \[algebraic group chunk\], this restriction will be key in order to show that Condition (A) holds. It seems plausible that for many, or all, ideals $\mu$, condition (A) holds with $\lambda$ being the ideal of all medium sets. We were however not able to prove any general statement of this kind.
\[th\_stabilizer\] Let $\mu$ and $\lambda$ be $M$-invariant ideals on $G$ as above, stable under left and right multiplication, and such that $\mu$ is S1 in any $X\in \lambda$.
Assume we are given a wide and medium type $p$ in $G$ and the following conditions are satisfied:
(A)
: for any types $q$, $r$, if for some $(c,d)\models q {\times_{nf}}r$, ${\mathrm{tp}}(cd/M)$ or ${\mathrm{tp}}(dc/M)$ is $\lambda$-medium, then $q$ is $\lambda$-medium;
(B)
: for any $(a,b)\in p {\times_{nf}}p$, ${\mathrm{tp}}(a^{-1}b/M)$ is $\lambda$-medium;
(F)
: there are $(a,b)\models p {\times_{nf}}p$ such that ${\mathrm{tp}}(a/Mb)$ does not fork over $M$.
Then $Stab(p)=St(p)^2 = (pp^{-1})^2$ is a connected type-definable, wide and $\lambda$-medium group. Also $Stab(p)\setminus St(p)$ is contained in a union of non-wide $M$-definable sets.
Throughout this proof, we will refer to $\lambda$-medium as “medium”.
Condition (A) implies that if $q$ is a medium type, then both $St(q)$ and $St_r(q)$ are medium. Together with Condition (B) it also implies that $p^{-1}$ is medium.
If $(a,b)\in p {\times_{nf}}p$, then $ba^{-1}\in St(p)$.
We have to prove that $ba^{-1}p\cap p$, or equivalently $a^{-1}p\cap b^{-1}p$, is wide. By stability, it is enough to prove this for some pair $(a,b)\in p{\times_{nf}}p$. Let $(a_i:i<\omega)$ be an indiscernible sequence in $p$ such that ${\mathrm{tp}}(a_i/Ma_{<i})$ does not fork over $M$. Take $a=a_0$ and $b=a_1$. Let $r:=tp(a^{-1}b/M)$, which is medium by Condition (B). Also, since $tp(b/Ma)$ is wide and $\mu$ is left invariant we know that $tp(a^{-1}b/Ma)$ is wide. Now, $a^{-1}b\models a^{-1}p\cap r$ so $a^{-1}p\cap r$ is wide. Since $a,b$ start an indiscernible sequence, by S1 we have that $a^{-1}p\cap b^{-1}p\cap r$ is wide, so $a^{-1}p\cap b^{-1}p$ is wide as required.
If $(a,b)\in p {\times_{nf}}p$, then $a^{-1}b\in St_r(p)$.
By Claim 1, we have that $ba^{-1} \in St(p)$, so in particular $r':=tp(ba^{-1}/A)$ is medium. Now, as in the previous claim using S1 and invariance we have that $tp(ba^{-1}/Aa)$ is wide. Since $ba^{-1}$ realizes $pa^{-1}\cap
r'$ the latter must be wide, and by S1 $pa^{-1}\cap pb^{-1}$ is wide. By invariance $pa^{-1}b\cap p$ is wide, as required.
Let $\mu'$ be the ideal defined by $\phi(x)\in \mu' \iff
\phi(x^{-1})\in \mu$. Then $\mu'$ is $M$-invariant, invariant under left and right multiplication and is S1 on any inverse of a medium type. We will write $St'$, $Stab'$ for the stabilizers with respect to $\mu'$. Notice that since $p^{-1}$ is wide and medium, $p$ is $\mu'$-wide and $\mu'$ is S1 on $p$.
Let $(a,b)\models p\times p$, ${\mathrm{tp}}(b/Ma)$ wide (hence non-forking over $M$) and $q={\mathrm{tp}}(ab^{-1}/M)$. Then $q$ is $\mu'$-wide and is in $St(p)$, as $St(p)$ is closed under inverses, and thus $q$ and $q^{-1}$ are medium. Also if $(c,d)\models q{\times_{nf}}q$, then ${\mathrm{tp}}(c^{-1} d/M) \in St(p)$ by Lemma \[lem1\]. In particular ${\mathrm{tp}}(c^{-1}d/M)$ is medium.
If $(b,c)\in Stab'(q){\times_{nf}}q$, then $bc\in St(p)$.
As $St'(q)$ is stable under inverse, we can write $b=b_1\cdots b_n$, with each $b_i \in St'(q)$. We show the result by induction on $n$. For $n=0$, it is clear.
Assume we know it for $n-1$ and take $b=b_1\cdots b_n$. We have to show that $b_n^{-1}\cdots b_1^{-1} p \cap cp$ is wide. As $b_n \in St'(q)$, there is $c'\models q$, ${\mathrm{tp}}(c'/Mb_n)$ $\mu'$-wide such that $b_n c' \models q$. We may also assume that ${\mathrm{tp}}(c'/Mb_1\ldots b_n)$ is $\mu'$-wide. Then by translation invariance, ${\mathrm{tp}}(b_nc'/Mb_1\ldots b_n)$ is $\mu'$-wide. By induction, $b_{n-1}^{-1}\cdots b_1^{-1} p \cap b_nc' p$ is wide. We conclude by stability.
There is $(a,b)\models p{\times_{nf}}q$, ${\mathrm{tp}}(b/Ma)$ $\mu'$-wide, such that ${\mathrm{tp}}(a^{-1}b/M)$ and its inverse are medium.
By (F) there is $(c,d)\in p{\times_{nf}}p$ such that also ${\mathrm{tp}}(c/Md)$ does not fork over $M$. Let $r={\mathrm{tp}}(d^{-1}c/M)$. Let $a\models p$ and choose $b_0$ such that ${\mathrm{tp}}(a,b_0/M)={\mathrm{tp}}(d, c/M)$. Then $a^{-1} b_0\models r$ and ${\mathrm{tp}}(b_0/Ma)$ does not fork over $M$. Now choose $b_1\models p$ such that ${\mathrm{tp}}(b_1/Mb_0)$ is wide and ${\mathrm{tp}}(b_0b_1^{-1}/M)=q$. We can furthermore assume that ${\mathrm{tp}}(b_1/Mab_0)$ is wide. By translation invariance, ${\mathrm{tp}}(b_0b_1^{-1}/Ma)$ is $\mu'$-wide. Now pick $b_2$ such that ${\mathrm{tp}}(b_2/Mab_0b_1)$ is non-forking over $M$ and ${\mathrm{tp}}(b_1,b_2/M) = {\mathrm{tp}}(c,d/M)$ so that ${\mathrm{tp}}(b_1^{-1}b_2/M)= r^{-1}$. By transitivity of non-forking, we have ${\mathrm{tp}}(b_1^{-1}b_2/Mab_0)$ is non-forking over $M$. Hence $(a^{-1}b_0,b_1^{-1}b_2)\models r {\times_{nf}}r^{-1}$.
By Claim 1’ and since $St_r(p)$ is stable under inversion, $r\in
St_r(p)$ and by Lemma \[lem1\], $a^{-1}b_0b_1^{-1}b_2$ is also in $St_r(p)$. It follows that ${\mathrm{tp}}(a^{-1}b_0b_1^{-1}b_2/M)$ and its inverse are medium. By hypothesis (A), ${\mathrm{tp}}(a^{-1}b_0b_1^{-1}/M)$ and its inverse are medium.
If $(a,a')\models p{\times_{nf}}p$, then $aa'^{-1}\in
St'(q)$.
By Claim 3, (and because $p$ is $\mu'$-wide), we can find $b\models q$ and some $a_0\models p$ with ${\mathrm{tp}}(b/Ma_0)$ $\mu'$-wide $r= {\mathrm{tp}}(a_0^{-1}b/M)$ and its inverse are medium.
Extending we can find a sequence $( a_i)_{i\in
\kappa}$ such that ${\mathrm{tp}}(b/Ma_{<\kappa})$ is non forking and, since $\mu'$ is medium in $q$, ${\mathrm{tp}}(b/Ma_{<\kappa})$ is $\mu'$-wide. By Erdős-Rado if we take $\kappa$ large enough we can find a subsequence $(a'_i)_{i<\omega}$ indiscernible over $Mb$.
Now, $a_0'^{-1}b \in a_0'^{-1}q\cap r$. By translation invariance, ${\mathrm{tp}}(a_0'^{-1}b/Ma_0')$ is $\mu'$-wide, hence $a_0'^{-1}q \cap r$ is $\mu'$-wide. By indiscernibility, $a_i'^{-1}q \cap r$ is $\mu'$-wide for all $i$. As $\mu'$ is S1 on $r^{-1}$, it follows that $a_0'^{-1}q\cap a_1'^{-1}q$ is $\mu'$-wide.
The claim follows by stability.
Now we can conclude: we have, by Claim 2, $Stab'(q)\subseteq
St(p)^2 \subseteq (pp^{-1})^2$. Let $a,b \models p$ and choose $c\models p$ such that ${\mathrm{tp}}(b/Mc)$ and ${\mathrm{tp}}(c/Mb)$ do not fork over $M$ (using (F)). We can furthermore assume that ${\mathrm{tp}}(c/Mab)$ does not fork over $M$. Then $(a,c)\models p{\times_{nf}}p$ and $(c,b)\models p{\times_{nf}}p$ and $ab^{-1} = (ac^{-1})(cb^{-1})$. By Claim 4, both $ac^{-1}$ and $cb^{-1}$ are in $St'(q)$, therefore $ab^{-1} \in Stab'(q)$. We thus have $pp^{-1}\subseteq Stab'(q)$. Therefore $Stab'(q)=St(p)^2=(pp^{-1})^2$ and as $Stab'(q)$ is a subgroup, $Stab'(q)=Stab(p)$. Type-definability of $Stab(p)$ is clear, so is wideness. The fact that $Stab(p)=Stab'(q)$ is medium follows from Claim 2 and property (A).
Connectedness is proved as in of Theorem \[th\_babystab\]. Finally, the fact that any wide type in $Stab(p)$ lies in $St(p)$ is proved as in Theorem \[th\_babystab\] replacing $Stab(q)$ there by $Stab'(q)$.
The following lemma will be useful later to check that the hypotheses of Theorem \[algebraic group chunk\] are satisfied.
\[lem\_stqr\] Assume that $\mu$ is left invariant and condition (A) holds. Let $q$, $r$ be medium and wide types. Let $p\in St(q,r)$ be a wide type and take $(a,b)\in p {\times_{nf}}p$. Then ${\mathrm{tp}}(a^{-1}b/M)$ is medium.
We show that $a^{-1}b\in St(q)$, [*i.e.*]{}, that $aq \cap bq$ is wide. As $q$ is medium, by stability, it is enough to show this for some pair $(a,b)\in p{\times_{nf}}p$. Take $(a_i:i<\omega)$ an indiscernible sequence in $p$ with ${\mathrm{tp}}(a_n/Ma_{<n})$ wide; it is enough to show that $a_0q \cap a_1q$ is wide. By assumption $a_0 q
\cap r$ is wide. As $r$ is medium, by the S1 property, $a_0q \cap
a_1q \cap r$ is wide, hence $a_0q \cap a_1 q$ is wide as required.
Applying the Stabilizer Theorem: algebraic group chunks
-------------------------------------------------------
This section is devoted to proving that Theorem \[th\_stabilizer\] implies the existence of large algebraic subgroups in many theories, which can be seen as a generalization of results in [@HrPi].
We will need to adapt some of the definitions from [@HrPi].
A theory $T$ in a language containing the language of rings and which contains the theory of fields, is *algebraically bounded* if, given any formula $\phi(\bar{x},y)$, there are polynomials $f_1(\bar{x}, y),\ldots, f_n(\bar{x},y) \in
\mathbb{Z}[\bar{x},y]$ such that, whenever $K$ is a model of $T$ and $\bar{a}$ is a tuple of elements of $K$ such that $\phi(\bar{a},K):= \{y \in K: \phi(\bar{a},y)\}$ is finite, then there is an index $i$ such that the polynomial $f_i(\bar{a},y)$ is not identically $0$ on $K$ and $\phi(\bar{a},K)$ is contained in the set of roots of $f_{i}(\bar{a},y)= 0$.
The following is Theorem 3.1 in [@HrPi], which can be seen as an “algebraic group configuration” theorem.
\[fact\_groupconf\_original\] Let $T$ be a theory extending the theory of fields which is algebraically bounded. Let $\mathcal{U}$ be a monster model of $T$. Let $G$ be a group definable in $T$ over a set $A$, and let $a,b,c\in G(\mathcal{U})$ be such that $a\cdot_G b=c$ and such that $a$ and $b$ are algebraically independent over $A$.
Then there is a set $B$ containing $A$ such that $a$ and $b$ are still algebraically independent over $B$, a $B$-definable algebraic group $H$ and dimension-generic elements $a', b', c'\in H(\mathcal{U})$ such that $a'\cdot b' = c'$ and ${\mathrm{acl}}(Ba)={\mathrm{acl}}(Ba')$, ${\mathrm{acl}}(Bb)={\mathrm{acl}}(Bb')$ and ${\mathrm{acl}}(Bc)={\mathrm{acl}}(Bc')$.
We will prove the following, “algebraic group chunk” theorem.
\[algebraic group chunk\] Let $T$ be a theory extending the theory of fields which is algebraically bounded and such that any model of $T$ is definably closed in its algebraic closure. Let $G$ be a group definable in a $\omega$-saturated model $M$ of $T$. Assume that $T$ admits an $M$-invariant ideal $\mu_G$ on $G$, stable under left and right multiplication, and such that $\mu_G$ is S1 in $G$. Finally, assume also that there is a $\mu_G$-wide type $p$ such that condition (F) holds: There are $(a,b)\models p {\times_{nf}}p$ such that ${\mathrm{tp}}(a/Mb)$ does not fork over $M$.
Then there is an algebraic group $H$ and a definable finite-to-one group homomorphism from a type-definable wide subgroup $D$ of $G$ to $H(M)$.
We begin with the following proposition.
\[prop\_groupconf\] Let $T, \mu_G,p$ and $M$ be as in the statement of Theorem \[algebraic group chunk\]. Let $\mathcal{U}$ be a monster model of $M$. Let $a\models p|M$, $b\models p|Ma$, and $c=a\cdot_G b$. Then ${\mathrm{tp}}(c/Ma)$ is $\mu_G$-wide, and there is an $M$-definable algebraic group $H$ and dimension-generic elements $a', b', c'\in
H(\mathcal{U})$ such that $a'\cdot b' = c'$ and ${\mathrm{acl}}(Ma)={\mathrm{acl}}(Ma')$, ${\mathrm{acl}}(Mb)={\mathrm{acl}}(Mb')$ and ${\mathrm{acl}}(Mc)={\mathrm{acl}}(Mc')$.
Let $A$ be the (finite) set of parameters over which $G$ is defined.
Note that compared to Fact \[fact\_groupconf\_original\], we require that the set $B$ in the statement can be found inside $M$. This is clear throughout the proof in [@HrPi], except maybe for the last base change. We will therefore recall the stage of the construction prior to the last base changes, and show why we can complete the proof with our requirements.
Let $M^{alg}$ be the field theoretic algebraic closure of $M$ in the language of rings (so a model of algebraically closed fields).
The construction yields elements $a_1, b_1, c_1$ in $\mathcal U$ satisfying the algebraic relations in the statement of the theorem, and $\sigma$ the canonical base (in $M^{alg}$) of ${\mathrm{tp}}(b_1, c_1/A a_1)$. This type is stationary, so $\sigma$ is definable in $\mathcal U$. The element $\sigma$ defines a map from $q_1:={\mathrm{qftp}}(b_1/A)$ to $q_2:={\mathrm{qftp}}(c_1/A)$, and any $b_2, c_2$ realizations of $q_1, q_2$ in $\mathcal U$, define some $\sigma'$ which (because $\mathcal U$ is definably closed in its algebraic closure) will be in $\mathcal U$.
Take independent $\sigma_1, \sigma_2\models {\mathrm{tp}}(\sigma/A)$ and elements $b_1', b_2'$ and $c'\models q_2$ with $\sigma_1(b_1')=c'$ and $\sigma_2(b_2')=c'$. If we take $\tau_{1,2}$ to be the canonical base of ${\mathrm{tp}}(b_1', b_2'/A\sigma_1, \sigma_2)$, then one can show (and it is shown in [@HrPi]) that $\tau_{1,2}$ gives the germ of a function from $q_1$ to itself sending $b_1'$ to $b_2'$ and thus can be identified with what would be the function $\sigma_2^{-1}\circ \sigma_1$.
Notice that by stationarity, given *any* $b_1', b_2'$ realizations of $q_1$ we can find some $c'$ realizing $q_2$ inside $\mathcal U$. Then, if we take $\sigma_1'$ the canonical base of ${\mathrm{tp}}(b'_1 c'/A)$ and $\sigma_2'$ the canonical base of ${\mathrm{tp}}(b'_2
c'/A)$, then the canonical base $\tau_{1,2}'$ of ${\mathrm{tp}}(b_1',
b_2'/A\sigma_1, \sigma_2)$ will be identified with a function sending $b_1'$ to $b_2'$. Once again, if $b_1'$ and $b_2'$ were chosen in $\mathcal U$, we get $\tau_{1,2}'$ in $\mathcal U$.
The proof in [@HrPi] now uses the stable group configuration theorem (due to Hrushovski, stated as Proposition 1.8.1 in [@HrPi]) which gives a $M^{alg}$-definable algebraic group $H$ with generic type $s^{qf}$ (the quantifier free formulas in $s$) acting transitively on a set $X$ with generic type $q_1^{qf}$. So $\tau$ is an element of $H(\mathcal U)$.
The proof then concludes by first adding $\sigma_1\models
{\mathrm{tp}}(\sigma/A)$ to the base (which can of course be chosen inside $M$) and then choosing $\tau_1\models s$, define $b_2=\tau_1^{-1}
b_1$ and add $b_2$ to the base. In this order it is impossible to guarantee that $b_2$ belongs to $M$. However, we can choose $b_2\in M$ a realization of $q_1$, and choose $\tau_{2,1}$ be the germ sending $b_2$ to $b_1$. As discussed above this can always be chosen and $\tau_{2,1}$ would be an element of $H(\mathcal U)$.
Barriga [@Ba] dealt with the choice of $b_2$ in a different way in the context of bounded groups definable in real closed fields. However, her proof does not work in the general context we are working with (specifically, it requires “rosiness” of $T$).
Let $a,b,c$ be as in the statement of Proposition \[prop\_groupconf\]. So there is an $M$-definable algebraic group $(H, \cdot_H)$ and $a', b', c' \in H$ such that $c'= a'\cdot_H b'$, ${\mathrm{acl}}(Ma)=
{\mathrm{acl}}(Ma'), {\mathrm{acl}}(Mb)= {\mathrm{acl}}(Mb')$ and ${\mathrm{acl}}(Mc)= {\mathrm{acl}}(Mc')$.
We define an ideal $\mu$ on $G \times H$, by saying that $D\in
\mu$ if and only if $\pi_1(D)\in \mu_G$. Then $\mu$ is $M$-invariant and invariant under left and right translations. We will refer to $\mu$-wide as “wide”.
We define the ideal $\lambda$ as the set of subsets $X$ of $G\times H$ for which the projections to $G$ and $H$ each have finite fibers. Thus $\lambda$ is included in the ideal of sets that are medium for $\mu$. As before, a set in $\lambda$ will be called $\lambda$-medium. Define $\widetilde{p}= {\mathrm{tp}}(a,a'/M)$. Then, because $(a,a')$ is inter-algebraic with $a$ over $M$, $\widetilde{p}$ is wide and medium and Condition (F) holds for $\widetilde{p}$.
We will show that conditions (A) and (B) of Theorem \[th\_stabilizer\] also hold with the ideals $\mu$ and $\lambda$[^3].
Condition (A) holds: If $p,q$ are two types in $G\times H$ and we have $(g,h)\models p\times_{nf} q$ such that either ${\mathrm{tp}}(gh/M)$ or ${\mathrm{tp}}(hg/M)$ is $\lambda$-medium, then $p$ is $\lambda$-medium.
Denote $g=(g_0,g_1)$ and same for $h$. We will prove the case where we assume that ${\mathrm{tp}}(gh/M)$ is $\lambda$-medium, the other case is proved in an analogous way. Since $g_0h_0 \in {\mathrm{acl}}(Mg_1h_1)$ we have $g_0 \in {\mathrm{acl}}(Mg_1h_0h_1)$. As ${\mathrm{tp}}(h_0h_1/Mg_0g_1)$ does not fork over $M$, this implies that $g_0 \in {\mathrm{acl}}(Mg_1)$. In the same way we get $g_1 \in {\mathrm{acl}}(Mg_0)$.
By Lemma \[lem\_stqr\], condition (B) holds. We can then apply Theorem \[th\_stabilizer\], which gives us a connected, medium, wide type-definable group $K\leq G\times H$. As $K$ is $\lambda$-medium, its projections to $G$ and $H$ have finite fibers. As $K$ is wide, $\pi_1(K)$ is $\mu_G$-wide.
It only remains to show that we may assume that $\pi_1$ is injective on $K$.
Let $K_1 = \pi_1^{-1}(e)\cap K$. Then $K_1$ is finite and normal in $K$. As $K$ is connected, $K_1$ is central in $K$ (the centralizer of $K_1$ is a relatively definable subgroup of $K$ of finite index). Let $C\leq H$ be the centralizer of $\pi_2(K_1)$ inside $H$. It is an algebraic subgroup of $H$. Then we can replace $H$ by $C/\pi_2(K_1)$ which is again an algebraic group (defined over the same parameters as $H$ and $K_1$). Thus we may assume that $K_1$ is trivial. This completes the proof of the theorem.
An easy corollary of the theorem is the following result which we believe was not known.
Let $R$ be a real closed field and let $G$ be a torsion free definable group in $R$. Then $G$ is definably isomorphic to a definable subgroup of an algebraic group.
Any torsion free definable group definable in an o-minimal structure is solvable, so it is amenable as a discrete group, and therefore definably amenable. By results in [@CS] we know that $G$ admits a bi-f-generic type, and if we define $\mu_G$ as the ideal of formulas which do not extend to bi-f-generic types, then $\mu_G$ is $M$-invariant for some model $M$, stable under left and right multiplication. Futhermore $\mu_G$ is S1 in $G$ and any wide subgroup must contain $G^{00}$ (see Definition \[defG00\]). We will reprove those facts in the more general context of NTP$_2$ theories in Section \[SGroups\].
Condition (F) holds in any dependent theory, so in particular it holds for real closed fields.
By Theorem \[algebraic group chunk\] there is an algebraic group $H$ and a definable finite-to-one group homomorphism $f$ from a type definable wide subgroup $D$ of $G$ containing $G^{00}$ to $H(M)$. But in torsion free groups definable in real closed fields $G=G^{00}$. It follows by compactness that $D$ can be taken to be definable. Finally, $ker(f)$ is a finite subgroup of the torsion free $G$, so $ker(f)=\{e_G\}$ and $f$ is a definable injection, as required.
Groups with f-generics in [NTP$_2$ ]{} {#SGroups}
======================================
In this section we will use Theorem \[th\_babystab\] to prove Theorem \[th\_stab\], which is a stabilizer theorem for strong f-generic types in a group $G$ definable in an [NTP$_2$ ]{} theory (see Definition \[strong f generics\]).
We work here with a complete theory $T$ and let $\mathcal U$ denote a monster model of $T$.
We recall the definition of NTP$_2$.
\[NTP2\] We say that $\phi(\bar{x}, \bar{y})$ has $TP_2$ if there are $(a_{l j})_{l, j < \omega}$ in $\mathcal U$ and $k \in \omega$ such that:
1. $\{\phi(\bar{x}, a_{l, j})_{j \in \omega}\}$ is $k$-inconsistent for all $l< \omega .$
2. For all $f:\omega \rightarrow \omega, \{\phi(\bar{x}, a_{l, f(l)}): l \in \omega\}$ is consistent.
A formula $\phi(\bar{x}, \bar{y})$ is *$NTP_2$* if it does not have $TP_2$. The theory $T$ is *$NTP_2$* if no formula has $TP_2$.
We will assume throughout this section that $T$ is NTP$_2$. Let $G$ be a $\emptyset$-definable group. Recall that an *extension base* is a set $A$ such that no $p\in S(A)$ forks over $A$. We will use the following results (the first three are from [@ChKa] and the fourth one from [@BYC]).
\[fact\_ntp\] Let $T$ be an NTP$_2$ theory and $A$ an extension base.
1. For any $b$, there is an $A$-indiscernible sequence $(b_i:i<\omega)$ in ${\mathrm{tp}}(b/A)$ such that for any formula $\phi(x;b)$ which divides over $A$, the partial type $\{\phi(x;b_i):i<\omega\}$ is inconsistent.
2. A formula forks over $A$ if and only if it divides over $A$.
3. Condition $\mathrm{\mathbf{(F)}}$ is satisfied: given any type $p$ over $A$, there are $a,b\models p$ such that ${\mathrm{tp}}(a/Ab)$ and ${\mathrm{tp}}(b/Aa)$ are non-forking over $A$.
4. The ideal of formulas which do not fork over $A$ is has the S1 property.
\[strong f generics\] A global type $p\in S_G({\mathcal U})$ is *strongly (left) f-generic over $A$* if for all $g\in G({\mathcal U})$, $g\cdot p$ does not fork over $A$.
It is *strongly bi-f-generic* if for all $g,h\in G({\mathcal U})$, $g\cdot p \cdot h$ does not fork over $A$.
It is proved in [@NIP2] that a definable group in an NIP theory is definably amenable (that is, admits a definable $G$-invariant measure on definable sets) if and only if it admits a strong f-generic type over some model. The theory of definably amenable NIP groups was studied in [@NIP1], [@NIP2] and [@CS] (amongst other papers). In particular, the paper [@CS] characterizes in various ways formulas which extend to strong f-generic types. We generalize here those results to the NTP$_2$ context, assuming that $G$ admits a strong f-generic type. The proofs are very similar to those in [@CS].
First, we generalize Proposition 5.11 (i) of [@NIP2], with essentially the same proof.
If for some model $M$, $G$ admits a strongly f-generic type over $M$, then the same is true over any extension base $A$.
We expand the structure by adding a new sort $S$ which, as a set, is a copy of the group $G$ and we put all $G$-invariant relations on it. So $S$ becomes a homogeneous space for $G$ and any point of $S$ gives rise to a definable bijection between $S$ and $G$. This expanded structure is $NTP_2$, and is conservative: it does not add any definable sets to the main sort. Given any $A\subseteq
{\mathcal U}$, there is a strongly f-generic type over $A$ if and only if the formula $x_S = x_S$ in the expanded structure does not fork over $A$. (See [@NIP2 Proposition 5.11] or [@NIPbook Lemma 8.19].)
Now assume that $x_S = x_S$ does not fork over some $M\subseteq {\mathcal U}$ and let $A\subseteq {\mathcal U}$ be an extension base. Let $\tilde N$ be an $|M|^+$-saturated model of the expanded theory containing $A$.
In this expansion, the type ${\mathrm{tp}}(M/A)$ does not fork over $A$.
Assume it did. Then by definition it implies a disjunction of formulas, each dividing over $A$. As the expansion is conservative, we may assume that those formulas have parameters in the main sort. But then we can forget about the additional sort and use the fact that ${\mathrm{tp}}(M/A)$ does not fork over $A$ in the original structure as $A$ is an extension base.
There is therefore $M'\equiv_A M$ such that ${\mathrm{tp}}(M'/\tilde N)$ does not fork over $A$. By assumption, there is some $d\in S$ such that ${\mathrm{tp}}(d/M'\tilde N)$ does not fork over $M'$. Then by transitivity of non-forking, ${\mathrm{tp}}(d/\tilde N)$ does not fork over $A$ as required.
\[lem\_biexist\] Let $A\subseteq N$, where $N$ is $|A|^+$-saturated. Assume that $p\in S({\mathcal U})$ is strongly f-generic over $A$. Let $a\models
p|_N$ and $b\models p|_{N a}$. Then ${\mathrm{tp}}(ba^{-1}/N)$ extends to a global type, strongly bi-f-generic over $A$.
Let $g,h\in G(N)$. Then ${\mathrm{tp}}(gb/Na)$ does not fork over $A$ and neither does ${\mathrm{tp}}(ha/N)$. By transitivity of non-forking, ${\mathrm{tp}}(gb,ha/N)$ does not fork over $A$. Hence ${\mathrm{tp}}(gba^{-1}h^{-1}/N)$ does not fork over $A$. Since $g,h$ were arbitrary in $G(N)$, this shows that ${\mathrm{tp}}(ba^{-1}/N)$ is strongly bi-f-generic over $A$.
Since $N$ is $|A|^+$-saturated, ${\mathrm{tp}}(ba^{-1}/N)$ extends to a global type strongly bi-f-generic over $A$. (This is a closed condition and any finite part of it can be dragged down into $N$.)
We will say that the group *$G$ has strong f-generics* if it has a strongly f-generic type over some/any extension base. By Lemma \[lem\_biexist\] it would then also have a strong bi-f-generic type over any extension base.
Let $\phi(x)\in L(A)$ be a formula. We say that *$\phi(x)$ is f-generic over $A$* if no (left) translate of $\phi(x)$ forks over $A$. We say that *$\phi(x)$ $G$-divides over $A$* if for some $A$-indiscernible sequence $(g_i:i<\omega)$ of elements of $G$, the partial type $\{g_i\cdot \phi(x):i<\omega\}$ is inconsistent.
\[lem\_fund1\] Let $A$ be an extension base and $\phi(x)\in L(A)$. Then $\phi(x)$ is f-generic over $A$ if and only if it does not $G$-divide over $A$.
If for some $g\in G$, $\phi(g^{-1}x)$ forks over $A$, then it divides over $A$ and there is an $A$-indiscernible sequence $(g_i:i<\omega)$ such that $\{\phi(g_i^{-1} x):i<\omega\}$ is inconsistent. This shows that $\phi(x)$ $G$-divides over $A$. Conversely, if $\phi(x)$ $G$-divides over $A$ as witnessed by $(g_i:i<\omega)$, then $\phi(g_0^{-1}x)$ divides over $A$.
Let $A\subseteq B$ be two extension bases over which $\phi(x;a)$ is defined. Then $\phi(x;a)$ $G$-divides over $A$ if and only if it $G$-divides over $B$ so the same is true for f-generic. From now on, we drop the “over $A$” when talking about f-generic formulas.
\[lem\_genfork\] Assume that the formula $\phi(x;b)$ forks over $A$ and that ${\mathrm{tp}}(g/Ab)$ does not fork over $A$. Then $\phi(gx;b)$ forks over $A$.
Assume that $\phi(gx;b)$ does not fork over $A$ and let $c\models \phi(gx;b)$ with $c{\mathop{\mathpalette\indsym{}}}_A Abg$. Then $c{\mathop{\mathpalette\indsym{}}}_{Ag} Abg$. We also have $g {\mathop{\mathpalette\indsym{}}}_A Ab$ by hypothesis. By transitivity, $gc {\mathop{\mathpalette\indsym{}}}_A Ab$. Since $gc \models \phi(x;b)$, we get that $\phi(x;b)$ does not fork over $A$.
\[prop\_fund2\] Let $A$ be an extension base, $A\subseteq B$ and $\phi(x)\in L(B)$. Let $q$ be a global type strongly f-generic over $A$ and $g\models q|_B$. Then $\phi(x)$ extends to a global type strongly f-generic over $A$ if and only if $g^{-1}\cdot \phi(x)$ does not fork over $A$.
Assume that $\phi(x)$ does not extend to a global type strongly f-generic over $A$. Then there are elements $g_i$, $i<n$ in $G({\mathcal U})$ and formulas $\phi_i(x;b)\in L({\mathcal U})$ each forking over $A$ such that $\phi(x) \vdash \bigvee_{i<n} \phi_i(g_i x; b)$. We can assume that $g$ realizes $q$ over $Bb\{g_i\}_{i<n}$. We have then that $\phi(gx)\vdash \bigvee_{i<n} \phi_i(g_ig x; b)$. Now, ${\mathrm{tp}}(g_ig/Ab)$ does not fork over $A$ for each $i<n$. By Lemma \[lem\_genfork\], this implies that $\phi_i(g_ig x;b)$ forks over $A$. Hence $\phi(gx)=g^{-1}\cdot \phi(x)$ forks over $A$.
Conversely, if $\phi(x)$ extends to some global type strongly f-generic over $A$, then no translate of $\phi(x)$ forks over $A$ and in particular $g^{-1}\phi(x)$ does not fork over $A$.
The previous results combine into the following equivalences.
\[prop\_fund\] Let $A$ be an extension base and assume that there is a global type $q$ strongly f-generic over $A$. Let $\phi(x)\in L(A)$ and let $g$ realize $q$ over $A$. The following are equivalent:
1\. $\phi(x)$ is f-generic;
2\. $\phi(x)$ does not $G$-divide over $A$;
4\. $g^{-1}\cdot \phi(x)$ does not fork over $A$;
5\. $\phi(x)$ extends to a global type strongly f-generic over $A$.
As usual, we extend definitions from definable sets to types: we define a type to be *f-generic* if it contains only f-generic formulas. Notice that, because each definable subset of an f-generic type may witness f-genericity in a different model, not all f-generic types are strongly f-generic.
\[prop\_fundweak\] Let $A$ be an extension base and assume that there is a global f-generic type $q$. Let $\phi(x)\in L(A)$ and let $g$ realize $q$ over $A$. Then $\phi(x)$ is f-generic if and only if $g^{-1}\cdot \phi(x)$ does not fork over $A$.
If $\phi(x)$ is f-generic, then $g^{-1}\cdot \phi(x)$ does not fork over $A$ by definition.
Conversely, assume that $\phi(x)$ does $G$-divide and let $(g_i:i<\omega)$ be an $A$-indiscernible sequence witnessing it. Let $\hat q = q|_A$.
The partial type $\bigcup g_i^{-1}\cdot \hat q$ is consistent.
If not, then there is a formula $\psi(x)\in \hat q(x)$ such that $\{g_i^{-1}\cdot \psi(x):i<\omega\}$ is inconsistent. Then $g_0^{-1}\cdot \psi(x)$ divides over $A$, contradicting the assumption on $q$.
Let $h$ realize $\bigcup g_i^{-1}\cdot \hat q$, so $g_i\cdot h \models \hat q$ for each $i$. Notice that $\{h^{-1}g_i^{-1} \cdot \phi(x):i<\omega\}$ is still $k$-inconsistent for some $k$, and $g^{-1}\cdot \phi(x)$ divides over $A$ as required.
Assume that there is a global f-generic type, then the family $\mu$ of non-f-generic formulas is an ideal.
Let $q$ be a global f-generic type. Let $\phi(x)$ and $\psi(x)$ be non-f-generic and take $M$ a model over which both are defined. Let $g\models q|_M$ as in the previous proposition. Then $g^{-1}\cdot \phi(x)$ and $g^{-1}\cdot \psi(x)$ both fork over $M$, hence so does $g^{-1}\cdot (\phi(x)\vee \psi(x))$ –as forking equals dividing over $M$– which implies that $\phi(x)\vee
\psi(x)$ is not f-generic.
Assume that there is a global f-generic type; is there a strongly f-generic type?
Notice that the ideal $\mu$ of non-f-generic formulas is $\emptyset$-invariant and invariant by translations on the left and on the right. It is however not S1 in general. For this we have to work with $\mu_A$.
Assume that $G$ has a strong f-generic type over $A$. Let $\mu_A$ be the ideal of formulas $\phi(x)\in L({\mathcal U})$ which do not extend to a global type strongly f-generic over $A$. Then $\mu_A$ is $A$-invariant, left-$G$-invariant over $A$. By Proposition \[prop\_fund\], $\mu$ and $\mu_A$ agree on $L(A)$.
\[lem\_s1\] The ideal $\mu_A$ is S1.
Assume that $(a_i:i<\kappa)$ is an $A$-indiscernible sequence such that $\phi(x;a_i)$ extends to a type strongly f-generic over $A$. Let $q$ be strongly f-generic over $A$ and let $g$ realize $q$ over $Aa_{<\kappa}$. We can suppose that $\kappa$ is large enough, then by Erdős Rado, there is a subsequence $(a_{i_j})_{j<\omega}$ indiscernible over $Ag$. By Proposition \[prop\_fund\] $g^{-1}\cdot \phi(x;a_{i_j})$ is non-forking over $A$ for all $j$. As the non-forking ideal is S1 in [NTP$_2$ ]{} theories, also $g^{-1}\cdot (\phi(x;a_{i_0})\wedge \phi(x;a_{i_1}))$ is non-forking over $A$. By Proposition \[prop\_fund\], $\phi(x;a_{i_0})\wedge \phi(x;a_{i_1})$ is $\mu_A$-wide.
Stabilizers of strong f-generic types
-------------------------------------
We will need the following definitions.
\[defG00\] Let $G$ be a definable group, and $M$ be a model over which $G$ is definable.
We will say that a subset $X\subset G$ is *generic* if finitely many translates cover $G$.
If $H$ is a type definable (with parameters in $M$) subgroup of $G$ (or more generally an automorphism invariant subgroup), we will say that $H$ has *bounded index in $G$* if we have that the cardinality of $G(M^*)/H(M^*)$ is smaller than the cardinality of $M^*$ for some saturated model $M^*$ extending $M$.
Finally, we define $G^{00}_M$ to be the smallest type definable over $M$ subgroup of bounded index and we define $G^{\infty}_M$ to be the smallest $M$-invariant subgroup of $G$ of bounded index.
Let $X$ be an f-generic definable set. Then $XX^{-1}$ is generic.
Let $(a_i:i<n)$ be a maximal sequence such that the sets $(a_i X:i<n)$ are disjoint, which must exist by f-genericity of $X$. Take any $b\in G$. Then for some $i<n$, $bX \cap a_i X \neq \emptyset$. Hence $b\in a_i XX^{-1}$ and $\bigcup_{i<n} a_i XX^{-1} = G$.
\[lem\_bddindex\] Let $H<G$ be a type-definable group. Assume that $H$ is $\mu$-wide ([*i.e.*]{}, every definable set containing it is $\mu$-wide), then $H$ has bounded index.
Let $X$ be a definable set containing $H$. Then there is a definable set $Y$ containing $H$ such that $YY^{-1} \subseteq X$. By hypothesis, $Y$ is f-generic and the previous lemma implies that $YY^{-1}$ is generic and therefore $X$ is generic.
In the following statement, $\mu_M$ is the ideal of formulas which do not extend to a global type, strongly f-generic over $M$.
\[th\_stab\]Assume that $G$ has strong f-generics. Let $p\in S_G(M)$ be f-generic.
Then $G^{00}_M=G^{\infty}_M=St_{\mu_M}(p)^2=(pp^{-1})^2$ and $G^{00}_M\setminus St_{\mu_M}(p)$ is contained in a union of non-wide $M$-definable sets.
The ideal $\mu_M$ is $G$-invariant (by left multiplication), $M$-invariant and S1 on $G$ by Lemma \[lem\_s1\]. We can apply Theorem \[th\_babystab\] with hypothesis (B1) to deduce that $S=(pp^{-1})^2$ is a wide subgroup. As $p$ knows in which $G^{\infty}_M$ coset it lies, we must have $S\leq G^{\infty}_M$. On the other hand, by Lemma \[lem\_bddindex\], $S$ has bounded index, hence $G^{00}_M\leq S$. It follows that those three subgroups are equal. The last statement also follows from Theorem \[th\_babystab\].
Definably amenable groups
-------------------------
A definable group $G$ is *definably amenable* if for some (equiv. any) model $M$, there is a left-invariant Keisler measure on $M$-definable subsets of $G$. (See e.g. [@NIPbook Chapter 8].)
\[fact\_meas\] Let $\mu$ be a measure over $M$ and $(b_i : i<\omega)$ an indiscernible sequence in $M$. Let $\phi(x;y)$ be a formula and $r>0$ such that $\mu(\phi(x;b_i))\geq r$ for all $i<\omega$. Then the partial type $\{ \phi(x;b_i) : i<\omega \}$ is consistent.
Let $G$ be a definably amenable [NTP$_2$ ]{} group, then $G$ has strong f-generics.
Fix a model $M$ and $\mu$ a $G$-invariant measure on $M$-definable sets. Let $M\prec^{+} N$, and notice that it is enough to show that $\mu$ extends to a measure over $N$ which is both $G$-invariant and non-forking over $M$ (a type of positive $\mu$-measure would be strong f-generic over $M$). So assume this is not the case. By compactness, there are $\epsilon
>0$ and finitely many formulas $\phi_i(x;d)$, $i<n$, each forking over $M$ such that any $G$-invariant extension $\tilde \mu$ of $\mu$ satisfies $\bigvee_{i<n} \tilde \mu(\phi_i(x;d))>\epsilon$. Take $(d_j:j<\omega)$ an indiscernible sequence in ${\mathrm{tp}}(d/M)$ which witnesses dividing as given by Fact \[fact\_ntp\], (1). The condition that $\tilde \mu$ extends $\mu $ and is $G$-invariant is invariant under $Aut(N/M)$, therefore for every $j$, we also have $\bigvee_{i<n} \tilde \mu(\phi_i(x;d_j))> \epsilon$. So up to taking a subsequence, for some $i<n$, we have $\bigwedge_{j<\omega} \tilde \mu(\phi_i(x;d_j))>\epsilon$. But this contradicts Fact \[fact\_meas\] and the property of $(d_j)_{j<\omega}$.
Any solvable or pseudofinite [NTP$_2$ ]{}group has strong f-generics.
PRC fields {#SPRC}
==========
In this section we will give all the preliminaries in pseudo real closed fields that are required throughout the paper. The reader can see [@Pre], [@Ba1], [@Jarden] and [@Mon] for more details. We give a useful description of definable sets which is more precise in the case of more variables that the description given in [@Mon].
A field $M$ of characteristic zero *is pseudo real closed (PRC)* if $M$ is existentially closed (relative to the language of rings) in every totally real regular extension $N$ of $M$. Equivalently, if given any absolutely irreducible variety $V$ defined over $M$, if $V$ has a simple $\overline{M}^r-$rational point for every real closure $\overline{M}^r$ of $M$, then $V$ has an $M$-rational point.
Prestel showed in Theorem 4.1 of [@Pre] that the class of PRC fields is axiomatizable in the language of fields.
We have the following properties of PRC fields.
\[PRCcaracte\] Let $M$ be a PRC field.
1. *[@Pre Proposition 1.4]* If $<$ is an order on $M$, then $M$ is dense in $(\overline{M}^r, \overline{<}^r)$, the real closure of $M$ respect to the order $<$.
2. *[@Pre Proposition 1.6]* If $<_i$ and $<_j$ are different orders on $M$, then $<_i$ and $<_j$ induce different topologies.
In this section we are interested in the class of bounded PRC fields. A field $M$ is *bounded* if for any integer $n$, $M$ has finitely many extensions of degree $n$. This implies in particular that all the orders which make $M$ into an ordered field are definable ([@Mon Lemma 3.5]), and that there are finitely many of those.
Preliminaries on bounded PRC fields
-----------------------------------
We fix a bounded PRC field $K$ which is not algebraically closed and a countable elementary substructure $K_0$ of $K$. So there is $n \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $K$ has exactly $n$ distinct orders which are moreover definable (see Remark 3.2 of [@Mon]). Let $\{<_1. \ldots, <_n\}$ be the orders on $K$. If $n=0$, then $K$ is a PAC field, so we suppose from now on that $n\geq1$.
We will work over $K_0$, thus we denote by ${\mathcal{L_{\text{ring}}}}$ the language of rings with constant symbols for the elements of $K_0$, ${\mathcal{L}^{(i)}_{\text{ring}}}:= {\mathcal{L_{\text{ring}}}}\cup \{<_i\}$ and ${\mathcal{L}}:= {\mathcal{L_{\text{ring}}}}\cup \{<_1, \ldots, <_n\}$. We let $T_{prc}:=Th_{{\mathcal{L_{\text{ring}}}}}(K)=Th_{\mathcal L}(K)$. By Corollary 3.6 of [@Mon], $T_{prc}$ is model complete. If $M$ is a model of $T_{prc}$, we denote by ${M^{(i)}}$ the real closure of $M$ with respect to $<_i$.
The following is a direct consequence of the “Approximation Theorem for $V$-topologies” ([@PreZie Theorem 4.1]), and of Fact $\ref{PRCcaracte}$.
\[SpTh\] Let $(M, <_1, \ldots, <_n)$ be a model of $T_{prc}$. Let $A$ be a subset of $M$ and for every order $<_i$ let $p^{(i)}$ be a quantifier-free ${\mathcal{L}^{(i)}_{\text{ring}}}$-type in ${M^{(i)}}$ (so a consistent set of polynomial $<_i$-inequalities). Then $\bigcup_{i=1}^n p^{(i)}$ is a consistent type in ${\mathcal{L}}$.
Notice that the quantifier free ${\mathcal{L}}$-types all have the same form as the conclusion of Fact \[SpTh\]. We have the following amalgamation theorems for types:
\[thamalgamation\] Let $(M, <_1, \ldots, <_n)$ be a model of $T_{prc}$. Let $E = {\mathrm{acl}}(E) \subseteq M$. Let $a_1, a_2, c_1,c_2$ be tuples of $M$ such that $E(a_1)^{alg}\cap E(a_2)^{alg}=E^{alg}$ and ${\mathrm{tp}}_{{\mathcal{L}}}(c_1/E)={\mathrm{tp}}_{{\mathcal{L}}}(c_2/E)$. Assume that there is $c$ $ACF$-independent of $\{a_1,a_2\}$ over $E$ realizing ${\mathrm{qftp}}_{{\mathcal{L}}}(c_1/E(a_1)) \cup {\mathrm{qftp}}_{{\mathcal{L}}}(c_2/E(a_2))$. Then ${\mathrm{tp}}_{{\mathcal{L}}}(c_1/Ea_1) \cup {\mathrm{tp}}_{{\mathcal{L}}}(c_2/Ea_2) \cup
{\mathrm{qftp}}_{{\mathcal{L}}}(c/E(a_1,a_2))$ is consistent.
We now recall some other model theoretic properties of $T_{prc}$.
The theory $T_{prc}$ is NTP$_2$.
In $T_{prc}$, all sets are extensions bases and forking equals dividing.
The multi-topology
------------------
Let $(M, <_1, \ldots, <_n)$ be a model of $T_{prc}$, $A \subseteq
M$ and let $X \subseteq M^m$ be ${\mathcal{L_{\text{ring}}}}(A)$-definable. Then $\dim(X)= \max\{trdeg(\bar{x}/A): \bar{x} \in X\}$. This is a good notion of dimension, since ${\mathrm{acl}}(A)= {\mathrm{dcl}}(A)= A^{alg} \cap M$ ([@Mon Lemma 2.6]). We will say that $\bar{a} \in X$ is a *generic point of $X$* over $A$ if $\dim(X) = trdeg(\bar{a}/A)$.
**(Multi-topology)** Let $(M, <_1, \ldots, <_n)$ be a model of $T_{prc}$. Denote by $\tau_i$ the topology induced in $M$ by the order $<_i$. By Fact \[PRCcaracte\] (2), if $i \not = j$, then $\tau_i \not = \tau_j$.
A definable subset of $M$ of the form $I=
\displaystyle{\bigcap_{i=1}^n (I^i\cap M)}$ with $I^i$ a non-empty $<_i$-open interval in ${M^{(i)}}$ is called a *multi-interval*.
Notice that by Fact \[SpTh\] every multi-interval is non-empty and if $I$ is a multi-interval, then $I$ is $<_i$-dense in each $I^i$.
We define the *multi-topology* $\tau$ as the topology in $M$ generated by the multi-intervals and $\tau^m$ its product topology in $M^m$. Observe that if $V$ is $\tau_i$-open, then it is $\tau$-open. We call a *multi-box in $M^m$* a set of the form $C= \displaystyle{\bigcap_{i=1}^n (C^i\cap M^m)}$, with $C^i$ an $<_i$-box in $({M^{(i)}})^m$.
We extend the definition of $(j_1, \ldots, j_r)$-cells for real closed fields (see Definition 2.3 of [@Van2]) to find a definition of multi-cells in the bounded PRC-field context.
**(Multi-cells)**\[Multi-cells\] Let $r \in \mathbb{N}$ and let $(j_1, \ldots, j_r)$ be a sequence of zeros and ones of length $r$.
A *$(j_1, \ldots, j_r)$-multi-cell* is definable subset $C$ of $M^r$ such that for every $i$ there is a $(j_1, \ldots,
j_r)$-cell $C^i$ in ${M^{(i)}}$ and $$C= \displaystyle{\bigcap_{i=1}^n (C^i\cap
M^r)}.$$
A *multi-cell in $M^r$* is a $(j_1, \ldots, j_r)$-multi-cell, for some $(j_1, \ldots, j_r)$.
Observe that the $(1)$-multi-cells are multi-intervals and any multi-box is a $(1,\ldots, 1)$-multi-cell.
Notice also that the *open multi-cells in $M^r$* (or cells which are open subsets of $M^r$) are precisely the $\left(\underbrace{1, \ldots, 1}_{r}\right)$-multi-cells.
\[DimCells\] Let $m\in \mathbb{N}$ and let $(i_1, \ldots, i_m)$ and $(j_1,
\ldots, j_m)$ be two different sequences of zeros and ones of length $m$. Let $C^i \in {M^{(i)}}$ be a $(i_1, \ldots,
i_m)$-cell and let $C^j \in {M^{(j)}}$ be a $(j_1, \ldots,
j_m)$-cell. Then $\dim(C^i \cap C^j \cap M^m) < \min\{\dim(C^i),
\dim(C^j)\}$.
Let $r_i= \dim(C^i)$ and $r_j = \dim(C^j)$. Suppose that there is $\bar{a} = (a_1, \ldots, a_m) \in C $ such that $\bar{a}$ is a generic point of $C^i$ and $C^j$. Let $X_i= \{a_k: i_k=0\}$, $X_j=\{a_k: j_k=0\}$. Then $r_i = m - |X_i|$ and $r_j = m - |X_j|$. Observe that if $a_k \in X_i \cup X_j$, then $a_k \in {\mathrm{acl}}(a_1, \ldots, a_{k-1})$. It follows that $\dim(C) \leq m - |X_i \cup X_j|$. Since $(i_1, \ldots, i_m) \not = (j_1, \ldots, j_m)$, $|X_i \cup X_j| > \max\{|X_i|, |X_j|\}$. Thus $\dim(C) \leq m - |X_i \cup X_j| < \min\{m - |X_i|, m - |X_j|\}= \min\{r_i, r_j\}$.
It follows that for an intersection of two $r$-dimensional cells to have dimension $r$, one needs that both cells have the same sequences of $0$’s and $1$’s.
\[Cell-decom\] Let $(M, <_1, \ldots, <_n)$ be a model of $T_{prc}$; let $A \subseteq M$, and $r \in \mathbb{N}$. Let $D \subseteq M^r$ be an ${\mathcal{L}}(A)$-definable set in $M$. Then there are $m \in \mathbb{N}$, and $C_1, \ldots, C_m$ with $C_j= \displaystyle{\bigcap_{i=1}^n (C^i_j\cap M^r)}$ a multi-cell in $M^r$ such that:
1. $D \subseteq \displaystyle{\bigcup_{j=1}^m C_ j}$;
2. $D \cap C_j$ is $\tau^r$-dense in $C_j$, for all $1 \leq j \leq m$;
3. for all $1 \leq i\leq n$ and $1\leq j\leq m$, $C^i_j$ is quantifier-free ${\mathcal{L}^{(i)}_{\text{ring}}}(A)$-definable in ${M^{(i)}}$;
4. for all $1 \leq i \leq n$ and $1 \leq j \leq m$, the set $C^i_j\cap M^r$ is ${\mathcal{L}^{(i)}_{\text{ring}}}(A)$-definable in $M$.
The proof is by induction on the dimension of $D$. The case $\dim(D)= 1$ follows from [@Mon Theorem 3.13]. Suppose that $\dim(D) = d$. As in Theorem 3.13 [@Mon] using model completeness of $T_{prc}$ we can suppose that there is an absolutely irreducible variety $W$ defined over ${\mathrm{acl}}(A)$ such that: $$M \models \forall x_1, \ldots,x_r \left(\left(x_1, \ldots,x_r\right) \in D\right) \longleftrightarrow \left( \exists \bar{y}\
\left(x_1, \ldots,x_r, \bar{y}\right) \in
W^{sim}\left(M\right)\right),$$ where $W^{sim}(M) = \{\bar{x} \in
W(M): \bar{x} \; \mbox{is a simple point of}\; W\}.$
Let $d = |\bar{y}|$, for each $i \in \{1, \ldots,n\}$ we define: $$A_i := \{(x_1, \ldots, x_r) \in ({M^{(i)}})^r: \exists \bar{y} \in {({M^{(i)}})}^d \text{ s.t. } (x_1, \ldots, x_{r}, \bar{y}) \in W^{sim}({M^{(i)}})\}.$$
So $A_i$ is ${\mathcal{L}^{(i)}_{\text{ring}}}(A)$-definable and $D\subseteq A_i$. By cell decomposition in ${M^{(i)}}$, there are $k_i\in \mathbb{N}$, $<_i$-cells $C^i_1, \ldots, C^i_{k_i}$ and $X^i$ such that:
1. the sets $C^i_1, \ldots, C^i_{k_i}, X^i$ are quantifier free ${\mathcal{L}^{(i)}_{\text{ring}}}(A)$-definable in ${M^{(i)}}$;
2. $\dim(C_j^i)= d$, for all $j \in \{i_1, \ldots, i_{k_i}\}$;
3. $\dim(X^i)< d$,
4. $A_i =
\displaystyle{\bigcup_{j=1}^{k_i}C_j^i} \cup X^i$.
Let $X= \displaystyle{\bigcup_{i=1}^n}(X^i \cap M^r)$ and let
$$J :=\{\sigma:\{1, \ldots, n\} \rightarrow \mathbb N \ |\
1\leq \sigma(i)\leq k_i\}.$$
For all $\sigma \in J$, let $C_{\sigma}:=
\displaystyle{\bigcap_{i=1}^n{(C^i_{\sigma(i)}}}\cap M^r))$, so $D
\subseteq \displaystyle{\bigcup_{\sigma \in J}C_{\sigma} \cup X}$. We are interested in $C_\sigma$ of maximal dimension $d$, so let $$J' := \left\{\sigma \in J : \dim\left(C_{\sigma}\right)=d\right\}.$$
Let $\sigma\in J'$. By Lemma \[DimCells\] all the cells $C^i_{\sigma(i)}$ must have the same sequences of $0$’s and $1$’s and therefore $C_{\sigma}$ is a multi-cell in $M^r$.
For all $\sigma \in J'$, $D\cap C_{\sigma}$ is $\tau^r$-dense in $C_\sigma$.
Fix $\sigma \in J'$. Let $U_{\sigma}$ be a multi-box in $M^r$ such that $V:= U_{\sigma} \cap C_{\sigma} \not = \emptyset$, we need to show that $V \cap D \not = \emptyset.$ Let $z \in V$. Then $z \in
A_i$ for all $i \in \{1, \ldots, n\}$. So there is $y^{(i)} \in
({M^{(i)}})^{d}$, such that $(z, y^{(i)})$ is a simple point of $W$. By Fact \[SpTh\] we can find $(z_0, \bar{y_0}) \in W(M)$ such that $(z_0, \bar{y_0})$ is arbitrary $<_i$-close to $(z,
y^{(i)})$ for all $i\in \{1, \ldots, n\}$, in particular we can find $z_0 \in V\cap D$.
Let $Y= X \cup \displaystyle{\bigcup_{\sigma \in J \setminus
J'}C_{\sigma}}$, so $Y$ is an ${\mathcal{L}}(A)$-definable set and $\dim(Y)<d$.
Then $D \subseteq \displaystyle{\bigcup_{\sigma \in J'}C_{\sigma}
\cup Y}$ and each $C_{\sigma}$ satisfy $(2), (3)$ and $(4)$ of the theorem. Since $\dim(Y)< d$, by induction hypothesis we can apply the statement of the theorem to $Y$ instead of $D$, which completes the proof.
Let $(M, <_1, \ldots, <_n)$ be a model of $T_{prc}$ and $D\subseteq M^r$ a definable set. Denote by $\overline{D}$ the closure of $D$ for the $\tau^r$-topology. Observe that $\overline{D} = \displaystyle{\bigcap_{i=1}^n\overline{D}^{\tau_i}}$, where $\overline{D}^{\tau_i}$ is the closure of $D$ for the $\tau_i$-topology.
If $X \subseteq M^r$ is a definable set and $C_1, \ldots, C_m$ are the multi-cells obtained by Theorem \[Cell-decom\], then $\displaystyle{\bigcup_{j=1}^m C_j} \subseteq \overline{D}$. This implies the following corollary.
\[multiclosure\] Let $(M, <_1, \ldots, <_n)$ be a model of $T_{prc}$, let $A
\subseteq M$, and $r \in \mathbb{N}$. Let $D \subseteq M^r$ be an ${\mathcal{L}}(A)$-definable set in $M$. Then there are $m \in \mathbb{N}$, and $C_1, \ldots, C_m$ with $C_j= \displaystyle{\bigcap_{i=1}^n
(C^i_j\cap M^r)}$ a multi-cell in $M^r$ such that: $\overline{D} =
\displaystyle{\bigcup_{j=1}^m C_ j}$ and such that for all $1
\leq i\leq n$, $C^i_j$ is quantifier-free ${\mathcal{L}^{(i)}_{\text{ring}}}(A)$-definable in ${M^{(i)}}$, for all $1 \leq j \leq m$.
The set $\overline{D}$ is ${\mathcal{L}}(A)$-definable (so was $D$) and by Theorem \[Cell-decom\] there are $C_1, \ldots, C_m$ multi-cells in $M^r$ such that $\overline{D} \subseteq
\displaystyle{\bigcup_{j=1}^m}C_j \subseteq
\overline{(\overline{D})} = \overline{D}$. So $\overline{D}=
\displaystyle{\bigcup_{j=1}^m}C_j$.
\[PRCAlgBound\] The theory $T_{prc}$ is algebraically bounded.
Directly from Theorem \[Cell-decom\].
**Notation.** Let $M$ be a structure and let $D
\subseteq M^r$ be a definable set. Let $k < r$. We define $$\pi_k^M(D):= \{(x_1, \ldots, x_k) \in M^k: M \models \exists
x_{k+1}, \ldots, x_{r} \;(x_{1}, \ldots, x_{r}) \in D \}.$$
For $\bar{\alpha} \in \pi_k^M(D)$, define $D^M_{\bar{\alpha}}:=\{\bar{y} \in M^{r-k}: (\bar{\alpha}, \bar{y}) \in D\}.$ Define $D^M(a_1, \ldots, a_k):= \{(a_1, \ldots, a_k, x_{k+1},
\ldots, x_r): M \models (a_1, \ldots, a_k, x_{k+1}, \ldots, x_r)
\in D\}$. We omit $M$ when the structure is clear.
Type definable subgroups of algebraic groups {#SAlgebraic}
============================================
We wish to apply Proposition \[TdefGps\] to analyze type definable groups of algebraic groups in bounded PRC fields. For this, we need to develop the theory of externally definable sets in bounded PRC fields.
We will show that expanding a bounded PRC field with certain *externally definable* sets has elimination of quantifiers, analogous to results in [@BaPo] and [@Sh783].
Let $T$ be a theory and let $M$ be a model of a theory $T$. An *externally definable subset of $M^k$* is an $X \subseteq M^k$ that is equal to $\varphi(N^k, d)\cap M^k$ for some formula $\varphi$ and $d$ in some $N \succeq M$.
We denote by $M^{Sh}$ (*the Shelah expansion of $M$*) the structure obtained from $M$ by naming all the externally definable sets.
Let $(M, <_1, \ldots, <_n)$ be a model of $T_{prc}$. We say that $C = \bigcap_{i=1}^n C^i \cap M^r$ is an *externally definable multi-cell in $M^r$* if for $i\in \{1,\ldots, n\}$, $C^i$ is the trace on $({M^{(i)}})^r$ of a cell defined with exterior parameters. We say that $C$ is a *multi-cell externally $\mathcal{L}(N)$-definable* if $N\succeq M$ and for each $i \in \{1, \ldots, n\}$, there is $\phi_i(\bar{x}) \in \mathcal{L}({N^{(i)}})$ such that $C^i = \phi_i(M)$.
Baisalov and Poizat prove in [@BaPo] that the theory resulting in expanding the language of any o-minimal structure with externally definable sets has elimination of quantifiers. This was generalized by Shelah to all NIP theories in [@Sh783].
\[prop\_extrcf\] Let $R$ be a model of RCF in the ring language $\mathcal L_{ring}$.Then any definable subset of $R^{Sh}$ can be written as a finite union of sets of the form $U\cap D$, where $U$ is an open externally definable subset and $D$ is $\mathcal L_{ring}$-definable.
By [@BaPo] the structure $R^{Sh}$ is weakly o-minimal, so it makes sense to consider dimensions of definable sets. Let $X\subseteq R^n$ be definable in $R^{Sh}$. We prove the result by induction on the dimension of $X$. If $X$ has dimension 0, then it is finite, and the result follows.
For the inductive case, we can write $X$ as the union of an open set and a set of lower dimension, so we can assume that $X$ has dimension $d<n$. Let $\pi:R^n \to R^d$ be a coordinate projection such that $\pi(X)$ has non-empty interior (see Theorem 4.11 of [@MMS]). Then again writing $\pi(X)$ as the union of an open set and a set of smaller dimension, we may assume that $\pi(X)$ is open. For each $\bar a \in \pi(X)$, the fiber $X_{\bar a}$ is finite. By decomposing $X$ further, we may assume that it has always exactly one element. So $X$ is the graph of a function from $U:=\pi(X)$ to $R^{n-d}$.
Let $R^{Sh} \prec R'$ be a sufficiently saturated elementary extension. Then by Proposition 1.7 in [@ChSi2], there is an $\mathcal L_{ring}(R')$-definable set $X' \subseteq R'$ such that $X'(R') \subseteq X(R')$ and $X'(R) = X(R)$. Hence $X'$ is also the graph of a function from some $R'$-definable set $V$ to $R^{n-d}$, with $V(R)=U(R)$. As we are working in RCF, up to decomposing $V$ in finitely many $R'$-definable sets, we may assume that $f'$ is the function sending a point $\bar a\in V$ to the $k$-th solution of $P(\bar b,\bar a,\bar Y)$, where $P(\bar
b,\bar T,\bar Y)$ is a polynomial with coordinates $\bar b\in R'$. Since by hypothesis, $P(\bar b,\bar T,\bar Y)$ has a solution in $R$ for each $\bar a$ in the open set $U$, $P$ is definable over $R$. This implies that $X$ coincides on $U$ with the graph $\Gamma$ of an $R$-definable function. Then $X=U\times R^{n-d}
\cap \Gamma$ has the required form.
We now aim to show that the expansion of a bounded PRC field in ${\mathcal{L}}$ by externally definable multi-cells has elimination of quantifiers and is NTP$_2$.
\[UniformDecom\] Let $(M, <_1, \ldots, <_n)$ be a model of $T_{prc}$. Let $A
\subseteq M$ and let $D\subseteq M^r$ be $\mathcal{L}(A)$-definable. Then there are $m \in \mathbb{N}$ and $C_1, \ldots, C_m$ multi-cells in $M^r$, $\mathcal{L}(A)$-definable such that $D \subseteq \bigcup_{j=1}^m {C_j}$ and such that for every $\bar{x} \in \pi_{r-1}(D\cap C_j)$ the fiber $D_{\bar x}$ is $\tau$-dense in $(C_j)_{\bar x}$.
Notice that if $D=D_1 \cup D_2$ and the theorem is known for $D_1$ and $D_2$, then it follows for $D$ by taking a common refinement of the two cell decompositions obtained for $D_1$ and $D_2$.
Let $D$ be a definable set. By Theorem \[Cell-decom\] for any $\bar{x} \in \pi_{r-1}(D)$ there are $k_{\bar{x}}$, $U_1, \ldots, U_{k_{\bar{x}}}$ multi-intervals in $M$ and a finite set $B_{\bar{x}}$ such that $D_{\bar{x}} \subseteq \displaystyle{\bigcup_{j=1}^{k_{\bar{x}}}
U_{\bar{x},j}} \cup B_{\bar{x}}$, and such that $D_{\bar{x}}$ is $\tau$-dense in $U_{\bar{x},j}$, for all $j \in \{1, \ldots,
k_{\bar{x}}\}$. By definition of multi-intervals $U_{\bar{x},j}=
\displaystyle{\bigcap_{i=1}^n}U_{\bar{x}, j}^i \cap M$, where $U_{\bar{x}, j}^i$ is a $<_i$-interval in ${M^{(i)}}$.
For all $m_1, m_2\in \mathbb N$, let $A_{m_1,m_2}:= \{\bar{x} \in
\pi_{r-1}(D): k_{\bar{x}} = m_1 \; \mbox{and} \; |B_{\bar{x}}|=m_2
\}$. By compactness there are only finitely many $(m_1,m_2)$ for which $A_{m_1,m_2}$ is non empty.
Then $A_{m_1, m_2}$ is definable with the same parameters as $D$, and $\pi_{r-1}(D)= \bigcup_{(m_1, m_2)} A_{m_1, m_2}$ (a finite union). Since $D= \bigcup_{(m_1, m_2)} \pi_{r-1}^{-1}(
A_{m_1, m_2})$, it is enough to show that each $\pi_{r-1}^{-1}( A_{m_1, m_2})$ can be decomposed according to the conclusion of the theorem, so assume that $D=\pi_{r-1}^{-1}
( A_{m_1, m_2})$ for some $(m_1, m_2)$.
Let $i \in \{1, \ldots, n\}$. For $s \in \{1,2,3\}$, let $f_{s,j}^i(x): A_{m_1, m_2}\mapsto {M^{(i)}}$ such that:
1. $f^i_{1,j}(\bar{x}) = y$ if and only if $y$ is the “$<_i$-smallest extremity in ${M^{(i)}}$” of the $<_i$-interval $U^i_{\bar{x}, j}$.
2. $f^i_{2,j}(\bar{x}) = y$ if and only if $y$ is the “$<_i$-largest extremity in ${M^{(i)}}$” of the $<_i$-interval $U^i_{\bar{x},j}$.
3. $f^i_{3,j}(\bar{x}) = y$ if and only if $y$ is the $j$-th point in $B_{\bar x}$ in the order $<_i$.
As $T_{prc}$ is algebraically bounded (see Corollary \[PRCAlgBound\]), there is a definable partition of the base $A_{m_1,m_2} = \bigcup_{t<p} X_t$ such that on each $X_t$, each of the functions $f^ i_{s,j}$ coincides with a $<_i$-semi-algebraic function. Decreasing $D$ further, we may assume that $p=1$ and that all the functions $f^ i_{s,j}$ are semi-algebraic.
Now, let $$C_{j}:=\{ (\bar{x}, y) \in M^r: f^i_{1,j}(\bar{x}) < y < f_{2,j}^i(\bar{x}), \text{ for all }i \}$$ and $$C_{j}^0:=\{ (\bar{x}, y) \in M^r: f^1_{3,j}(\bar{x}) = y \}.$$
Then $D\subseteq \bigcup_j C_{j} \cup \bigcup_j C_{j}^0$ and this decomposition has the required properties.
\[ShelahExpPRC\] Let $\mathcal{U}$ be a monster model of $T_{prc}$. Let $M$ be a model of $T_{prc}$. Let $N \succeq M$ such that $N$ is $|M|^+$-saturated. Then ${N^{(i)}}\succeq N$, and ${N^{(i)}}$ is $|{M^{(i)}}|^+$-saturated, for all $i \in \{1, \ldots, n\}$.
Let $\mathcal{L}^* = \mathcal{L} \cup \{R_C(\bar{x}) : C \; \mbox{is a multi-cell externally} \; \mathcal{L}(N)\mbox{-definable}\} \cup \{P_D(\bar{x}) : D \; \mbox{is} \; \mathcal{L}(M)\mbox{-definable}\}$. We define $M_N$ to be the structure in the language $\mathcal{L}^*$ whose universe is $M$ and where each $R_C$ and each $P_D$ are interpreted as:
1. for every $\bar{a} \in M, M_N \models R_C(\bar{a})$ if and only if $\mathcal{U} \models \bar{a} \in C$,
2. for every $\bar{a} \in M, M_N \models P_D(\bar{a})$ if and only if $M \models \bar{a} \in D$.
Observe that $M_N$ is not $M^{Sh}$ because we only add predicats for the externally definable multi-cells, not for all the externally definable sets.
\[QEShelahExpPRC\] The structure $M_N$ admits elimination of quantifiers.
Let $C$ be an externally $\mathcal L(N)$-definable multi-cell and $D$ an $\mathcal L(M)$-definable set, both inside some $M^r$. Let $\pi$ be the projection to the first $r-1$ coordinates. It is enough to show that $\pi(C\cap D)$ is quantifier-free definable in $M_N$.
First, write $C = \bigcap_{i=1}^n C^i \cap M^r$, where each $C^ i$ is an externally definable multi-cell in $({M^{(i)}})^r$. By Proposition \[prop\_extrcf\], we can write each $C^ i$ as a finite union of sets of the form $U^ i \cap D^ i$, where $U^ i$ is an externally definable open subset of $({M^{(i)}})^r$ and $D^ i$ is definable in ${M^{(i)}}$. Then the trace of $U^ i$ on $M^r$ is also open by density of $M^r$ in $({M^{(i)}})^r$ and the trace of $D^ i$ on $M^r$ is definable in $M$. The result we want to prove is stable under taking finite unions, so we may assume that $C^ i = U^ i\cap D^ i$ and then by integrating $D^ i$ into $D$, we may assume that $C=C^ i \cap M^r$ is open in $M^r$.
By Proposition \[UniformDecom\], we may assume that $D$ is $\tau$-dense in some multi-cell $C_*$ which contains it and such that if $\bar x \in \pi(D)$, then $D_{\bar x}$ is $\tau$-dense in the fiber $(C_*)_{\bar x}$. As $C$ is $\tau$-open, for any $\bar x\in \pi(D)$, if the fiber $(C\cap C_*)_{\bar x}$ is non-empty, then it is open in $C_{\bar x}$ and thus also $(D \cap C)_{\bar x}$ is non-empty. Therefore $\pi(D\cap C)= \pi(D)\cap \pi(C\cap C_*)$ is quantifier-free definable in $M_N$.
\[ShelahExpNTP\] The structure $M_N$ is NTP$_2$.
This follows from Theorem \[th\_shelahexp\] proved in the appendix.
\[RCFInvType\] Let $(G, \star)$ be an algebraic group in an $\aleph_1$-saturated real closed field $(R,<)$. Then there is an externally definable $<$-open subgroup $H\leq
G$ which has an invariant definable type in the expansion $R^{Sh}$, where we expand the language to include all the $R^*$-definable subsets of $R$ for some saturated $R^*\succeq R$.
As in [@NIP1 Proposition 7.8], we identify a small neighborhood of $e$ in $G$ with a neighborhood of zero in $R^n$. If we let $\epsilon$ be infinitesimal with respect to $R$, then we have $$|x \star y -
(x+y)|\leq C|(x,y)|^2$$ for some $C\in R$ and all $|x|,|y|\leq \epsilon$. Let $U$ be the convex set of infinitesimals with respect to $R$. Then $H = \{\bar x, x_i\in U$ for all $i\}$ is a subgroup of $G$.
The set $U$ is definable using parameters in $R^*$, so $U$ is defined by a predicate $\tilde U$ in $R^{Sh}$ and therefore $H$ is also defined by a predicate $\tilde H$.
Let $\tilde V$ denote the set of elements $x$ in $R$ such that $x\geq 1/n$ for some $0<n<\omega$, which by compactness and saturation is also the trace in $R$ of an $R^*$-definable set, so it is definable in $R^{Sh}$.
Let $p(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ be the type in $\tilde H$ saying that $x_1$ is as large as possible in $\tilde U$, and for all $k>1$, $x_k/x_{k-1}$ is infinitely small in $\tilde V$. Using weak o-minimality of $R^{Sh}$ we know that $p$ determines a (definable) complete type.
We will show that $p$ is $\tilde H$-invariant, so that $\tilde H(R)$ and $p$ satisfy the statement of the lemma. Let $\bar a
=(a_1,\ldots, a_n)\in \tilde H(R^*)$ and let $\bar b$ realize $p$ over $R^*$. We have to show that $\bar y := \bar a \star \bar b$ realizes $p$ over $R^*$.
All coordinates of $\bar a$ and all $b_k^2$, are infinitesimal with respect to each $b_k$, so $\bar a \star \bar b = \bar a + \bar b + \bar \epsilon$, where $|\bar \epsilon| \leq C\cdot b_1^2$. Now $y_1 = b_1 + a_1
+\epsilon_1$, $a_1\in R^*$, $b_1$ as as large as possible in $U$ and $|\epsilon_1|\leq b_1^2$ which is much less than $b_1$, so ${\mathrm{tp}}(y_1/R^*)\in U$ satisfies ${\mathrm{tp}}(b_1/R^{*})$.
In the same way, we have $$\frac{y_k}{y_{k-1}} = \frac
{b_k+a_k+\epsilon_k}{b_{k-1}+a_{k-1}+\epsilon_{k-1}}$$ hence $$\frac{1/2 b_k}{2b_{k-1}} \leq \frac {y_k}{y_{k-1}} \leq
\frac{2b_k}{1/2 b_{k-1}}$$ from which it follows that $y_k/y_{k-1}$ realizes over $R$ the type of an infinitesimally small element in $\tilde V$. So $\bar y$ realizes $p$, as required.
\[PRCProfinite\] Let $M$ be a model of ${T}_{prc}$. Let $G$ be an algebraic group definable in $M$, let $K\leq G$ be a type definable subgroup and $L= \overline{K}$. Then $K$ has bounded index in $L$, and $L/K$ with the logic topology is profinite.
Let $\overline{K}^z$ be the Zariski closure of $K$. Then $\overline{K}^z$ is an algebraic subgroup of $G$, $\overline{K}^z$ is type-definable and $\dim(\overline{K}^z)=
\dim(K)$.
So replacing $G$ by $\overline{K}^z$ we can suppose that $\dim(G)
= \dim(K) := m$. Observe that $K$ has bounded index in $L$.
Let $N \succ M$ be $|M|^+-$saturated. We now work in the structure $M_N$ defined in Definition \[ShelahExpPRC\]. It is NTP$_2$ by Corollary \[ShelahExpNTP\]. Suppose we have $n$-definable orders. For each $i$, we will define, in the ordered $<_i$-ring language ${\mathcal L^{(i)}}$ (using externally definable sets) a definable set $H^i$, and a type $p^i$ in ${N^{(i)}}$ as follows.
For each $i \in \{1, \dots, n\}$, let $H^i$ be the $\mathcal
L^{ext}$-definable subgroup of $G$, and let $p^i$ be the invariant $\mathcal L^{ext}$-definable type given by Lemma \[RCFInvType\]. So $H^i$ is the trace of an ${N^{(i)}}$-definable set in ${M^{(i)}}$.
Let $H:= \displaystyle{\bigcap_{i=1}^n} H^ i \cap M$, and let $p
:= \displaystyle{\bigcup_{i = 1}^n p^i}$. By Fact \[SpTh\], $H
\not = \emptyset$ and $p$ is finitely consistent in $M$.
We have that $H$ is an externally definable set in $M$, and each $p^i$ is definable in $({N^{(i)}})^{ext}$, so $p$ is a definable partial type in $M_N$. In a similar way we also obtain that $p$ is $H$-invariant.
So $H$ is a $\tau$-open definable subgroup of $L$, and since $K$ is $\tau$-dense in $L$, all the cosets intersect $K$ and we obtain that $H/H\cap K\cong L/K$.
We define an ideal $\mu$ over $H$ by $X \in \mu$ if $\overline{X}
\not \in p$. This ideal is definable and $H$-invariant.
$\mu$ is S1 over $H$.
If $X$ is a definable set, by Theorem \[Cell-decom\] and Corollary \[multiclosure\] it follows that $\overline{X}\in p$ if and only if $X \cup p$ is consistent. Let $\phi(x,y)$ be a formula and let $(a_j)_{j \in \omega}$ be indiscernible over $H$ such that $\phi(x, a_j) \not \in \mu$, for all $j\in \omega$. Then all of the formulas $\overline{\phi(x, a_j)}$ are in $p$, and for each $j$ we have that $\phi(x,a_j) \cup p$ is consistent.
Let $c_1$ and $c_2$ be such that $c_1 \models \phi(x, a_1) \cup p$, and $c_2 \models \phi(x, a_2) \cup p$, and such that $c_1$ and $c_2$ are algebraically independent over $\{a_1, a_2\}$. By Fact \[thamalgamation\] $ {\mathrm{tp}}(c_1/a_1) \cup {\mathrm{tp}}(c_2/a_2) \cup p$ is consistent. It follows that $\phi(x, a_1) \cup \phi(x, a_2) \cup p$ is consistent, and by $\tau$-completeness of $p$ we have $$\overline{\phi(x, a_1) \wedge \phi(x, a_2)} \in p.$$
By indiscernibility $$\overline{\phi(x, a_i) \wedge \phi(x, a_j)} \in p$$ for all $i \not = j$, so $\phi(x, a_i) \wedge \phi(x, a_j) \not \in \mu$, for all $i \not = j$.
Now, ${\overline{H \cap K}}\in p$ so that $H \cap K$ is $\mu$-wide. It follows by Theorem \[TdefGps\] that $H \cap K$ is an intersection of definable groups. Hence $H/H\cap K$ with the $\mathcal L^*$-logic topology (see Definition \[ShelahExpPRC\]) is profinite, and then so is $L/K$ which is isomorphic to it.
The $\mathcal L$-logic topology on $L/K$ is compact and Hausdorff and is weaker than the $\mathcal L^*$-logic topology which is also compact and Hausdorff. It follows that both topologies coincide. In particular $L/K$ with the $\mathcal L$-logic topology is profinite so that $K=\bigcap G_i$ where $G_i$ is $\mathcal
L$-definable and $G_i\cap L$ is a subgroup of $L$.
Definable groups with f-generics in PRC {#STheorem}
=======================================
Let $(M, <_1, \ldots, <_n)$ be a model of $T_{prc}$. We say that a definable set $X \subseteq M^m$ is *multi-semialgebraic* if $X$ is a union of multi-cells in $M^m$. Let $(G, \cdot_G)$ be an $M$-definable group. We say that $G$ is *multi-semialgebraic* if $G$, the graph of $\cdot_G$ and of the inversion of $G$ are multi-semialgebraic.
\[th\_main\] Let $M \models T_{prc}$ be $\omega$-saturated. Let $G$ be an $M$-definable group with strong f-generics. Then there is a finite index $M$-definable subgroup $G_1 \leq G$, a finite $K\leq
G_1$ central in $G_1$, and an algebraic group $H$ such that there is a local group homomorphism from a generic subset $W_1^*$ of $G_1$ and a “finite index” subset of a $\tau$-open neighborhood $W_1$ of the identity of $H(M)$.
Furthermore, $G_1(M)$ is definably isomorphic to a finite index subgroup of a multi-semialgebraic group $H'(M)$, where $H'(M)$ admits a definable $\tau$-manifold structure, where each open set in the cover maps via a definable local group homeomorphism to a neighborhood $U_3$ of the identity of $H(M)$.
Let $\mu_M$ be the ideal of formulas which do not extend to a strongly bi-f-generic type over $M$ (which exist by Lemma \[lem\_biexist\]). So $\mu_M$ is $M$-invariant, S1 (by Lemma \[lem\_s1\]), and invariant under both left and right translations by elements of $G$. Let $q\in S(M)$ be $\mu_M$-wide.
By Theorem \[th\_stab\], $Stab(q) = G^{00}_M$ and $\mu_M$-almost all elements of $G^{00}_M$ are in $St(q)$.
Let $a\in G^{00}_M$ be such that ${\mathrm{tp}}(a/M)$ is $\mu_M$-wide. Let $b\models q$ such that ${\mathrm{tp}}(b/Ma)$ is $\mu_M$-wide and ${\mathrm{tp}}(ab/M)=q$.
By Theorem \[algebraic group chunk\], there is an algebraic group $H$, and a type definable subgroup $K$ of $G\times H$ such that $\pi_1(K)$ contains $G^{00}_M$ and $\pi_2(D)$ is of finite index.
As in the proof of \[algebraic group chunk\], we can assume that $\pi_2$ is injective on $K$ (otherwise we can replace $G$ by $G/\pi_2(K_2)$ where $K_2 = \pi_2^{-1}(e)\cap K$).
Now choose a symmetric definable $X_0$ such that $K \subseteq X_0
\subseteq G\times H$, and such that $\pi_1$ and $\pi_2$ are injective on $X_0^4$. Replacing $G$ by a subgroup of finite index, we can assume that $\pi_1(X_0)$ generates $G$. By Proposition \[prop\_normal\], $K$ is normal in the group generated by $X_0$ and $X_0^n$ is medium for any $n$. Observe that $\pi_1(X_0)\subseteq G$ is definably isomorphic to $\pi_2(X_0)\subseteq H$. In $\pi_2(X_0)$, the multi-topology $\tau$ is definable and the operations in $H$ are continuous.
Since working with projections becomes quite messy, we will use notation in the following way:
- Any element of $X_0$ will be written as $(x^*, x)$ where $x^*\in G$ and $x\in H$. So $x^*=\pi_1(\pi_2^{-1}(x))$ for any element $x$ in $\pi_2(X_0)\subseteq H$. We will also do this for sets, so that $A^*=\pi_1(\pi_2^{-1}(A))$ for any $A\subset
\pi_2(X_0)$.
- All non $^*$-elements will be assumed to belong to $H$. We will use Greek letters for elements in $G$ which may not be in $\pi_1(X_0)$.
- We will refer to $\pi_2(K)$ by $K_H$.
- We will mostly be working inside $H$, so we will drop the index in $\cdot_H$.
In $H$ we have that $\pi_2(X_0) \cap \overline{K_H}$ is generic in $\overline{K_H}$ and by Proposition \[PRCProfinite\], $\overline{K_H}/K_H$ is profinite, so there is a ${\mathcal{L}}$-definable set $X \subseteq \pi_2(X_0)$ such that $K_H':= X \cap
\overline{K_H}$ is a subgroup of finite index of $\overline{K_H}$, and $(K_H')^*$ is a type-definable subgroup of bounded index of $G$ ($G^{00}_M \subseteq (K_H')^*$). By passing to a finite index subgroup of $G$, we may assume that $X^*$ generates $G$.
We may assume that $K_H'$ is a normal subgroup of $\overline{K_H}$, in fact normalized by $X$, and that $(K_H')^*$ is a normal subgroup of $G$.
Let $r$ be the smallest integer such that every $\gamma^* \in G$ is the $\cdot_G$-product of $r$ elements in $X^*$. Define $Y_1, \ldots, Y_r$ (in $H$) such that:
$$Y_1:= \bigcap_{\gamma \in X} \gamma X {\gamma^{-1}},$$ $$Y_l:= \bigcap_{\gamma \in X} \gamma Y_{l-1} \gamma^{-1}, \mbox{for} \; 2 \leq l \leq r.$$
Then $(Y_r)^*$ is normalized by $G$, hence $Y_r$ is normalized by $X$ and so is $Y_r \cap \overline{K_H}$. We can now replace $X$ by $Y_r$ and $K_H'$ by $Y_r \cap \overline{K_H}$.
Now, $\overline{K_H}$ is the intersection of multi-semialgebraic sets in $H$. We can define a decreasing sequence $(U_k:k<\omega)$ of quantifier-free definable symmetric sets, such that:
– $U_0=\overline{X}$;
– $({U_{m+1}\cap X})^3\subseteq {U_{m}\cap X}$, for each $m<\omega$;
– $g({U_{m+1}\cap X})g^{-1} \subseteq U_m
\cap X$, for each $m<\omega$ and $g\in X$;
– $\overline{K_H}=\bigcap_{k \in \omega} U_k$.
Note that by density of $X$ in $U_0$ and by continuity of the operations, we also have $({U_{m+1}})^3
\subseteq {U_{m}}$ and $g{U_{m+1}}g^{-1} \subseteq U_m$ for all $g\in X$.
We may assume that $U_m$ are multi-open, for $m\geq 1$.
The type definable group $\overline{K_H}$ has non empty interior in $H$ (since it has bounded index). The operations are continuous in $H$ and by definition $X$ is dense in $U_0$. It follows that, since $U_{m+1}\cdot
\OK_H\subseteq U_{m}$, every point in $U_{m+1}$ has a neighborhood contained in $U_m$, so $U_{m+1}$ is entirely contained in the interior of $U_m$. Replacing each $U_m$ by its interior, we preserve the properties and the claim holds.
We have a local group homomorphism between $(U_3\cap X)^*$ and $U_3\cap X$.
The rest of the proof will be devoted to define a group $W/E$ isomorphic to $G$ which can be covered by finitely many copies $W_i$ of $U_3\cap X$, then look at the “open closure” $W_i^{cl}$ of each $W_i$ which will be isomorphic to $U_3$, and finally, we will induce a group structure on the “corresponding” group $ W^{cl}/E^{cl}$ which will then give us the group $H'$ as in the statement of the theorem.
Select points $\{\alpha_k :k<p\}$ in $G$ such that $$G =
\displaystyle{\bigcup_{k<p} \alpha_k \cdot_G (U_4\cap X)^*}.$$ Note that for any $x^*\in G$, there is $k<p$ such that $x^*\in
\alpha_k \cdot_G (U_4\cap X)^*$ and then $x^*\cdot_G (U_4\cap
X)^{*}\subseteq \alpha_k \cdot_G (U_3 \cap X)^{*}$.
Let $m$ be the smallest integer such that every $\alpha_i$ is the $\cdot_G$-product of $m$ elements in $(U_3\cap X)^*$.
For each $i$, the conjugation map $f_{i}: x\mapsto
\pi_2(\pi_1^{-1}(\alpha_i\cdot_G x^*\cdot_G (\alpha_i)^{-1}))$ is an algebraic map from $U_{k+m}\cap X$ to $U_{k}\cap X$ for $k\geq 3$.
Let $\alpha_i=d_1^*\cdot_G \dots \cdot_G d_m^*$, with each $d_l$ in $X$. Then for any $l$, for any $j\geq 3$ and $x\in U_j\cap X$ the map $x\mapsto d_l^{-1} x d_l$ is algebraic (as $H$ is algebraic) and by hypothesis $d_l^{-1} x d_l\in U_{j-1}\cap X$. Since $$\pi_2(\pi_1^{-1}(\alpha_i x^* (\alpha_i)^{-1}))=d_l\cdot \dots
\cdot d_1\cdot x \cdot d_1^{-1} \cdot \dots \cdot d_l^{-1},$$ the function $f_i$ is algebraic as a composition of algebraic functions.
Select points $\{b_i :i<l\}$ in $U_3\cap X$ such that $$U_3\cap X
=\displaystyle{\bigcup_{i<l} b_i \cdot (U_{m+3}\cap X)}.$$
For $j<p$ and $r<l$, define $\alpha_{(j,r)}\in \{\alpha_k:k<p\}$ and $t_{(j,r)}\in (U_3 \cap X)$ such that (where all the products are in $G$): $$\alpha_j^{-1} b_r^{*} \alpha_j = \alpha_{(j,r)} t^{*}_{(j,r)}.$$
Let $W=(U_3 \cap X) \times \{0,\ldots, p-1\}$ and for $k<p$, define $W_k = (U_3\cap X) \times \{k\}$.
Define an equivalence relation $E$ on $W^2$ by $(x,i)E(y,j)$ if $\alpha_i{\cdot_G}x^* = \alpha_j {\cdot_G}y^*$. We then have $$(x,i)E(y,j) \iff (y^*){\cdot_G}(x^*)^{-1} = \alpha_j^{-1}{\cdot_G}\alpha_i.$$ If this happens, then $\alpha_j^{-1}{\cdot_G}\alpha_i$ lies in $(U_2\cap X)^*$ and can be written as $w_{ij}^*$ for some $w_{ij}\in U_2 \cap X$. When this is not the case, say that $w_{i,j}$ is undefined.
Note that we have a definable bijection $\phi: W/E\to G$ sending $(x,i)$ to $\alpha_i {\cdot_G}x^*$.
We will now define a multi-semialgebraic group, which in a way will be the $\tau$-topological closure of $W/E$. The topology $\tau'$ of $G$ will be induced by the above bijection.
Let $W^{cl} = U_3 \times \{0,\ldots,p-1\}$ and $W^{cl}_k =
U_3 \times \{k\}$. We equip each $W^{cl}_k$ with the $\tau$-topology. Then $W_k$ is dense in $W^{cl}_k$.
We now define a relation $E^{cl}$ on $W^{cl}$ as follows: given $(x,i),(y,j)\in W^{cl}$, we have $(x,i)E^{cl}(y,j)$ if and only if $w_{ij}$ is defined and $yx^{-1} = w_{ij}$.
$E^{cl}$ is an equivalence relation.
Reflexivity holds as $w_{ii}=e$ for all $i$. Whenever $w_{ij}$ is defined, then so is $w_{ji}$ and $w_{ji}=w_{ij}^{-1}$. This implies symmetry. Finally, assume that $(x,i)E^{cl} (y,j)$ and $(y,j)E^{cl} (z,k)$, then $zx^{-1} = w_{jk}w_{ij} \in U_2 \cap X$ (as $zx^{-1}\in U_2$ and $w_{jk}w_{ij}\in X$). Then $w_{ik}$ is defined and equal to $w_{jk}w_{ij}$ and thus $(x,i)E^{cl} (z,k)$.
By construction $W/E$ embeds in $W^{cl}/E^{cl}$. We now define a group structure on $W^{cl}/E^{cl}$. First consider $(x,i),(y,j),(z,k)\in W$ and write $x=b_r w$ with $w\in
U_{m+3}\cap X$. We then have, where all the products are understood in $G$: $$\begin{aligned}
& & \alpha_i x^* \alpha_j y^* &= \alpha_k z^* \\
&\iff & \alpha_i b_r^* w^* \alpha_j y^* &= \alpha_k z^* \\
&\iff & \alpha_i \alpha_j \alpha_{(j,r)} t^*_{(j,r)} f_j(w)^* y^* &= \alpha_k z^* \\
&\iff & t_{(j,r)}^* f_j(w)^*y^*(z^*)^{-1} &= \alpha_{(j,r)}^{-1} \alpha_j^{-1} \alpha_i^{-1} \alpha_k.\end{aligned}$$
When such an equation holds, we define $\epsilon(i,j,k,r)$ as $\alpha_{(j,r)}^{-1} \alpha_j^{-1}\alpha_i^{-1}\alpha_k\in U_1\cap X$. Let $\Gamma\in W^3$ be the pullback of the graph of multiplication on $W/E \cong G$ via the canonical projection. Then $((x,i),(y,j),(z,k))\in \Gamma$ if and only if $\epsilon(i,j,k,r)$ is defined and writing $x=b_rw$, we have: $$\tag{$E\Gamma$}
t_{(j,r)} f_j(w)yz^{-1} = \epsilon(i,j,k,r).$$
We define $\Gamma^{cl}$ on $W^{cl}$ by $((x=b_rw,i),(y,j),(z,k))\in \Gamma^{cl}$ if $(E\Gamma)$ holds. We need to check that this is well defined, [*i.e.*]{}, does not depend on the decomposition of $x$ as $b_rw$. So assume that $x=b_rw=b_s w'$. Then $w' = b_s^{-1} b_r w$. Assume that $t_{(j,r)} f_j(w)yz^{-1} = \epsilon(i,j,k,r)$. On a small neighborhood of $(w,y,z)$ we can find $(w_0,y_0,z_0)$, all points lying in $X$ such that $t_{(j,r)}
f_j(w_0)y_0z_0^{-1}=\epsilon(i,j,k,r)$ (as all operations are continuous). Set $w'_0 = b_s^{-1} b_r w_0$, then $w'_0$ is close to $w'$, hence in $U_{m+3}\cap X$ and we have $t_{(j,s)}
f_j(w'_0)y_0z_0^{-1}=\epsilon(i,j,k,s)$ (in particular $\epsilon(i,j,k,s)$ is defined). Letting $(w_0,y_0,z_0)$ converge to $(w,y,z)$, we obtain $t_{(j,s)}
f_j(w')yz^{-1}=\epsilon(i,j,k,s)$ as required.
A similar argument shows that $\Gamma^{cl}$ is $E^{cl}$-equivariant: if say $(z,k)E^{cl} (z',k')$, then we have $z'= w_{ii'}z$ and we conclude as above that $((x,i),(y,j),(z,k))$ is in $\Gamma^{cl}$ if and only if $((x,i),(y,j),(z',k'))$ is in $\Gamma^{cl}$. Therefore $\Gamma^{cl}$ induces a ternary relation on the quotient $W^{cl} / E^{cl}$. Note that on each $W^{cl}_i\times W^{cl}_j \times W^{cl}_k$, $\Gamma^{cl}$ is the closure of $\Gamma$.
$\Gamma^{cl}$ induces the graph of a function $W^{cl}/E^{cl} \times W^{cl}/E^{cl} \to W^{cl}/E^{cl}$.
First, assume that $(x,i),(y,j) \in W^{cl}$, $x=b_rw$. Then for a given $j$, the equation $t_{(j,r)} f_j(w)yz^{-1}=\epsilon(i,j,k,r)$ can have at most one solution in $z$. If we can find $(z',k')$ such that $t_{(j,r)}
f_j(w)yz'^{-1}=\epsilon(i,j,k',r)$ also holds, then $\epsilon(i,j,k',r)w_{kk'}=\epsilon(i,j,k,r)$ and so $z'^{-1}w_{kk'}=z^{-1}$ which implies $(z,k)E^{cl} (z',k')$. This shows that the image is unique.
It remains to show existence. Take $(x,i),(y,j)\in W^{cl}$. Take a small neighborhood $U_*$ of the identity included in $\overline{K_H}$. Then there are some $k$ and $r$ such that for any $x_0\in xU_*$ and $y_0\in yU_*$, there is $(z_0,k)$ with $((x_0,i),(y_0,j),(z_0,k))\in \Gamma$ and $x_0$ can be written as $b_r w_0$ with $w_0\in U_{m+4}\cap X$. We may also assume that for any such $z_0$, $z_0\overline{K_H} \subseteq U_3$. Then we have $t_{(j,r)} f_j(w_0)y_0z_0^{-1}=\epsilon(i,j,k,r)$. We can then write $x=b_r w$ for some $w\in U_{m+3}\cap X$ and define $z=\epsilon(i,j,k,r)^{-1}t_{(j,r)} f_j(w)y$. Then $z\in
z_0\overline{K_H} \subseteq U_3$ and $((x,i),(y,j),(z,k))\in
\Gamma$.
Let $\odot$ the boolean function induced by $\Gamma$ on $W^{cl}/E^{cl}$. As associativity is a closed condition $\Gamma^{cl}$ is the closure on $\Gamma$ on each $W_i\times W_j
\times W_k$, $\odot$ is associative. Existence of inverses is proved as the existence part of the previous claim, fixing $z=e$ and looking for $y$. Therefore we have equipped $W^{cl}/E^{cl}$ with a group structure. This group is $H'$.
The sets $W^{cl}_k$ are multi semialgebraic and $E^{cl}$ and $\Gamma^{cl}$ are algebraic. One can easily show that $H'$ is in fact multi semialgebraic (or is in bijection with a multi semialgebraic group) with underlying set $$W_0 \cup (W_1\setminus \pi^{-1}(\pi(W_0))) \cup (W_2 \setminus
\pi^{-1}(\pi(W_1)\cap \pi(W_0))) \cup \cdots.$$
Then $G$ embeds definably into $H'$ as the subgroup $W/E$ of finite index, which completes the proof of the theorem.
Additional comments
-------------------
- Will Johnson has studied in [@joh_prc] the model companion of fields with $n$ distinct orderings. This is a particular case of bounded PRC fields. Johnson proves that a Lascar-invariant quantifier-free type extends to a Lascar-invariant measure. It seems likely that an adaptation of those results should show that in this case, any group with f-generics has a translation-invariant measure.
- We expect those results to generalize to groups definable in the main sort of a pseudo p-adically closed field. This will be dealt with in future work.
Shelah expansion and NTP$_2$
============================
\[th\_shelahexp\] Let $T$ be NTP$_2$ in a language $L$ and assume that we have an expansion $T'$ of $T$ to a language $L'$ by externally definable sets. Assume furthermore that $T'$ has elimination of quantifiers in $L'$ and the only additional predicates in $L'$ are traces of externally definable NIP formulas. Then $T'$ is NTP$_2$.
Let $M\models T'$ be $\aleph_1$-saturated and let $M\prec N$ be $|M|^+$-saturated. The property of NTP$_2$ for formulas is preserved by finite disjunctions, but not by finite conjunctions in general. It is enough to show that a formula of the form $\phi(x;y)\wedge \psi(x;y)$ is NTP$_2$, where $\phi(x;y)\in L$ and $\psi(x;y) \in L'$ is such that there is an NIP $L$-formula $\tilde \psi(x;y;d)\in L(N)$ such that $\psi(M)=\tilde \psi(N;d)\cap M$. Let $(N,M)$ denote the expansion of $N$ with a new unary predicate naming $M$. Let $(N_1,M_1)\succ (N,M)$ be a sufficiently saturated elementary extension. By Proposition 1.7 in [@ChSi2], there is $\theta(x,y;e)\in L(M_1)$ such that $\theta(M;e)=\psi(M)$ and $\theta(M_1;e)\subseteq \tilde \psi(M_1;d)$. Note that the formula $\theta(x,y;e)$ could have IP.
Now assume that we are given a witness of TP$_2$ for $\phi(x;y)\wedge \psi(x;y)$. Namely, we have an array $(b_{i,j}:i,j<\omega)$ and some $k$ such that each line $\{\phi(x;b_{i,j_0})\wedge \psi(x;b_{i,j_0}):i<\omega\}$ is $k$-inconsistent and for every $\eta:\omega \to \omega$, the path $\{\phi(x;b_{\eta(j),j})\wedge \psi(x;b_{\eta(j),j}):j<\omega\}$ is consistent, hence realized by some $a_\eta\in M$. Note that by elementarity of the extension $(N_1,M_1)\succ (N,M)$, for each $i$, the intersection of any $k$ formulas in $\{\phi(x;b_{i,j_0})\wedge \tilde \psi(x,b_{i,j_0};d):i<\omega\}$ with $M_1$ is empty. Now the properties of the array are preserved if we replace the formula $\phi(x;y)\wedge \psi(x;y)$ by $\phi(x,y)\wedge \theta(x,y;e)$: the paths are still consistent, using the same witnesses $a_\eta$, and the lines are $k$-inconsistent (in the structure $M_1$) since $\theta(M_1;e)\subseteq \tilde \psi(M_1;d)$. This shows that the formula $\phi(x,y)\wedge \theta(x,y;e)$ has TP$_2$ in $M_1$ which contradicts the hypothesis that $T$ is NTP$_2$.
[^1]: Partially supported by Colciencias grant number 120471250707
[^2]: Partially supported by ValCoMo (ANR-13-BS01-0006), NSF (grant DMS 1665491), and the Sloan foundation.
[^3]: Notice that the product of two types with finite fibers does not necessarily have finite fibers. Hence we do not know that $pp^{-1}$ is medium. This explains the need for the restrictive hypothesis on $p\times_{nf} p$ in Theorem \[th\_stabilizer\]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper uses rigid Hecke eigensheaves, building on Yun’s work on the construction of motives with exceptional Galois groups, to produce the first robust examples of ‘generalized Kuga-Satake theory’ outside the Tannakian category of motives generated by abelian varieties. To strengthen our description of the ‘motivic’ nature of Kuga-Satake lifts, we digress to establish a result that should be of independent interest: for any quasi-projective variety over a (finitely-generated) characteristic zero field, the associated weight-graded of its intersection cohomology arises from a motivated motive in the sense of André, and in particular from a classical homological motive if one assumes the Standard Conjectures. This extends work of de Cataldo and Migliorini.'
address: |
MIT Department of Mathematics\
Building E18\
77 Massachusetts Avenue\
Cambridge, MA 02139
author:
- Stefan Patrikis
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
date: May 2014
title: 'Generalized Kuga-Satake theory and rigid local systems, II: rigid Hecke eigensheaves'
---
[^1]
Background: generalized Kuga-Satake theory
==========================================
The aim of this paper is to produce non-trivial examples of the generalized Kuga-Satake theory proposed in [@stp:variationsarxiv]. The classical Kuga-Satake construction is a miracle of Hodge theory that associates to any complex $K3$ surface $X$ a complex abelian variety ${\mathrm}{KS}(X)$ and an inclusion of ${\mathbb{Q}}$-Hodge structures $$H^2(X, {\mathbb{Q}}) \subset H^1({\mathrm}{KS}(X), {\mathbb{Q}})^{\otimes 2}.$$ This construction takes its clearest conceptual form within the motivic Galois formalism. Let ${\mathcal}{M}_{{\mathbb{C}}}^{{\mathrm}{hom}}$ denote the category of pure motives over ${\mathbb{C}}$ for homological equivalence. Assuming the Standard Conjectures, this is a neutral Tannakian category over ${\mathbb{Q}}$ with fiber functor given by Betti cohomology: $$H_B \colon {\mathcal}{M}_{{\mathbb{C}}}^{{\mathrm}{hom}} \to \operatorname{Vect}_{{\mathbb{Q}}}.$$ Let ${\mathcal}{G}^{{\mathrm}{hom}}_{{\mathbb{C}}}= \operatorname{Aut}^{\otimes}(H_B)$ denote the corresponding Tannakian group. Then we can phrase the Kuga-Satake construction as follows: the motive $H^2(X)$ admits a (symmetric) polarization, hence (normalizing by a Tate-twist to weight zero) corresponds to a motivic Galois representation $\rho \colon {\mathcal}{G}_{{\mathbb{C}}}^{{\mathrm}{hom}} \to {\mathrm}{SO}(H^2_B(X)(1))$.[^2] The motive $H^1({\mathrm}{KS}(X))$ then *is* the motivic Galois representation corresponding to the composite $r \circ \tilde{\rho}$ in the diagram $$\label{classicalKS}
\xymatrix{
& {\mathrm}{GSpin}(H^2_B(X)(1)) \ar[r]^r \ar[d] & {\mathrm}{GL}(C^+(H^2_B(X)(1))) \\
{\mathcal}{G}_{{\mathbb{C}}}^{{\mathrm}{hom}} \ar@{-->}[ur]^{\tilde{\rho}} \ar[r]_-{\rho} & {\mathrm}{SO}(H^2_B(X)(1)),
}$$ where $\tilde{\rho}$ is a suitable lift of $\rho$, and $r$ is the natural representation of ${\mathrm}{GSpin}$ on the even Clifford algebra. The strongest possible version of the Kuga-Satake construction is the statement that such a lift $\tilde{\rho}$ exists; this is far from known at present, as it implicitly includes deep cases of the Lefschetz standard conjecture. A weaker, but still highly non-trivial, analogue is known when ${\mathcal}{G}_{{\mathbb{C}}}^{{\mathrm}{hom}}$ is replaced by the motivic Galois group of André’s category of motives for motivated cycles; see [@andre:hyperkaehler].
But the formulation itself is highly suggestive, pointing towards deep and largely unexplored generalizations, some of whose essential difficulties are orthogonal to the usual impenetrable conjectures of algebraic and arithmetic geometry: Lefschetz, Hodge, Tate, etc. In what follows we will work with motives over number fields and their $\ell$-adic realizations, rather than motives over ${\mathbb{C}}$ and their Hodge-Betti realizations, but there are analogues of the results of this paper in the latter setting. We now state a conjecture that captures the most refined form of a ‘generalized Kuga-Satake theory’ for motives over number fields. For two number fields $F$ and $E$, we let ${\mathcal}{M}_{F, E}$ denote the category of motives for motivated cycles over $F$ with coefficients in $E$; it is (unconditionally) neutral Tannakian over $E$, and by choosing an embedding $F {\hookrightarrow}{\mathbb{C}}$, the ($E$-linear) Betti fiber functor gives us its motivic Galois group ${\mathcal}{G}_{F, E}$ (see [@andre:motivated] for background).
\[KSconj\] Let ${\widetilde{H}}\to H$ be a surjection of linear algebraic $E$-groups whose kernel is equal to a central torus in ${\widetilde{H}}$, and let $$\rho \colon {\mathcal}{G}_{F, E} \to H$$ be a motivic Galois representation. Then if either $F$ is totally imaginary, or the ‘Hodge numbers’ of $\rho$ satisfy the (necessary) parity condition of [@stp:parities Proposition 5.5], then there exists a finite extension $E'/E$ and a lifting of motivic Galois representations $$\xymatrix{
& {\widetilde{H}}_{E'} \ar[d] \\
{\mathcal}{G}_{F, E'} \ar[r]_{\rho \otimes_E E'} \ar[ur]^{\tilde{\rho}} & H_{E'}.
}$$
For a leisurely overview of this conjecture, see the introduction to [@stp:KSRLS1:middleconv]; for a detailed discussion of the arithmetic evidence, see [@stp:variationsarxiv]. Even working with motivated rather than homological motives, this conjecture is highly refined: in the classical setting of diagram (\[classicalKS\]), the existence of such a $\tilde{\rho}$ requires not only the existence of ${\mathrm}{KS}(X)$, but also the full force of the theorem of Deligne-André that Hodge cycles on abelian varieties are motivated.[^3] At first approximation, though, we can replace Conjecture \[KSconj\] with the following variant:
\[genKSdefn\] Setting ${\Gamma_{F}}= {\mathrm{Gal}}(\overline{F}/F)$ for an algebraic closure $\overline{F}$ of $F$, let $\rho \colon {\Gamma_{F}} \to H({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell})$ be a geometric Galois representation valued in an arbitrary linear algebraic group $H$ over ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell}$.
- We say that $\rho$ is weakly motivic if there exists a *faithful* representation $r \colon H {\hookrightarrow}{\mathrm}{GL}(V_r)$ such that $r \circ \rho$ is isomorphic to the $\iota \colon E {\hookrightarrow}{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell}$ realization $H_{\iota}(M)$ of some object $M$ of ${\mathcal}{M}_{F, E}$.
- Suppose that we are given such a weakly motivic $\rho \colon {\Gamma_{F}} \to H({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell})$, and let $\tilde{\rho}$ be a geometric lift to ${\widetilde{H}}$: $$\label{galoisside}
\xymatrix{
& {\widetilde{H}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell}) \ar[d] \\
{\Gamma_{F}} \ar[ur]^{\tilde{\rho}} \ar[r]_-{\rho} & H({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell}).
}$$ (That such geometric lifts typically exist is [@stp:variationsarxiv Theorem 3.2.10] and [@stp:parities Proposition 5.5].[^4]) We say that $\tilde{\rho}$ satisfies the generalized Kuga-Satake property if it is weakly motivic as ${\widetilde{H}}$-representation.
In sum, our aim in establishing certain cases of this ‘generalized Kuga-Satake property’ is to verify (motivated refinements of) certain cases of the Fontaine-Mazur conjecture.
With this framework in place, we can introduce the particular setting of this paper. Our aim is to study certain families of weakly motivic $\rho \colon {\Gamma_{F}} \to H({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell})$ for which it is possible to find lifts $\tilde{\rho} \colon {\Gamma_{F}} \to {\widetilde{H}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell})$ satisfying the generalized Kuga-Satake property. Outside of the context of the classical Kuga-Satake construction, where $\rho$ is the representation on $H^2(X_{\overline{F}}, {\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell})$, for $X/F$ a $K3$ surface–or closely related examples in which the motives in question are still generated by motives of abelian varieties[^5]–there were no non-trivial examples of such lifting until the paper [@stp:KSRLS1:middleconv]. But that paper is restricted to low-dimensional examples in which ${\widetilde{H}}= {\mathrm}{GSpin}_5 \to H= {\mathrm}{SO}_5$, and relies heavily on low-dimensional coincidences in the Dynkin classification. Thus the primary desiderata for our examples are that:
1. \[nonabelian\] the motives in question not lie in the Tannakian subcategory of ${\mathcal}{M}_F$ generated by abelian varieties and Artin motives;
2. \[allranks\] the examples exist in arbitrary rank, or at least for ‘interesting’ groups $H$;
3. \[nontriv\] the lift $\tilde{\rho}$ should not be realizable within the Tannakian category of geometric representations generated by $\rho$, characters, and Artin representations.
We make explicit this last desideratum just to point out that for some choices of ${\widetilde{H}}$, for instance ${\widetilde{H}}= H \times \mathbb{G}_m$, the existence of a weakly motivic lift $\tilde{\rho}$ is completely trivial. Condition \[nontriv\] is a way to ensure the results we prove have non-trivial content.
The examples of this paper meet all three criteria of interest. For our $\rho$ we take the remarkable weakly motivic Galois representations constructed by Yun in [@yun:exceptional Theorem 4.2, Proposition 4.6]. Let us recall a somewhat simplified version of the main result of [@yun:exceptional]. Let $G$ be a split, simple, simply-connected group of type $A_1$, $D_n$ with $n$ even, $G_2$, $E_7$, or $E_8$, and let $G^\vee$ denote the split ${\mathbb{Q}}$-form of its dual group. We have to say a word about the coefficients of the Galois representations and motives. For definiteness, fix an embedding ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}}{\hookrightarrow}{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell}$, implicit whenever we take ‘the’ $\ell$-adic realization of a motive with coefficients in ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}}$, and let $\imath$ be a square-root of $-1$ in ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}}$. All the local systems considered can be arranged to have coefficients in the (possibly trivial) extension ${\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}'= {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}(\imath)$. The motives will have coefficients in the subfield ${\mathbb{Q}}' \subset {\overline{\mathbb{Q}}}$ given by $${\mathbb{Q}}'= \begin{cases}
\text{${\mathbb{Q}}$ in types $D_{4m}$, $G_2$, $E_8$; and}\\
\text{${\mathbb{Q}}(\imath)$ in types $A_1$, $D_{4m+2}$, $E_7$.}
\end{cases}$$ There is a certain two-fold cover ${{}^{(2)}Z_G}{\twoheadrightarrow}Z_G$ (see Definition \[thefinitegroup\] and Lemma \[grouptheory\]) of the center $Z_G$ of $G$–regard ${{}^{(2)}Z_G}$ as a group scheme over ${\mathbb{Q}}$–and we call a character $$\chi \colon {{}^{(2)}Z_G}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}}) \to {\overline{\mathbb{Q}}}^\times$$ *odd* if it is non-trivial on the kernel of ${{}^{(2)}Z_G}\to Z_G$.
\[yun\] For any odd character $\chi \colon {{}^{(2)}Z_G}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}}) \to {\overline{\mathbb{Q}}}^\times$, there exists a local system $$\rho_{\chi} \colon \pi_1(\mathbb{P}^1_{{\mathbb{Q}}}-\{0,1,\infty\}) \to G^\vee({\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}')$$ whose geometric monodromy group is $G^\vee$, except in type $D_{2m}$, in which case the geometric monodromy group is ${\mathrm}{SO}_{4m-1}$. For all number fields $F$ such that $$F \supseteq
\begin{cases}
\text{${\mathbb{Q}}$ if $G$ is type $D_{4m}$, $G_2$, or $E_8$;} \\
\text{${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-1})$ if $G$ is type $A_1$, $D_{4m+2}$, or $E_7$,}
\end{cases}$$ and all specializations $t \colon \operatorname{Spec}F \to \mathbb{P}^1-\{0,1,\infty\}$, the pull-back $\rho_{\chi, t} \colon {\Gamma_{F}} \to G^\vee({\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}')$ is weakly motivic. To be precise, the composition of $\rho_{\chi, t}$ with the quasi-minuscule representation of $G^\vee$ is isomorphic to the ${\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}'$-realization of an object of ${\mathcal}{M}_{F, {\mathbb{Q}}'}$.
We can now state the first main result of this paper. There is a minor technicality in the phrasing of this theorem that results very naturally from the way the geometric Satake isomorphism descends to number fields: see §\[satake\] for a careful explanation. Namely, for any connected reductive group $H$, let $\rho^\vee$ denote the usual half-sum of the positive coroots (for any choice of based root datum), and set $H_1= (H \times \mathbb{G}_m)/ \langle (2\rho^\vee(-1) \times -1) \rangle$. In the case $H=G^\vee$, to avoid cluttered notation we write $G^\vee_1$ for $(G^\vee)_1$; this should not cause any confusion. Yun’s construction is most naturally viewed as the construction of a local system $$\rho_{\chi} \colon \pi_1(\mathbb{P}^1_{{\mathbb{Q}}}-\{0,1,\infty\}) \to G^\vee_1({\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}')= (G^\vee \times \mathbb{G}_m)({\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}')$$ in which the $G^\vee$-component is as in Theorem \[yun\], and the $\mathbb{G}_m$ component is the cyclotomic character; the equality here uses the fact that $G$ is simply-connected.
\[mainthm\] Let ${\widetilde{H}}{\twoheadrightarrow}G^\vee$ be any surjection of split connected reductive groups with kernel equal to a central torus in ${\widetilde{H}}$. Then:
1. There exists a local system $\tilde{\rho}_{\chi} \colon \pi_1(\mathbb{P}^1_{{\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-1})}-\{0,1,\infty\}) \to {\widetilde{H}}_1({\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}')$ lifting $\rho_{\chi}$, i.e. such that the diagram $$\xymatrix{
& {\widetilde{H}}_1({\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}') \ar[d] \\
\pi_1(\mathbb{P}^1_{{\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-1})}-\{0,1,\infty\}) \ar[ur]^{\tilde{\rho}_{\chi}} \ar[r]_-{\rho_{\chi}} & G^\vee_1({\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}')
}$$ commutes. When $G$ is type $D_{4m}$, we may replace ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-1})$ by ${\mathbb{Q}}$ in this assertion.
2. For all number field specializations $t \colon \operatorname{Spec}F \to \mathbb{P}^1-\{0,1,\infty\}$ (assuming $F \supset {\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-1})$ in types $A_1$, $D_{4m+2}$, and $E_7$), $\tilde{\rho}_{\chi, t}$ is weakly motivic, i.e. satisfies the generalized Kuga-Satake property.
The real content of this result is for $G$ of types $D_{2m}$ and $E_7$; when $\pi_1(G)= \{1\}$ (types $G_2$, $E_8$), there can never be any generalized Kuga-Satake lift satisfying criterion \[nontriv\]. In type $A_1$, the construction is not completely trivial, but the motives in question are generated by abelian varieties and Artin motives, so fail to satisfy our criterion \[nonabelian\].[^6] But in the essential cases of types $D_{2m}$ and $E_7$, all of our desiderata are met, the key point being that for suitable choice of ${\widetilde{H}}$, the group ${\widetilde{H}}_1$ has irreducible representations restricting to each of the minuscule representations of the simply-connected cover $G^\vee_{{\mathrm}{sc}}$ of $G^\vee$; these are representations not possessed by the original (adjoint) group $G^\vee$. See §\[minuscule\] for details.
We now briefly summarize the approach to constructing the lifted local systems $\tilde{\rho}_{\chi}$. Yun’s $\rho_{\chi}$ is constructed as the eigen-local system associated to a Hecke eigensheaf on a certain moduli space $\operatorname{Bun}$ of $G$-bundles on $\mathbb{P}^1$ with level structure at the points $\{0,1,\infty\}$. Simply put, we enlarge the center of the semi-simple group $G$ to form a reductive group ${\widetilde{G}}$ (whose dual group ${\widetilde{G}}^\vee$ plays the role of ${\widetilde{H}}$ above); then we study an analogous moduli space ${\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}$ of ${\widetilde{G}}$-bundles with level structure, and show that Yun’s eigensheaves can be extended to eigensheaves on ${\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}$. The weakly motivic nature of the lifts $\tilde{\rho}_{\chi, t}$ is realized in the (restricting to the interesting cases in type $A_1$, $D_{2m}$, $E_7$) minuscule representations of ${\widetilde{G}}^\vee$ (or rather, of ${\widetilde{G}}^\vee_1$); as in [@yun:exceptional], the motives themselves are closely related to the (intersection) cohomology of certain open subvarieties of affine Schubert varieties.
To put this approach in perspective, let us note that it is a geometric analogue of the classical automorphic construction parallel to the lifting problem (\[galoisside\]). Namely, extending an automorphic representation of $G$ to ${\widetilde{G}}$ heuristically corresponds to lifting a representation ${\mathcal}{L}_F \to G^\vee({\mathbb{C}})$ of the ‘automorphic Langlands group’ ${\mathcal}{L}_F$ to ${\widetilde{G}}^\vee({\mathbb{C}})$. We are carrying out an analogue for certain Hecke eigensheaves, being careful to retain hold of the explicit ‘motivic’ nature of the corresponding eigen-local systems.
In fact, we prove something considerably stronger than Theorem \[mainthm\], strengthening the ‘motivic’ result even in Yun’s original context. Rather than showing (as in part 2 of Theorem \[mainthm\]) that the $\tilde{\rho}_{\chi, t}$ (or $\rho_{\chi, t}$) are weakly motivic, we show (Theorem \[motivated\]) that for *any* finite-dimensional representation $r$ of ${\widetilde{H}}_1$, $r \circ \tilde{\rho}_{\chi, t}$ is motivated. The content of this assertion is the following: the arguments showing that $\rho_{\chi, t}$ and $\tilde{\rho}_{\chi, t}$ are weakly motivic rest on the fact that quasi-miniscule and miniscule affine Schubert varieties have very mild singularities (punctual in the quasi-miniscule case; none at all in the miniscule case). For such varieties (and their close cousins that appear in the proof), we can in quite elementary terms describe their intersection cohomology groups as the $\ell$-adic realizations of motivated motives. The claim that *all* $r \circ \tilde{\rho}_{\chi, t}$ are motivated depends on a similar description, but for varieties with singularities as bad as those of any affine Schubert variety. This essentially means we need a ‘motivated’ description of the intersection cohomology $\operatorname{IH}^*(Y_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}})$ of an arbitrarily singular, and not necessarily projective, variety $Y$ over a characteristic zero field $k$; to be precise, since motivated motives do not reflect ‘mixed’ behavior, we prove such an assertion for the associated weight-graded $\operatorname{Gr}^W_{\bullet} \operatorname{IH}^*(Y_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}})$. This is deduced as a consequence of a stronger ‘motivated’ variant of the decomposition theorem, and especially from a ‘motivated support decomposition’: see Theorem \[motivateddecomposition\] and Corollary \[splitting\]. Here is the statement for intersection cohomology:
\[ICmotintro\] Let $k$ be a finitely-generated field of characteristic zero, and let $Y/k$ be any quasi-projective variety. Then there is an object $M \in {\mathcal}{M}_k$ whose $\ell$-adic realization is isomorphic as ${\Gamma_{k}}$-representation to $\operatorname{Gr}^W_i \operatorname{IH}^m(Y_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}})$. If $\Gamma$ is a finite group scheme over $k$ acting on $Y$, and $e \in {\overline{\mathbb{Q}}}[\Gamma(\bar{k})]^{{\Gamma_{k}}}$ is an idempotent, then for any embedding ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}}{\hookrightarrow}{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell}$ there is an object of ${\mathcal}{M}_{k, {\overline{\mathbb{Q}}}}$ whose ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}}{\hookrightarrow}{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell}$-realization is isomorphic as ${\Gamma_{k}}$-representation to $\operatorname{Gr}^W_i e(\operatorname{IH}^m(Y_{\bar{k}}, {\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell})$.
The same holds for intersection cohomology with compact supports.
When $Y$ is projective, in which case $\operatorname{IH}^m(Y_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}})$ is pure of weight $m$, and $k$ is algebraically closed, this[^7] is a recent result of de Cataldo-Migliorini ([@decataldo-migliorini:decomproj Theorem 3.2.2]), part of their beautiful series of papers (see for instance [@decataldo-migliorini:htalgmaps], [@decataldo-migliorini:pervfil], [@decataldo:pervfil]) re-establishing the decomposition theorem and its associated mixed Hodge-theoretic package by ‘geometric,’ rather than ‘sheaf-theoretic,’ methods. These papers chart a fundamental advance in our understanding of the geometry of perverse sheaves, and I expect will find many more, and far deeper, motivic applications than the one here. Since the arguments establishing Theorem \[ICmotintro\] are independent of those of the rest of this paper, I refer the reader to §\[overview\] for a fuller introduction, and for an overview of the approach to Theorem \[ICmotintro\]. Also see Remark \[finalrmk\] for additional applications, such as a $p$-adic de Rham comparison isomorphism for intersection cohomology.
Bundles with level structure {#levelstructure}
============================
In this section only, we allow $G$ to be any connected reductive group over a field $k$, and $X$ to be any smooth projective geometrically connected curve over $k$. Our aim is to review a construction from [@yun:globalspringer §4.2] of moduli spaces of $G$-bundles on $X$ with level structure at a finite set $S= \{x_1, \ldots, x_n\} \subset X(k)$ of $k$-points. Here and throughout, we denote by $LG$ and $L^+G$ the ‘abstract’ loop group and positive loop group of $G$, i.e. the functors of $k$-algebras given by $R \mapsto G\left(R((t))\right)$ and $R \mapsto G(R[[t]])$ (a group ind-scheme and pro-algebraic group, respectively, over $k$), where $t$ is a formal parameter. Now let $x$ be a closed point of $X$, and denote by ${\mathcal}{O}_x$ the complete local ring of $X$ at $x$, with fraction field ${\mathcal}{K}_x$. Then we denote by $L_x G$ and $L^+_x G$ the functors $R \mapsto G \left(R \widehat{\otimes}_{\kappa(x)} {\mathcal}{K}_x \right)$ and $R \mapsto G \left(R \widehat{\otimes}_{\kappa(x)} {\mathcal}{O}_x \right)$.
Let $\operatorname{Bun}_{G, S, \infty} \to {\mathrm{Ring}}_k$ be the stack associated to the following prestack $\operatorname{Bun}_{G, S, \infty}^{pre}$ over $k$: for any $k$-algebra $R$, $\operatorname{Bun}_{G, S, \infty}^{pre}(R)$ is the groupoid of triples $(\alpha, {\mathcal}{P}, \tau)$ where
- $\alpha= (\alpha_{x_i})_{i=1, \ldots, n}$ is a collection of local coordinates $\alpha_{x_i} \colon R[[t]] \xrightarrow{\sim} \widehat{{\mathcal}{O}}_{x_i}$ (here we regard $x_i$ as an $R$-point $x_i \colon \operatorname{Spec}R \to X_R$ and take the formal completion of $X_R$ along the graph $\Gamma(x_i)$);
- ${\mathcal}{P}$ is a $G$-torsor on $X_R$;
- $\tau= (\tau_{x_i})_{i= 1, \ldots, n}$ is a collection of full level structures (abbreviating ${\mathcal}{D}_{x_i}= \operatorname{Spec}(\widehat{{\mathcal}{O}}_{x_i})$) $$\tau_{x_i} \colon G \times {\mathcal}{D}_{x_i} \xrightarrow{\sim} {\mathcal}{P}|_{{\mathcal}{D}_{x_i}}.$$
Let $\operatorname{Aut}_{{\mathcal}{O}}$ denote the pro-algebraic group of continuous automorphisms of $k[[t]]$. The semi-direct product $$(LG \rtimes \operatorname{Aut}_{{\mathcal}{O}})^n$$ acts on the right on $\operatorname{Bun}_{G, S, \infty}$ as follows.
\[levelaction\] For $g= (g_i)_{i=1, \ldots n} \in G(R((t))^n$ and $\sigma= (\sigma_i)_{i=1, \ldots, n} \in \operatorname{Aut}(R[[t]])^n$, and $(\alpha, {\mathcal}{P}, \tau) \in \operatorname{Bun}_{G, S, \infty}^{pre}(R)$, let $(g, \sigma)$ act on $(\alpha, {\mathcal}{P}, \tau)$ by $$R_{g, \sigma}(\alpha, {\mathcal}{P}, \tau)= (\alpha \circ \sigma, {\mathcal}{P}^{g}, \tau^{g}),$$ where:
- $\alpha \circ \sigma= (\alpha_{x_i} \circ \sigma_i)_i$;
- ${\mathcal}{P}^g$ is the $G$-bundle on $X_R$ obtained by gluing ${\mathcal}{P}|_{X_R- \cup_i \Gamma(x_i)}$ to the trivial $G$-bundles on the the completions ${\mathcal}{D}_{x_i}= \widehat{{\mathcal}{O}}_{x_i}$ along the punctured discs ${\mathcal}{D}_{x_i}^\times$ via the isomorphisms $$G \times {\mathcal}{D}_{x_i}^\times \xrightarrow{\alpha_{x_i} \circ g_i \circ \alpha_{x_i}^{-1}} G \times {\mathcal}{D}_{x_i}^{\times} \xrightarrow{\tau_{x_i}} {\mathcal}{P}|_{{\mathcal}{D}_{x_i}^{\times}}.$$
- $\tau^{g}= (\tau_{x_i}^{g})_{i=1, \ldots, n}$ consists of the *tautological* trivializations of ${\mathcal}{P}^g$ over each ${\mathcal}{D}_{x_i}$ coming from the definition of ${\mathcal}{P}^g$.
At each of the points $x_i$, we now fix a pro-algebraic subgroup ${\mathbf}{P}_i$ of $LG$ that is stable under the action of $\operatorname{Aut}_{{\mathcal}{O}}$; we additionally require that for some integer $m$, ${\mathbf}{P}_i$ should contain the subgroup $${\mathbf}{I}(m)= \{g \in L^+G: g \equiv 1 \pmod {t^m}\}$$ in finite co-dimension.
\[defnlevel\] Having fixed $S= \{x_1, \ldots, x_n\}$ and ${\mathbf}{P}_1, \ldots, {\mathbf}{P}_n$ as above, we define $\operatorname{Bun}_{G,S}({\mathbf}{P}_1, \ldots, {\mathbf}{P}_n)$ to be the stack associated to the quotient prestack $$R \mapsto \operatorname{Bun}_{G, S, \infty}(R)/ \prod_{i=1}^n ({\mathbf}{P}_i \rtimes \operatorname{Aut}_{{\mathcal}{O}})(R).$$ When there is no risk of confusion, we omit the subscript $S$ from the notation and simply write $\operatorname{Bun}_G({\mathbf}{P}_1, \ldots, {\mathbf}{P}_n)$.
Note that since the action of $(LG \rtimes \operatorname{Aut}_{{\mathcal}{O}})^n$ does not necessarily preserve the isomorphism class of the $G$-torsor ${\mathcal}{P}$ on $X_R$, the moduli space $\operatorname{Bun}_{G, S}({\mathbf}{P}_1, \ldots, {\mathbf}{P}_n)$ need not have a projection to $\operatorname{Bun}_G$. The action does not alter ${\mathcal}{P}|_{X_R- \cup \Gamma(x_i)}$, however, so an object of $\operatorname{Bun}_{G, S}({\mathbf}{P}_1, \ldots, {\mathbf}{P}_n)(R)$ does yield a well-defined $G$-torsor on this complement. Also, the category $\operatorname{Bun}_{G, S}({\mathbf}{P}_1, \ldots, {\mathbf}{P}_n)$ has a tautological object given by taking the image of an object of $\operatorname{Bun}_{G, S, \infty}^{{\mathrm}{pre}}(k)$ given by the trivial bundle with its tautological level structures and any fixed choice of local coordinates $\alpha_{x_i}$.[^8]
\[algstack\] $\operatorname{Bun}_{G, S}({\mathbf}{P}_1, \ldots, {\mathbf}{P}_n)$ is an algebraic stack locally of finite-type.
This follows exactly as in [@yun:exceptional Corollary 4.2.6], by first deducing the result for $$\operatorname{Bun}_{G, S}({\mathbf}{I}_1(m), \ldots, {\mathbf}{I}_n(m))$$ from the (well-known) result for $\operatorname{Bun}_G$, and then deducing the case of $\operatorname{Bun}_{G, S}({\mathbf}{P}_1, \ldots, {\mathbf}{P}_n)$ from that of $\operatorname{Bun}_{G, S}({\mathbf}{I}_1(m), \ldots, {\mathbf}{I}_n(m))$. Just as in [@yun:exceptional Lemma 4.2.5], we also have:
\[omega\] For each $i=1, \ldots, n$, let $$\Omega_{x_i}= N_{LG}(\mathbf{P}_i)/\mathbf{P}_i.$$ Then there is a right-action of $\Omega_{x_i}$ on $\operatorname{Bun}_{G, S}({\mathbf}{P}_1, \ldots, {\mathbf}{P}_n)$.
Finally, we can replace any ${\mathbf}{P}_i$ by some finite cover, still acting on $\operatorname{Bun}_{G, S, \infty}$ on the right through ${\mathbf}{P}_i$; Lemmas \[algstack\] and \[omega\] continue to hold.
For the reader’s convenience, we put this statement in its classical context: on automorphic forms over a function field $F$ $$f \colon G(F) {\backslash}G(\mathbb{A}_F)/\left( \prod_{x \neq x_i} G(\widehat{{\mathcal}{O}}_x) \times \prod_i {\mathbf}{P}_i\right) \to {\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell},$$ we have the usual action by Hecke correspondences arising from decomposing the double coset ${\mathbf}{P}_i w {\mathbf}{P}_i$ into single cosets. But when $w$ normalizes ${\mathbf}{P}_i$, the Hecke action comes from an actual automorphism (right-translation) of the moduli space $G(F) {\backslash}G(\mathbb{A}_F)/\left( \prod_{x \neq x_i} G(\widehat{{\mathcal}{O}}_x) \times \prod_i {\mathbf}{P}_i\right)$.
Our setting {#setting}
===========
Now we describe in detail the setting of this paper, taking [@yun:exceptional] as our starting-point. Let $G$ be a split (almost-)simple simply-connected group over $k$, satisfying the following two hypotheses:
- $G$ is oddly-laced;
- $-1$ belongs to the Weyl group $W_G$ of $G$.
Explicitly, we take $G$ to be a split simple simply-connected group of type $A_1$, $D_{2n}$, $G_2$, $E_7$, or $E_8$ in the Dynkin classification. In fact, as we will see, the results of this paper are only non-trivial when the simply-connected and adjoint forms of $G$ differ: so for all practical purposes, we are working with types $A_1$, $D_{2n}$, and $E_7$.
Let ${\widetilde{G}}$ be a split connected reductive group over $k$ with derived group equal to $G$, so that the quotient ${\widetilde{G}}/G= S$ is a torus; call the quotient map $\nu \colon {\widetilde{G}}\to S$. Fix a maximal torus ${\widetilde{T}}$ of ${\widetilde{G}}$ and a Borel ${\widetilde{B}}$ containing ${\widetilde{T}}$, likewise giving $T= {\widetilde{T}}\cap G$, $B= {\widetilde{B}}\cap G$, and determining based root data for ${\widetilde{G}}$ and $G$, and an explicit Weyl group $W_G$ defined in terms of $T$. We denote by ${\widetilde{Z}}$ and $Z_G$ the centers of ${\widetilde{G}}$ and $G$, and we let ${\widetilde{Z}}^0$ be the identity component of ${\widetilde{Z}}$. Note that in all cases under consideration $Z_G= Z_G[2]$. The cases of particular interest for us–in which there is a non-trivial Kuga-Satake lifting problem–are those in which $Z_G \neq \{1\}$, namely types $A_1$, $D_{2n}$, and $E_7$. From now on we $$\label{chark}
\text{assume the characteristic of $k$ is not 2.}$$ In particular, $Z_G$ is a discrete group scheme over $k$, and the order of the kernel of the isogeny ${\widetilde{Z}}{\twoheadrightarrow}S$ is invertible in $k$. Our first task is to define the moduli spaces of ${\widetilde{G}}$-bundles on $X= \mathbb{P}^1$ with level structure that will supply us with Hecke eigensheaves. We first recall the construction in [@yun:exceptional]. Yun works with the following conjugacy class of parahoric subgroups in $LG$ (see [@yun:exceptional §2.2-2.3]). In the apartment ${\mathcal}{A}(T)$ associated to $T$ of the building of $LG$, we can choose as origin the point corresponding to the subgroup $L^+G$, with the resulting identification ${\mathcal}{A}(T) \cong X_\bullet(T) \otimes {\mathbb{R}}$. Then under this identification $\frac{1}{2} \rho^\vee$ lies in a unique facet, and we let $\mathbf{P}_{\frac{1}{2} \rho^\vee}$ be the parahoric subgroup associated to this facet. More precisely, Bruhat-Tits theory provides, for any facet $a$ in the building of $LG$, a smooth group scheme ${\mathcal}{P}_a$ over $k[[t]]$ with connected fibers whose generic fiber is $G \times_{\operatorname{Spec}k} \operatorname{Spec}k((t))$. We define ${\mathbf}{P}_a$ to be the pro-algebraic subgroup of $LG$ representing the functor (of $k$-algebras) $$R \mapsto {\mathcal}{P}_a(R[[t]]).$$ We then apply this construction to the case where $a$ is the facet containing $\frac{1}{2} \rho^\vee$. Let $K$ denote the maximal reductive quotient of ${\mathbf}{P}_{\frac{1}{2} \rho^\vee}$; since $G$ is simply-connected, $K$ is connected. Moreover, Yun shows ([@yun:exceptional §2.5]) that $K$ has a canonical connected double cover:
Let ${{}^{(2)}K}$ denote the connected double-cover of $K$, so there is an exact sequence $$1 \to \mu_2^{{\mathrm}{ker}} \to {{}^{(2)}K}\to K \to 1.$$ Note that our notation differs from that of [@yun:exceptional §2.5], where this group is denoted $\widetilde{K}$; we reserve $\widetilde{(\ast)}$ for groups associated with the enlargement ${\widetilde{G}}$ of $G$.
We now define the particular moduli stacks of interest, beginning with the ones used in [@yun:exceptional]. Let ${\mathbf}{P}_0 \subset L_0 G$ be the parahoric subgroup in the conjugacy class of ${\mathbf}{P}_{\frac{1}{2} \rho^\vee}$ that contains the Iwahori ${\mathbf}{I}_0 \subset L_0^+ G$, defined in terms of $B$. Moreover let $${{}^{(2)}\mathbf{P}_0}= {\mathbf}{P}_0 \times_{K_0} {{}^{(2)}K}_0,$$ and let ${\mathbf}{P}_0^+$ denote the pro-unipotent radical of ${\mathbf}{P}_0$. Next let ${\mathbf}{P}_{\infty}$ be the parahoric in the conjugacy class of ${\mathbf}{P}_{\frac{1}{2} \rho^\vee}$ that contains the Iwahori ${\mathbf}{I}_{\infty}^{{\mathrm}{op}} \subset L_{\infty}^+ G$ defined in terms of $B^{{\mathrm}{op}}$. Finally, let ${\mathbf}{I}_1 \subset L_1^+ G$ denote the Iwahori subgroup defined again in terms of $B$. In the notation of §\[levelstructure\], we now let $S= \{0, 1, \infty\} \subset \mathbb{P}^1(k)$; for later reference, we let $X^0$ be the variety $\mathbb{P}^1-S$ over $k$. The primary object of study in [@yun:exceptional] is the moduli space (see Definition \[defnlevel\]) $$\operatorname{Bun}= \operatorname{Bun}_G({{}^{(2)}\mathbf{P}_0}, {\mathbf}{I}_1, {\mathbf}{P}_{\infty}).$$ This sits in the following diagram: $$\label{basicdiagramG}
\xymatrix{
\operatorname{Bun}^+ \ar[d] \ar[r] & \operatorname{Bun}_G({\mathbf}{P}_0^+, {\mathbf}{P}_{\infty}) \ar[d] \ar[dr] & \\
\operatorname{Bun}\ar[r] & \operatorname{Bun}_G({{}^{(2)}\mathbf{P}_0}, {\mathbf}{P}_{\infty}) \ar[r] & \operatorname{Bun}_G({\mathbf}{P}_0, {\mathbf}{P}_{\infty}),
}$$ where $\operatorname{Bun}^+= \operatorname{Bun}_G({\mathbf}{P}_0^+, {\mathbf}{I}_1, {\mathbf}{P}_{\infty})$. The vertical maps are ${{}^{(2)}K}_0$-torsors, and the square is 2-cartesian.
Next we modify these constructions to define the corresponding moduli stacks of ${\widetilde{G}}$-bundles on $X$. There are various ways of doing this; we take care to choose the new level structures so that the moduli spaces in the $G$ and ${\widetilde{G}}$ cases are most easily compared.
\[tGlevels\] Let $\widetilde{{\mathbf}{P}}_{\infty}$ be the sub-group scheme of $L_{\infty} {\widetilde{G}}$ generated by ${\mathbf}{P}_{\infty}$ and $L^+_{\infty} ({\widetilde{Z}}^0)$. Let $\widetilde{{\mathbf}{P}}_0(1)$ be the sub-group scheme of $L_0 {\widetilde{G}}$ generated by ${\mathbf}{P}_0$ and the pro-algebraic group ${\widetilde{Z}}^0(1)$ defined as the kernel of reduction modulo $t$ (a local coordinate at zero), $${\widetilde{Z}}^0(1)= \ker( L^+_0({\widetilde{Z}}^0) \to {\widetilde{Z}}^0).$$
Note that $\widetilde{{\mathbf}{P}}_0(1)$ is isomorphic to the direct product ${\mathbf}{P}_0 \times {\widetilde{Z}}^0(1)$: the restriction of $\nu$ to $\nu \colon {\widetilde{Z}}^0 \to S$ can be identified with a product of maps $\mathbb{G}_m \to \mathbb{G}_m$, each given by multiplication by some $n \in \{\pm 1, \pm 2\}$, so (working one coordinate at a time) for any $x \in R[[t]]$, $1= \nu(1+tx)= 1+ntx+ (\text{higher order terms})$ forces $x=0$, since we have assumed (see (\[chark\])) that 2 is invertible in $k$. Moreover, the pro-unipotent radical of $\widetilde{{\mathbf}{P}}_0(1)$ is ${\mathbf}{P}_0^+ \cdot {\widetilde{Z}}^0(1)$, so the maximal reductive quotient of ${\widetilde{\mathbf{P}}_0(1)}$ is also $K_0$. In particular, we can form the analogous group ${}^{(2)}{\widetilde{\mathbf{P}}_0(1)}$ by pullback.
Finally, let $\widetilde{{\mathbf}{I}}_1$ denote the Iwahori subgroup associated to $\widetilde{B}$ in $L_1^+ {\widetilde{G}}$. With this notation in place, we introduce our main object of study:
Let ${\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}$ denote the algebraic stack $\operatorname{Bun}_{{\widetilde{G}}}({}^{(2)}{\widetilde{\mathbf{P}}_0(1)}, {\widetilde{\mathbf{I}}}_1, {\widetilde{\mathbf{P}}_{\infty}})$.
Similarly setting ${\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}^+= \operatorname{Bun}_{{\widetilde{G}}}({\mathbf}{P}_0^+ \cdot {\widetilde{Z}}^0(1), {\widetilde{\mathbf{I}}}_1, {\widetilde{\mathbf{P}}_{\infty}})$, we then have the ${\widetilde{G}}$-analogue of the basic diagram (\[basicdiagramG\]): $$\label{basicdiagramtG}
\xymatrix{
{\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}^+ \ar[d] \ar[r] & \operatorname{Bun}_{{\widetilde{G}}}({\mathbf}{P}_0^+ \cdot {\widetilde{Z}}^0(1), {\widetilde{\mathbf{P}}_{\infty}}) \ar[d] \ar[dr] & \\
{\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}\ar[r] & \operatorname{Bun}_{{\widetilde{G}}}({}^{(2)}{\widetilde{\mathbf{P}}_0(1)}, {\widetilde{\mathbf{P}}_{\infty}}) \ar[r] & \operatorname{Bun}_{{\widetilde{G}}}({\widetilde{\mathbf{P}}_0(1)}, {\widetilde{\mathbf{P}}_{\infty}}),
}$$ in which the vertical maps are still ${{}^{(2)}K}_0$-torsors, and the diagram is 2-cartesian.
We now must recall the Birkhoff decomposition and uniformization results for $G$- (or ${\widetilde{G}}$-) bundles on $X= \mathbb{P}^1$. Consider the ‘trivial $G$-bundle on $\mathbb{A}^1$ with tautological ${\mathbf}{P}_0$-level structure’ ${\mathcal}{P}_{\mathbb{A}^1}^0$; to be precise, ${\mathcal}{P}^0_{\mathbb{A}^1}$ is defined as in §\[levelstructure\], and is not literally a $G$-bundle on $\mathbb{A}^1$. Likewise let $\widetilde{{\mathcal}{P}}^0_{\mathbb{A}^1}$ be the trivial ${\widetilde{G}}$-bundle on $\mathbb{A}^1$ with tautological ${\widetilde{\mathbf{P}}_0(1)}$ level structure at zero. Let $\Gamma_0$ and $\widetilde{\Gamma}_0$ denote the group ind-schemes of automorphisms of ${\mathcal}{P}_{\mathbb{A}^1}^0$ and $\widetilde{{\mathcal}{P}}^0_{\mathbb{A}^1}$, respectively. Also let $W^{{\mathrm}{aff}}$ denote the affine Weyl group $X_{\bullet}(T) \rtimes W_G$, and let $\widetilde{W}= X_{\bullet}({\widetilde{T}}) \rtimes W_G$ denote the Iwahori-Weyl group of ${\widetilde{G}}$. The Weyl group of the reductive quotient $K_{\infty}$ of ${\mathbf}{P}_{\infty}$ can be identified with a subgroup of $W^{{\mathrm}{aff}}$: take the subgroup generated by simple reflections that fix the alcove of ${\mathbf}{P}_{\infty}$. The same holds for the reductive quotient $K_0$ of ${\mathbf}{P}_0$ and its Weyl group, and in both cases, we write the resulting subgroup of $W^{{\mathrm}{aff}}$ as $W_K$.
\[uniformization\] There are isomorphisms of stacks $$\begin{aligned}
[\Gamma_0 {\backslash}L_{\infty}G / {\mathbf}{P}_{\infty}] &\xrightarrow{\sim} \operatorname{Bun}_G({\mathbf}{P}_0, {\mathbf}{P}_{\infty}) \\
[\widetilde{\Gamma}_0 {\backslash}L_{\infty} {\widetilde{G}}/ {\widetilde{\mathbf{P}}_{\infty}}] &\xrightarrow{\sim} \operatorname{Bun}_{{\widetilde{G}}}({\widetilde{\mathbf{P}}_0(1)}, {\widetilde{\mathbf{P}}_{\infty}}).\end{aligned}$$ and Birkhoff decompositions $$\begin{aligned}
L_{\infty}G (\bar{k})&= \coprod_{W_K {\backslash}W^{{\mathrm}{aff}} / W_K} \Gamma_0(\bar{k}) w {\mathbf}{P}_{\infty}(\bar{k})\\
L_{\infty} {\widetilde{G}}(\bar{k}) &= \coprod_{W_K {\backslash}\widetilde{W} / W_K} \widetilde{\Gamma}_0(\bar{k}) w {\widetilde{\mathbf{P}}_{\infty}}(\bar{k}).\end{aligned}$$
See [@yun:exceptional §3.2.2] and [@heinloth-ngo-yun:kloosterman Proposition 1.1]. It follows easily from diagram (\[basicdiagramtG\]) that $\pi_0({\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}})$ is naturally in bijection with $\pi_0(\operatorname{Bun}_{{\widetilde{G}}}({\widetilde{\mathbf{P}}_0(1)}, {\widetilde{\mathbf{P}}_{\infty}}))$; this is in turn in bijection (since $G$ is simply-connected) with $$\pi_0(\operatorname{Bun}_{{\widetilde{G}}}) \xrightarrow[\sim]{\nu} \pi_0(\operatorname{Bun}_S) \xleftarrow{\sim} \pi_0(L_{\infty} S/L_{\infty}^+ S) \xleftarrow{\sim} X_{\bullet}(S).$$ We can describe the connected components of ${\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}$ in terms of this uniformization. First note that replacing ${\mathbf}{P}_0$ with ${{}^{(2)}\mathbf{P}_0}$, and ${\widetilde{\mathbf{P}}_0(1)}$ with ${}^{(2)}{\widetilde{\mathbf{P}}_0(1)}$ we get obvious analogues of Lemma \[uniformization\]. Then, for each $w \in W_K {\backslash}\widetilde{W} / W_K$ we obtain an object $\widetilde{{\mathcal}{P}}_w$ of $\operatorname{Bun}_{{\widetilde{G}}}({}^{(2)}{\widetilde{\mathbf{P}}_0(1)}, {\widetilde{\mathbf{P}}_{\infty}})(k)$ by glueing $\widetilde{{\mathcal}{P}}^0_{\mathbb{A}^1}$ with $\operatorname{Ad}(w) {\widetilde{\mathbf{P}}_{\infty}}$; and we can make the corresponding construction of ${\mathcal}{P}_w \in \operatorname{Bun}_G({{}^{(2)}\mathbf{P}_0}, {\mathbf}{P}_{\infty})$ for $w \in W^{{\mathrm}{aff}}$. The stabilizers of ${\mathcal}{P}_w$ and $\widetilde{{\mathcal}{P}}_w$ are, respectively $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{Stab}_w^G &= \left(\Gamma_0 \cap w {\mathbf}{P}_{\infty} w^{-1}\right) \times_{K_0} {{}^{(2)}K}_0 \\
\operatorname{Stab}_w^{{\widetilde{G}}} &= \left( \widetilde{\Gamma}_0 \cap w {\widetilde{\mathbf{P}}_{\infty}}w^{-1} \right) \times_{K_0} {{}^{(2)}K}_0.\end{aligned}$$ In other words, $\operatorname{Bun}_G({{}^{(2)}\mathbf{P}_0}, {\mathbf}{P}_{\infty})$ has a stratification by sub-stacks $[\{{\mathcal}{P}_w\}/\operatorname{Stab}^G_w]$, and likewise $\operatorname{Bun}_{{\widetilde{G}}}({}^{(2)}{\widetilde{\mathbf{P}}_0(1)}, {\widetilde{\mathbf{P}}_{\infty}})$ has a stratification by sub-stacks $[\{\widetilde{{\mathcal}{P}}_w\}/\operatorname{Stab}^{{\widetilde{G}}}_w]$. By taking the preimages in $\operatorname{Bun}$ and ${\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}$, we obtain stratifications by sub-stacks that we denote $\operatorname{Bun}_w$ (for $w \in W_K {\backslash}W^{{\mathrm}{aff}} /W_K$) and ${\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}_w$ (for $w \in W_K {\backslash}\widetilde{W} /W_K$), respectively. For $w= \lambda \rtimes w_G \in \widetilde{W}= X_{\bullet}({\widetilde{T}}) \rtimes W_G$, ${\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}_w$ lies in the component corresponding to $\nu \circ \lambda \in X_{\bullet}(S)$. In particular, we can identify the connected component of ${\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}$ containing the tautological object ${\mathcal}{P}_1$ as $${\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}^0= \coprod_{\substack{w= \lambda \rtimes w_G \in W_K {\backslash}\widetilde{W} / W_K \\
\lambda \in X_{\bullet}(T)}} {\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}_w= \coprod_{w \in W_K {\backslash}W^{{\mathrm}{aff}}/ W_K} {\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}_w.$$
Taking the associated ${\widetilde{G}}$-bundle defines a map $\operatorname{Bun}\to {\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}$, and for $w \in W_K {\backslash}W^{{\mathrm}{aff}} / W_K$ it respects the above stratifications, yielding a map $\operatorname{Bun}_w \to {\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}_w$. The crucial point is the following:
\[conndcomp\] The map $\operatorname{Bun}\to {\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}^0$ is an equivalence.
We check this stratum-by-stratum. It suffices to show that for all $w \in X_{\bullet}(T) \rtimes W_G= W^{{\mathrm}{aff}} \subset \widetilde{W}$, $\operatorname{Stab}_w^G= \operatorname{Stab}_w^{{\widetilde{G}}}$, i.e. that the natural map $$\Gamma_0 \cap w {\mathbf}{P}_{\infty} w^{-1} \to \widetilde{\Gamma}_0 \cap w {\widetilde{\mathbf{P}}_{\infty}}w^{-1}$$ is an isomorphism. For a $k$-algebra $R$, an element of $\left( \widetilde{\Gamma}_0 \cap w {\widetilde{\mathbf{P}}_{\infty}}w^{-1} \right)(R)$ gives rise fppf-locally on $R$ to an equation of the form $p_0 z_0= w z_{\infty} p_{\infty} w^{-1}$ with $p_0 \in {\mathbf}{P}_0(R)$, $z_0 \in {\widetilde{Z}}^0(1)(R)$, $p_{\infty} \in {\mathbf}{P}_{\infty}(R)$, and $z_{\infty} \in L^+_{\infty}({\widetilde{Z}}^0)$. Applying $\nu$, we find $\nu(z_0)= \nu(z_{\infty})$; but since $1+t R[[t]] \cap R[[t^{-1}]]^{\times}= \{1\}$, we see that $\nu(z_0)= \nu(z_{\infty})=1$. This forces (as in the argument following Definition \[tGlevels\], by our assumption on ${\mathrm}{char}(k)$) $z_0=1$, and $z_{\infty} \in {\mathbf}{P}_{\infty}(R)$. We may as well then assume $z_{\infty}=1$ (incorporating $z_{\infty}$ into $p_{\infty}$), and so we actually have an equality $p_0= w p_{\infty} w^{-1}$ bearing witness to an element of $\left( \Gamma_0 \cap w {\mathbf}{P}_{\infty} w^{-1}\right) (R)$. This implies $$\Gamma_0 \cap w {\mathbf}{P}_{\infty} w^{-1} \to \widetilde{\Gamma}_0 \cap w {\widetilde{\mathbf{P}}_{\infty}}w^{-1}$$ is an epimorphism, and as it is obviously injective, we are done.
The eigensheaves
================
Construction of the eigensheaves {#ramifiedHecke}
--------------------------------
In this section, we combine the equivalence $\operatorname{Bun}\xrightarrow{\sim} {\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}^0$ of Proposition \[conndcomp\] with the analysis of the sheaf theory of $\operatorname{Bun}$ carried out in [@yun:exceptional Theorem 3.2] to produce our desired Hecke eigensheaves on ${\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}$. The key simplification arises from applying Lemma \[omega\] at the point $x=1$, where we have taken ${\widetilde{\mathbf{I}}}_1$ level structure. In this case we identify the group $\Omega_1$ with the stabilizer in $\widetilde{W}$ of the alcove corresponding to the standard Iwahori ${\widetilde{\mathbf{I}}}_1$, and $\nu \colon \Omega_1 \xrightarrow{\sim} X_{\bullet}(S)$ also identifies $\Omega_1$ with $\pi_0({\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}})$. For $\gamma \in \Omega_1$, we denote by $$\mathbb{T}_{\gamma} \colon {\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}\to {\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}$$ the action given by Lemma \[omega\]. Writing ${\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}^\gamma$ for the connected component corresponding to $\gamma$, we see that $\mathbb{T}_{\gamma}$ induces isomorphisms $$\mathbb{T}_{\gamma} \colon {\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}^0 \xrightarrow{\sim} {\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}^{\gamma}.$$ In particular, all connected components of ${\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}$ are isomorphic (compare [@heinloth-ngo-yun:kloosterman Corollary 1.2]).[^9] The idea is to take Yun’s construction of a perverse Hecke eigensheaf on $\operatorname{Bun}\xrightarrow{\sim} {\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}^0$, and then use the (‘ramified Hecke operators’) $\mathbb{T}_{\gamma}$ to propagate the eigensheaf to the other connected components of ${\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}$. We begin by reviewing Yun’s construction ([@yun:exceptional §3]). The tautological object in $\operatorname{Bun}_G({\mathbf}{P}_0, {\mathbf}{P}_{\infty})$ (with automorphism group $K_0$) has preimage in $\operatorname{Bun}$ equivalent to a quotient $[{{}^{(2)}K}_0 {\backslash}fl_G]$, for a suitable action of $K_0$ on $fl_G$ (see [@yun:exceptional §3.2.4]). $K_0$ acts on $fl_G$ with finitely many orbits, so there is a unique open orbit $U \subset fl_G$, giving open embeddings $$[{{}^{(2)}K}_0 {\backslash}U] \subset [{{}^{(2)}K}_0 {\backslash}fl_G] \subset \operatorname{Bun}.$$ As in [@yun:exceptional §3.2.5], we fix a point $u_0 \in U({\mathbb{Z}}[1/N])$ (for some $N$ sufficiently large, and for an integral model of $U$ arising from extending $K_0$ and $G$ to split reductive group schemes over some ${\mathbb{Z}}[1/M]$), and $$\label{Upoint}
\text{denote by $u_0 \in U(k)$ the induced $k$-point for all $k$ of sufficiently large characteristic.}$$ This choice is in effect from now on. As an element of $U(k) \subset fl_G(k)$, $u_0$ corresponds to a Borel subgroup $B_0 \subset G$ over $k$, which is in general position with respect to $K_0$:
\[thefinitegroup\] Let ${\mathrm}{A}$ denote the finite group scheme $B_0 \cap K_0$ over $k$. Let ${}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}$ denote the double-cover of ${\mathrm}{A}$ given by pullback along ${{}^{(2)}K}_0 {\twoheadrightarrow}K_0$.[^10] Finally, let $Z({}^{(2)}\mathrm{A})$ denote the center of ${}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}$.
Recall the following results ([@yun:exceptional §2.6]) on the structure and representation theory of the finite 2-group ${}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}(\bar{k})$. Recall that we have set $${\mathbb{Q}}'= \begin{cases}
{\mathbb{Q}}\quad \text{if $G$ is of type $D_{4n}$, $G_2$, or $E_8$;}\\
{\mathbb{Q}}(\imath) \quad \text{if $G$ is of type $A_1$, $D_{4n+2}$, or $E_7$,}
\end{cases}$$ and have also set ${\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}'= {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}(\imath)$. All sheaves considered will be ${\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}'$-sheaves. In parallel to this condition on the coefficients, we impose the following restriction on the field of definition $k$, in effect for the rest of this paper: $$\label{khassqrt}
\text{$\sqrt{-1} \in k$ for $G$ of type $A_1$, $D_{4m+2}$, or $E_7$.}$$
\[grouptheory\] Assume $k$ satisfies condition (\[khassqrt\]), so that ${\Gamma_{k}}$ acts trivially on $Z({{}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}})(\bar{k})$.
1. ${{}^{(2)}Z_G}= Z({{}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}})$.
2. Restriction to ${{}^{(2)}Z_G}(\bar{k})$ gives a bijection between irreducible odd representations of ${{}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}}(\bar{k})$ and odd characters of $Z({{}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}}(\bar{k}))$: $$\label{irrep}
{\mathrm}{Irr}_{{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}}}({{}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}}(\bar{k}) )_{{\mathrm}{odd}} \xrightarrow{\sim} \operatorname{Hom}(Z({{}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}})(\bar{k}), {\overline{\mathbb{Q}}}^\times)_{{\mathrm}{odd}}= \operatorname{Hom}(Z({{}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}})(\bar{k}), {\mathbb{Q}}'^\times)_{{\mathrm}{odd}}.$$
3. If $k$ is a finite field, local field, or number field, then for each odd $\chi \colon Z({{}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}})(\bar{k}) \to {\mathbb{Q}}'^\times$, the corresponding irreducible representation $V_{\chi}$ of ${{}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}}(\bar{k})$ descends to an irreducible representation of ${{}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}}(\bar{k}) \rtimes {\Gamma_{k}}$, whose coefficients can be taken to be ${\mathbb{Q}}(\imath)$.
The first claim is [@yun:exceptional Lemma 2.6(2)]. The second claim is elementary: the inverse of the isomorphism (\[irrep\]) is given by inducing the central character, up to some multiplicity. The third claim is a variant of [@yun:exceptional Lemma 2.7], whose proof is not complete.[^11] The obstruction to descending $V_{\chi}$ to a representation of ${{}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}}(\bar{k}) \rtimes {\Gamma_{k}}$ is a class in $H^2({\Gamma_{k}}, {\overline{\mathbb{Q}}}^\times)$. This Galois cohomology group vanishes for the claimed $k$: this is elementary for $k$ finite, and for local and especially number fields it is a beautiful theorem of Tate ([@serre:DSsurvey Theorem 4]). The argument showing the descended $V_{\chi}$ can be defined with ${\mathbb{Q}}(\imath)$ coefficients is as in [@yun:exceptional Lemma 2.7]. For clarity, we collect in one place the various conditions in effect on the field of definition $k$:
\[Vchi\] Consider any odd central character $\chi \colon Z({{}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}})(\bar{k}) \to {\mathbb{Q}}'^\times$, with associated irreducible representation $V_{\chi}$ of ${{}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}}(\bar{k})$. Let $k$ be any field satisfying conditions (\[khassqrt\]) and (\[Upoint\]), and *moreover* for which $V_{\chi}$ satisfies the conclusion of Lemma \[grouptheory\](3). Then from now on let $V_{\chi}$ denote a fixed choice of descent to an irreducible representation of ${{}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}}(\bar{k}) \rtimes {\Gamma_{k}}$, with ${\mathbb{Q}}(\imath)$ coefficients.
We now recall the crucial result analyzing the sheaf theory of $\operatorname{Bun}$, or, in our case, ${\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}^0$. Throughout, for an algebraic stack ${\mathfrak}{X}$ over a field $k$, we will write $D^b({\mathfrak}{X})$ for the derived category of bounded complexes of ${\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}'$-sheaves with constructible cohomology, as in [@laszlo-olsson:sixops2] (if we need to specify another field of coefficients, ${\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}$ for instance, we will write $D^b({\mathfrak}{X}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}})$). Recall ([@yun:exceptional §3.3.1]) the sub-category $$D^b(\operatorname{Bun})_{{\mathrm}{odd}} \subset D^b(\operatorname{Bun})$$ of odd sheaves, on which $\mu_2^{{\mathrm}{ker}}= \ker({{}^{(2)}K}_0 \to K_0)$ acts by the sign character. We can similarly define $D^b({\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}})_{{\mathrm}{odd}}$, since $\mu_2^{{\mathrm}{ker}}$ is also contained in the automorphism group of every object of ${\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}$. For future reference, let us also note a refinement of this observation: the automorphism group of every object of $\operatorname{Bun}_{{\widetilde{G}}}({\widetilde{\mathbf{P}}_0(1)}, {\widetilde{\mathbf{I}}}_1, {\widetilde{\mathbf{P}}_{\infty}})$ contains the center $Z_G$ of $G$, and likewise the automorphism group of every object of ${\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}$ contains the double cover (pullback under ${{}^{(2)}K}_0 \to K_0$) ${}^{(2)}Z_G$ of $Z_G$. We can therefore decompose $D^b({\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}})$ into a direct sum of categories $D^b({\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}})_{\psi}$, indexed over characters $\psi \colon {}^{(2)}Z_G \to {\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell}^\times$. We of course will be interested in the corresponding decomposition of $D^b({\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}})_{{\mathrm}{odd}}$ into a direct sum over the odd characters $\psi$.
Now we recall the main result analyzing odd sheaves on $\operatorname{Bun}$. Let $j \colon [{{}^{(2)}K}_0 {\backslash}U] {\hookrightarrow}\operatorname{Bun}$ denote the open inclusion.
Assume $G$ is the split simple simply-connected group of type $A_1$, $D_{2n}$, $E_7$, $E_8$, or $G_2$. Then the restriction $$j^* \colon D^b(\operatorname{Bun})_{{\mathrm}{odd}} \to D^b([{{}^{(2)}K}_0 {\backslash}U])_{{\mathrm}{odd}}$$ is an equivalence of categories with quasi-inverse given by $j_!= j_*$.
The analysis of connected components of ${\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}$ then implies:
\[sheaftheory\] For all $\gamma \in \Omega_1$, consider the composite $$j_{\gamma}= \mathbb{T}_{\gamma} \circ j \colon [{{}^{(2)}K}_0 {\backslash}U] {\hookrightarrow}{\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}^{\gamma}.$$ Then the restriction $$j_{\gamma}^* \colon D^b({\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}^{\gamma})_{{\mathrm}{odd}} \to D^b([{{}^{(2)}K}_0 {\backslash}U])_{{\mathrm}{odd}}$$ is an equivalence with inverse $j_{\gamma, !}= j_{\gamma, *}$.
Assume $k$ is as in Definition \[Vchi\]. We can now define the hoped-for eigensheaves on ${\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}$ over $k$, starting from Yun’s construction on $\operatorname{Bun}$. Fix an odd character (recall equation (\[irrep\])) $$\label{chi}
\chi \colon Z({}^{(2)}\mathrm{A})(\bar{k}) \to {\mathbb{Q}}'^\times,$$ to which we have associated (Lemma \[grouptheory\] and Definition \[Vchi\]) an irreducible representation $V_{\chi}$ of ${}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}(\bar{k}) \rtimes {\Gamma_{k}}$ having $\chi$ as central character. By [@yun:exceptional Lemma 3.3], $V_{\chi} \otimes_{{\mathbb{Q}}(\imath)} {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}'$ is isomorphic to the pullback under $u_0$ of a geometrically irreducible local system $${\mathcal}{F}_{\chi} \in \operatorname{Loc}_{{{}^{(2)}K}_0}(U, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}')_{{\mathrm}{odd}},$$ which we view as an object of $D^b([{{}^{(2)}K}_0 {\backslash}U])_{{\mathrm}{odd}}$. Yun’s eigensheaf is then ([@yun:exceptional Theorem 4.2]) $$j_!({\mathcal}{F}_{\chi})= j_*({\mathcal}{F}_{\chi}) \in D^b(\operatorname{Bun})_{{\mathrm}{odd}}.$$
Assume $k$ is as in Definition \[Vchi\]. Let $\chi \colon Z({}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}(\bar{k})) \to {\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell}^\times$ be any odd character. We let ${\mathcal}{A}_{\chi} \in D^b({\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}})_{{\mathrm}{odd}}$ be the perverse sheaf on ${\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}$ whose restriction ${\mathcal}{A}_{\chi}^{\gamma}$, for all $\gamma \in \Omega_1$, to ${\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}^{\gamma}$ is given by $${\mathcal}{A}_{\chi}^{\gamma}= {\mathcal}{A}_{\chi}|_{{\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}^{\gamma}}= j_{\gamma, !} {\mathcal}{F}_{\chi}= j_{\gamma, *} {\mathcal}{F}_{\chi}.$$
That is, we make the only definition compatible with the requirement that ${\mathcal}{A}_{\chi}^0$ be Yun’s eigensheaf, and that ${\mathcal}{A}_{\chi}$ be eigen for the ramified Hecke operators $\mathbb{T}_{\gamma}$ at $1 \in X$.
Geometric Satake equivalence {#satake}
----------------------------
We recall a convenient form of the geometric Satake equivalence. See [@mirkovic-vilonen:geometricsatake] and [@yun:exceptional §4.1] for more background. Let ${\mathcal}{G}$ be any split connected reductive group over $k$ (${\mathcal}{G}$ will of course eventually be either $G$ or ${\widetilde{G}}$). Let $\operatorname{Gr}_{{\mathcal}{G}}= L{\mathcal}{G}/L^+{\mathcal}{G}$ as usual denote the affine Grassmannian of ${\mathcal}{G}$. The main result of [@mirkovic-vilonen:geometricsatake] describes the category $\operatorname{Sat}^{{\mathrm}{geom}}_{{\mathcal}{G}}$ of $(L^+{\mathcal}{G})_{\bar{k}}$-equivariant perverse sheaves on $\operatorname{Gr}_{{\mathcal}{G}, \bar{k}}$: $\operatorname{Sat}^{{\mathrm}{geom}}_{{\mathcal}{G}}$ admits a convolution product making it a neutral Tannakian category over ${\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}$ with fiber functor $$\begin{aligned}
H^* \colon \operatorname{Sat}^{{\mathrm}{geom}}_{{\mathcal}{G}} & \to \operatorname{Vect}_{{\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}} \\
{\mathcal}{K} &\mapsto H^*(\operatorname{Gr}_{{\mathcal}{G}, \bar{k}}, {\mathcal}{K})\end{aligned}$$ This fiber functor induces an equivalence $$\operatorname{Sat}^{{\mathrm}{geom}}_{{\mathcal}{G}} \xrightarrow{\sim} \operatorname{Rep}({\mathcal}{G}^\vee)$$ where we write ${\mathcal}{G}^\vee$ for the (split form over ${\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}$ of the) dual group of ${\mathcal}{G}$. We need a version of $\operatorname{Sat}^{{\mathrm}{geom}}_{{\mathcal}{G}}$ over $k$ rather than $\bar{k}$. It is natural for us to deviate from [@yun:exceptional §4.1] and instead follow the suggestion of [@heinloth-ngo-yun:kloosterman Remark 2.9] and [@frenkel-gross:rigid §2]. Recall that the simple objects of $\operatorname{Sat}^{{\mathrm}{geom}}_{{\mathcal}{G}}$ are given by the intersection cohomology sheaves of the affine Schubert varieties $\operatorname{Gr}_{{\mathcal}{G}, \leq \lambda}$. For all dominant $\lambda \in X_{\bullet}(T)$, we write $$j_{\lambda} \colon \operatorname{Gr}_{{\mathcal}{G}, \lambda} {\hookrightarrow}\operatorname{Gr}_{{\mathcal}{G}}$$ for the inclusion of the $L^+ {\mathcal}{G}$-orbit containing $t^{\lambda}$. Then by definition the intersection cohomology sheaf of the closure $\operatorname{Gr}_{{\mathcal}{G}, \leq \lambda}$ of $\operatorname{Gr}_{{\mathcal}{G}, \lambda}$ is $$\operatorname{IC}_{\lambda}= j_{\lambda, !*} {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}[\langle 2 \rho, \lambda \rangle],$$ the shift reflecting that the dimension of $\operatorname{Gr}_{{\mathcal}{G}, \lambda}$ is $\langle 2 \rho, \lambda \rangle$. We will define $\operatorname{Sat}_{{\mathcal}{G}}$ to be the full subcategory of perverse sheaves on $\operatorname{Gr}_{{\mathcal}{G}}$ consisting of finite direct sums of arbitrary Tate twists $\operatorname{IC}_{\lambda}(m)$, for all $\lambda \in X_{\bullet}(T)^+$ and $m \in {\mathbb{Z}}$. Note that, in contrast to [@yun:exceptional §4.1], we do not normalize the weights of the $\operatorname{IC}_{\lambda}$’s to be zero: this bookkeeping device frees us from having to choose a square root of the cyclotomic character;[^12] and it ensures that the local systems we eventually construct will specialize (at points of $X^0(K)$, for $K/{\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}$ finite) to de Rham Galois representations. Adapting the argument of [@yun:exceptional §4.1] to our normalization, a result of Arkhipov-Bezrukavnikov ([@arkhipov-bezrukavnikov:pervonflag §3]) implies that $\operatorname{Sat}_{{\mathcal}{G}}$ is closed under convolution: to be precise, we have $$\operatorname{IC}_{\lambda} \ast \operatorname{IC}_{\mu} \cong \oplus_{\nu} \operatorname{IC}_{\nu}(\langle \nu- \lambda- \mu, \rho \rangle).$$ Note that $\langle \nu- \lambda-\mu, \rho \rangle$ is an integer, since only $\nu$ for which there is an inclusion of highest weight representations $V_{\nu} {\hookrightarrow}V_{\mu} \otimes V_{\lambda}$, and in particular for which $\lambda+\mu-\nu$ lies in the root lattice, will appear on the right-hand side. We would like to combine the tensor functor $$H^*_{\bar{k}} \colon \operatorname{Sat}_{{\mathcal}{G}} \to \operatorname{Sat}^{{\mathrm}{geom}}_{{\mathcal}{G}} \xrightarrow{H^*} \operatorname{Rep}({\mathcal}{G}^\vee)$$ with a mechanism for keeping track of the weight/Tate twist. One way to do this is to replace $\operatorname{Sat}_{{\mathcal}{G}}$ by a skeleton whose objects are precisely the direct sums of the various $\operatorname{IC}_{\lambda}(n)$ (the skeleton can be equipped with a suitable tensor structure making these equivalent as tensor categories), and then to define a fully faithful tensor functor $$H^*_w \colon \operatorname{Sat}_{{\mathcal}{G}} \to \operatorname{Rep}({\mathcal}{G}^\vee \times \mathbb{G}_m)$$ by additively extending the assignment on simple objects $$\operatorname{IC}_{\lambda}(n) \mapsto H^*_{\bar{k}}(\operatorname{IC}_{\lambda}(n)) \boxtimes \left( z \mapsto z^{\langle 2\rho, \lambda \rangle- 2n} \right).$$ Composing with the canonical fiber functor $\omega$ of $\operatorname{Rep}({\mathcal}{G}^\vee \times \mathbb{G}_m)$, this yields a surjective homomorphism ${\mathcal}{G}^\vee \times \mathbb{G}_m \to \operatorname{Aut}^{\otimes}(\omega \circ H^*_w)$ whose kernel $$\{(g, z) \in {\mathcal}{G}^\vee \times \mathbb{G}_m: \text{for all dominant $\lambda \in X_{\bullet}(T)$ and all $n \in {\mathbb{Z}}$, $g$ acts on $V_{\lambda}$ by $z^{2n- \langle 2\rho, \lambda \rangle}$} \}$$ is clearly equal to the subgroup $\langle (2\rho(-1), -1) \rangle \subset {\mathcal}{G}^\vee \times \mathbb{G}_m$. That is, we have a tensor-equivalence $\operatorname{Sat}_{{\mathcal}{G}} \xrightarrow{\sim} \operatorname{Rep}({\mathcal}{G}_1^\vee)$, where we define (following [@frenkel-gross:rigid]) $$\label{G1}
{\mathcal}{G}_1^\vee = ({\mathcal}{G}^\vee \times \mathbb{G}_m)/ \langle (2\rho(-1), -1)\rangle.$$ Note that If ${\mathcal}{G}$ is simply-connected, then ${\mathcal}{G}_1^\vee$ is isomorphic to $G^\vee \times \mathbb{G}_m$, since $2\rho(-1)=1$.
Geometric Hecke operators
-------------------------
We briefly recall the definition of geometric Hecke operators in our context, as well as the notion of Hecke eigensheaf. Recall that the Hecke stack ${\widetilde{\mathrm{Hk}}}$ associated to ${\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}$ is the category of tuples $(R, x, {\mathcal}{P}, {\mathcal}{P}', \iota)$ where:
- $R$ is a $k$-algebra;
- $x \in X^0(R)$;
- ${\mathcal}{P}$ and ${\mathcal}{P}'$ are objects of ${\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}(R)$;
- $\iota$ is an isomorphism of ${\mathcal}{P}$ and ${\mathcal}{P}'$ away from the graph of $x$.
Projecting such data to $(R, x, {\mathcal}{P})$ (the map ${\overleftarrow{h}}$) or $(R, x, {\mathcal}{P}')$ (the map ${\overrightarrow{h}}$) gives a correspondence diagram $$\xymatrix{
& {\widetilde{\mathrm{Hk}}}\ar[dl]_{\overleftarrow{h}} \ar[dr]^{\overrightarrow{h}} & \\
{\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}\times X^0 & & {\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}\times X^0 \\
}$$ As explained in [@yun:exceptional §4.1.3] (using the fact that–see [@heinloth-ngo-yun:kloosterman Remark 4.1]–${\overrightarrow{h}}$ and ${\overleftarrow{h}}$ are locally trivial fibrations in the smooth topology, with fibers isomorphic to $\operatorname{Gr}_{{\widetilde{G}}}$), or slightly differently in [@yun:iccmsurvey 4.3.1], for each ${\mathcal}{K} \in \operatorname{Sat}_{{\widetilde{G}}}$ there is an object ${\mathcal}{K}_{{\widetilde{\mathrm{Hk}}}} \in D^b({\widetilde{\mathrm{Hk}}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}})$ whose restriction to each geometric fiber of ${\overrightarrow{h}}$ is isomorphic to ${\mathcal}{K}$. As usual, the (universal) geometric Hecke operator is the functor $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{T} \colon \operatorname{Sat}_{{\widetilde{G}}} \times D^b({\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}\times X^0) &\to D^b({\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}\times X^0) \\
({\mathcal}{K}, {\mathcal}{F}) &\mapsto {\overrightarrow{h}}_! \left( {\overleftarrow{h}}^* ({\mathcal}{F}) \otimes_{{\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}} {\mathcal}{K}_{{\widetilde{\mathrm{Hk}}}} \right)\end{aligned}$$ The induced functor $$\operatorname{Sat}_{{\widetilde{G}}} \to \operatorname{End}(D^b({\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}\times X^0))$$ is monoidal. When the input from $D^b({\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}\times X^0)$ is of the form ${\mathcal}{F} \boxtimes {\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell}$ for some ${\mathcal}{F} \in D^b({\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}})$, we write $$\mathbb{T}_{{\mathcal}{K}}({\mathcal}{F})= \mathbb{T}({\mathcal}{K}, {\mathcal}{F} \boxtimes {\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell})$$ Finally, recall the definition of a Hecke eigensheaf:
\[eigensheafdefn\] Let ${\mathcal}{F}$ be an object of $D^b({\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}})$. We say that ${\mathcal}{F}$ is a Hecke eigensheaf if there exists
- a tensor functor ${\widetilde{\mathcal{E}}}\colon \operatorname{Sat}_{{\widetilde{G}}} \to \operatorname{Loc}(X^0)$;
- a system of isomorphisms $\epsilon_{{\mathcal}{K}}$ for all ${\mathcal}{K} \in \operatorname{Sat}_{{\widetilde{G}}}$ $$\epsilon_{{\mathcal}{K}} \colon \mathbb{T}_{{\mathcal}{K}}({\mathcal}{F}) \xrightarrow{\sim} {\mathcal}{F} \boxtimes {\widetilde{\mathcal{E}}}({\mathcal}{K})$$ satisfying compatibility conditions that will not concern us (see [@gaitsgory:dejongconjecture following Proposition 2.8]).
In this case we call ${\widetilde{\mathcal{E}}}$ the eigen-local system of ${\mathcal}{F}$.
Proof of the eigensheaf property
--------------------------------
Recall that we have fixed a point $u_0 \colon \operatorname{Spec}k \to U$. We also write $u_0$ for the induced maps $\operatorname{Spec}k \to [{{}^{(2)}K}_0 {\backslash}U] \subset {\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}^0 \subset {\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}$. For all $\gamma \in \Omega_1$, we can compose with $\mathbb{T}_{\gamma}$ to obtain $$u_{\gamma} \colon \operatorname{Spec}k \to {\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}^{\gamma}.$$ From Corollary \[sheaftheory\], we obtain equivalences $$(u_{\gamma} \times \operatorname{id})^* \colon D^b({\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}^{\gamma} \times X^0)_{{\mathrm}{odd}} \xrightarrow{\sim} D_{{}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}}(X^0)_{{\mathrm}{odd}},$$ where ${}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}$ acts trivially on $X^0$. The strategy for proving ${\mathcal}{A}_{\chi}$ is an eigensheaf ($\chi$ as in equation \[chi\]) is to show that for all $\gamma \in \Omega_1$ and all ${\mathcal}{K} \in \operatorname{Sat}_{{\widetilde{G}}}$, $(u_{\gamma} \times \operatorname{id})^* \mathbb{T}_{{\mathcal}{K}}({\mathcal}{A}_{\chi})$ is concentrated in a single perverse degree. Such sheaves ${\mathcal}{A}_{\chi}$ can then be explicitly described via Corollary \[sheaftheory\] and an analogue of [@yun:exceptional Lemma 3.4]. In preparation for this computation, note that the $\mathbb{T}_{\gamma, !}$ and $\mathbb{T}_{\gamma}^*$ commute with the $\mathbb{T}_{{\mathcal}{K}}$: informally this is the statement that ‘Hecke operators at different places commute’; more formally, the stack ${\widetilde{\mathrm{Hk}}}$ carries an $\Omega_1$-action compatible with its two projections ${\overleftarrow{h}}$ and ${\overrightarrow{h}}$. Furthermore, the spread-out sheaves ${\mathcal}{K}_{{\widetilde{\mathrm{Hk}}}}$ (for all ${\mathcal}{K} \in \operatorname{Sat}_{{\widetilde{G}}}$) are $\Omega_1$-equivariant, so we find $$\begin{aligned}
(u_{\gamma} \times \operatorname{id})^* \mathbb{T}_{{\mathcal}{K}}({\mathcal}{A}_{\chi}) &\cong (u_0 \times \operatorname{id})^*(\mathbb{T}_{\gamma} \times \operatorname{id})^* \mathbb{T}_{{\mathcal}{K}}({\mathcal}{A}_{\chi}) \\
&\cong (u_0 \times \operatorname{id})^* \mathbb{T}_{{\mathcal}{K}}(\mathbb{T}_{\gamma}^* {\mathcal}{A}_{\chi}) \cong (u_0 \times \operatorname{id})^* \mathbb{T}_{{\mathcal}{K}}({\mathcal}{A}_{\chi}).\end{aligned}$$ Now consider the following diagram, where declaring the squares cartesian defines the new objects ${\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}$ and ${\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}^U_{\gamma}$: $$\label{maindiagram}
\xymatrix{
& {\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}^U_{\gamma} \ar[ld]_{\omega^U_{\gamma}} \ar[r]^{j_{\gamma}} & {\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}\ar[ld]^{\omega} \ar[r] \ar[d]^{\pi} & {\widetilde{\mathrm{Hk}}}\ar[d]^{{\overrightarrow{h}}} \\
[{{}^{(2)}K}_0 {\backslash}U] \ar[r]^-{j_{\gamma}} & {\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}& X^0 \ar[r]^-{u_0 \times \operatorname{id}} & {\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}\times X^0.
}$$ Here $\omega$ is the remaining projection corresponding to ${\overleftarrow{h}}$ on ${\widetilde{\mathrm{Hk}}}$. Note that ${\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}$ is the analogue of the Beilinson-Drinfeld Grassmannian in this context.[^13] Let us also denote by $$\pi^U_{\gamma} \colon {\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}^U_{\gamma} \to X^0$$ the composite $\pi \circ j_{\gamma}$. Repeated application of proper base-change yields $$\label{basechange}
(u_0 \times \operatorname{id})^* \mathbb{T}_{{\mathcal}{K}}(j_{\gamma, !} {\mathcal}{F}_{\chi})= (u_0 \times \operatorname{id})^* {\overrightarrow{h}}_! \left( {\overleftarrow{h}}^*(j_{\gamma, !} {\mathcal}{F}_\chi) \otimes {\mathcal}{K}_{{\widetilde{\mathrm{Hk}}}} \right) \cong \pi^U_{\gamma, !} \left( \omega_{\gamma}^{U, *}({\mathcal}{F}_{\chi}) \otimes {\mathcal}{K}_{{\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}} \right),$$ where ${\mathcal}{K}_{{\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}}$ denote the pull-back of ${\mathcal}{K}_{{\widetilde{\mathrm{Hk}}}}$ to ${\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}$. ${\mathcal}{K}_{{\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}}[1]$ is perverse (recall the fibers of ${\mathcal}{K}_{{\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}}$ at $x \in X^0$ are copies of ${\mathcal}{K}$), and ${\mathcal}{F}_{\chi}$ is a local system (in cohomological degree zero), so $\omega_{\gamma}^{U, *}({\mathcal}{F}_{\chi}) \otimes {\mathcal}{K}_{{\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}}[1]$ is perverse. Our immediate aim is to show that each $(u_0 \times \operatorname{id})^* \mathbb{T}_{{\mathcal}{K}}(j_{\gamma, !} {\mathcal}{F}_{\chi})[1]$ is a perverse sheaf on $X^0$. Any object ${\mathcal}{K}$ of $\operatorname{Sat}_{{\widetilde{G}}}$ is a direct sum of simple objects, so we may assume ${\mathcal}{K}$ is simple and therefore supported on some $\operatorname{Gr}_{{\widetilde{G}}, \leq \lambda}$, $\lambda \in X_{\bullet}({\widetilde{T}})$. The corresponding ${\mathcal}{K}_{{\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}}$ is then supported on a corresponding sub-stack ${\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}_{\leq \lambda}$, which pulls back in diagram (\[maindiagram\]) to a substack ${\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}^U_{\gamma, \leq \lambda}$ of ${\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}^U_{\gamma}$.
We now come to the crucial geometric lemma. We note that Yun has found (see [@yun:CDM Lemma 4.4.7]) an argument that applies much more generally; the following, an elaboration of [@yun:exceptional Lemma 4.8] will suffice for us.
\[affine\] For all $\gamma \in \Omega_1$, $\pi^U_{\gamma} \colon {\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}^U_{\gamma, \leq \lambda} \to X^0$ is affine.
Since $[{{}^{(2)}K}_0 {\backslash}U] \subset [{{}^{(2)}K}_0 {\backslash}fl_G]$ is affine, we may replace ${\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}^U_{\gamma, \leq \lambda}$ with the preimage of $$[{{}^{(2)}K}_0 {\backslash}fl_G] \xrightarrow{j_{\gamma}} {\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}^{\gamma}.$$ Let us call this ${\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}^{fl}_{\gamma, \leq \lambda}$. By construction as the preimage of $\mathbb{B}(K_0) \subset \operatorname{Bun}_{{\widetilde{G}}}({\widetilde{\mathbf{P}}_0(1)}, {\widetilde{\mathbf{P}}_{\infty}})$ (under the morphism (\[projection\]) below), and using [@yun:exceptional Lemma 3.1], ${\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}^{fl}_{\gamma}$ (respectively ${\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}^{fl}_{\gamma, \leq \lambda}$) is the non-vanishing locus of a non-zero section $s$ of a line bundle ${\mathcal}{L}$ on ${\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}_{\gamma}$ (respectively ${\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}_{\gamma, \leq \lambda}$). It suffices to show the line bundle in question is ample. By [@lazarsfeld:positivity1 Proposition 1.7.8], this can be checked on geometric fibers, since the morphism ${\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}_{\gamma, \leq \lambda} \to X^0$ is proper. Thus let $x \colon \operatorname{Spec}K \to X^0$ be a geometric point of $X^0$, and consider the section $x^*s$ of $x^*{\mathcal}{L}$. The fiber ${\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}_{\gamma, \leq \lambda,x}$ is isomorphic to the $\gamma$-component, truncated by $\lambda$ of the affine Grassmannian $\operatorname{Gr}_{{\widetilde{G}}}$; we denote this by $\operatorname{Gr}^{\gamma}_{{\widetilde{G}}, \leq \lambda}$. We claim that $x^* {\mathcal}{L}$ is ample on $\operatorname{Gr}^{\gamma}_{{\widetilde{G}}}$, so in particular its restriction to the closed sub-scheme $\operatorname{Gr}^{\gamma}_{{\widetilde{G}}, \leq \lambda}$ is ample. This claim results from the following two assertions:
- $\operatorname{Pic}(\operatorname{Gr}_{{\widetilde{G}}}^{\gamma}) \cong {\mathbb{Z}}$;
- $x^*s$ is a non-zero global section of $x^* {\mathcal}{L}$ (which by the previous item must then be ample).
The first item follows from [@faltings:algloop Corollary 12]. To be precise, that result shows that $\operatorname{Pic}(\operatorname{Gr}_G) \cong {\mathbb{Z}}$ (for $G$ our simply-connected group), but the same then follows for each connected component of $\operatorname{Gr}_{{\widetilde{G}}}$.[^14] For the second item, recall that the pair $({\mathcal}{L}, s)$ is the pull-back along the composite $$\label{projection}
{\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}_{\gamma} \to {\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}^{\gamma} \xrightarrow[\sim]{\mathbb{T}_{\gamma}^{-1}} {\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}^0 \to \operatorname{Bun}_{{\widetilde{G}}}({\widetilde{\mathbf{P}}_0(1)}, {\widetilde{\mathbf{P}}_{\infty}})^0 \xleftarrow{\sim}\operatorname{Bun}_{G}({\mathbf}{P}_0, {\mathbf}{P}_{\infty}),$$ where the original section is non-vanishing on the locus $\mathbb{B}K_0 \subset \operatorname{Bun}_G({\mathbf}{P}_0, {\mathbf}{P}_{\infty})$ corresponding to the tautological object. It suffices then to show that the geometric fibers of ${\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}_{\gamma}$ over $\mathbb{B}K_0 \times X^0$ are non-empty. To see this, note that ${\widetilde{\mathrm{Hk}}}\to {\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}\times X^0$ has geometric fibers isomorphic to $\operatorname{Gr}_{{\widetilde{G}}}$. Choosing an element ${\mathcal}{P}$ of the fiber over $({\mathcal}{P}_{u_0}, x)$ that lies in the $\gamma$ component of $\operatorname{Gr}_{{\widetilde{G}}}$, we are done: the isomorphism $\iota \colon {\mathcal}{P}|_{X-\{x\}} \xrightarrow{\sim} {\mathcal}{P}_{u_0}|_{X-\{x\}}$ automatically implies that ${\mathcal}{P}$ projects to an object isomorphic to the tautological object of $\operatorname{Bun}_G({\mathbf}{P}_0, {\mathbf}{P}_{\infty})$. With Lemma \[affine\] in hand, we can prove the main result of this section:
\[eigensheaf\] For all odd characters $\chi \colon Z({}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}) \to {\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell}^\times$, ${\mathcal}{A}_{\chi}$ is a Hecke eigensheaf.
Since $\omega_{\gamma}^{U, *}({\mathcal}{F}_{\chi}) \otimes {\mathcal}{K}_{{\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}}[1]$ is perverse, and $\pi^U_{\gamma}$ is affine, $$(u_0 \times \operatorname{id})^* \mathbb{T}_{{\mathcal}{K}}(j_{\gamma, !} {\mathcal}{F}_{\chi}) \cong \pi^U_{\gamma, !}\left(\omega_{\gamma}^{U, *}({\mathcal}{F}_{\chi}) \otimes {\mathcal}{K}_{{\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}} \right) \in {}^p D^{\geq 1}(X^0).$$ But by Corollary \[sheaftheory\], this is also $$\label{semiperverse}
(u_0 \times \operatorname{id})^* \mathbb{T}_{{\mathcal}{K}}(j_{\gamma, *} {\mathcal}{F}_{\chi}) \cong \pi_! \left(\omega^* j_{\gamma, *}({\mathcal}{F}_{\chi}) \otimes {\mathcal}{K}_{{\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}} \right).$$ There is a natural isomorphism $\omega^* \circ j_{\gamma, *} \xrightarrow{\sim} j_{\gamma, *} \circ \omega^{U, *}_{\gamma}$: as in the proof of [@yun:exceptional Proposition 4.7], this follows from the fact that ${\overleftarrow{h}}$ is a locally trivial fibration in the smooth topology. Thus, identifying $\pi_!= \pi_*$ on the support of ${\mathcal}{K}_{{\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}}$ ($\pi \colon {\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}_{\leq \lambda} \to X^0$ is proper), and using the projection formula and the Leray spectral sequence, we can carry on the identification \[semiperverse\] as $$\label{dualsemiperverse}
(u_0 \times \operatorname{id})^* \mathbb{T}_{{\mathcal}{K}}(j_{\gamma, !} {\mathcal}{F}_{\chi}) \cong \pi_* \left( (j_{\gamma, *} \omega^{U, *}_{\gamma} {\mathcal}{F}_{\chi}) \otimes {\mathcal}{K}_{{\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}} \right) \cong \pi^U_{\gamma, *} \left( \omega^{U, *}_{\gamma} {\mathcal}{F}_{\chi} \otimes {\mathcal}{K}_{{\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}} \right).$$ (This is just the obvious variant of [@yun:exceptional 4.19].) Since $\pi^U_{\gamma}$ is affine, we can dually conclude that $$(u_0 \times \operatorname{id})^* \mathbb{T}_{{\mathcal}{K}}(j_{\gamma, !} {\mathcal}{F}_{\chi}) \in {}^p D^{\leq 1}(X^0),$$ hence that $(u_0 \times \operatorname{id})^* \mathbb{T}_{{\mathcal}{K}}(j_{\gamma, !} {\mathcal}{F}_{\chi})[1]$ is perverse. Consequently, $(u_0 \times \operatorname{id})^* \mathbb{T}_{{\mathcal}{K}}({\mathcal}{A}_{\chi})[1]$ is perverse.
Now, for each component ${\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}^{\gamma}$ of ${\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}$, we apply [@yun:exceptional Lemma 3.4] to $(u_{\gamma} \times \operatorname{id})^* \mathbb{T}_{{\mathcal}{K}}({\mathcal}{A}_{\chi})$ to conclude $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{T}_{{\mathcal}{K}}({\mathcal}{A}_{\chi})|_{{\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}^{\gamma} \times X^0} &\cong \bigoplus_{\substack{\psi \colon Z({}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}) \to {\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell}^\times:\\ \text{$\psi$ is odd}}} (j_{\gamma, !} {\mathcal}{F}_{\psi}) \boxtimes \left(V_{\psi}^* \otimes (u_{\gamma} \times \operatorname{id})^* \mathbb{T}_{{\mathcal}{K}}({\mathcal}{A}_{\chi})_{\psi}\right)^{{}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}} \\
&= (j_{\gamma, !} {\mathcal}{F}_{\chi}) \boxtimes \left(V_{\chi}^* \otimes (u_{\gamma} \times \operatorname{id})^* \mathbb{T}_{{\mathcal}{K}}({\mathcal}{A}_{\chi})\right)^{{}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}},\end{aligned}$$ where for the second equality we use the fact that the Hecke operators $\mathbb{T}_{{\mathcal}{K}}$ carries the sub-category $D^b({\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}})_{\psi}$ to $D^b({\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}\times X^0)_{\psi}$ for any $\psi \colon {}^{(2)}Z_G \to {\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell}^\times$ (recall from Lemma \[grouptheory\] that $Z({}^{(2)}\mathrm{A})$ is equal to the double cover ${}^{(2)}Z_G \to Z_G$ of $Z_G= Z_G[2]$).
We have already observed that $(u_{\gamma} \times \operatorname{id})^* \mathbb{T}_{{\mathcal}{K}}({\mathcal}{A}_{\chi}) \cong (u_0 \times \operatorname{id})^* \mathbb{T}_{{\mathcal}{K}}({\mathcal}{A}_{\chi})$ is independent of $\gamma$; we conclude that $$\mathbb{T}_{{\mathcal}{K}}({\mathcal}{A}_{\chi}) \cong {\mathcal}{A}_{\chi} \boxtimes \left( V_{\chi}^* \otimes (u_0 \times \operatorname{id})^* \mathbb{T}_{{\mathcal}{K}}({\mathcal}{A}_{\chi}) \right)^{{}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}},$$ and we claim that ${\mathcal}{A}_{\chi}$ is a Hecke eigensheaf with ‘eigenvalue’ $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{{\mathcal}{E}}_{\chi} \colon \operatorname{Sat}_{{\widetilde{G}}} &\to \operatorname{Loc}(X^0) \\
{\mathcal}{K}&\mapsto \left( V_{\chi}^* \otimes (u_0 \times \operatorname{id})^* \mathbb{T}_{{\mathcal}{K}}({\mathcal}{A}_{\chi}) \right)^{{}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}}.\end{aligned}$$ That is, what remains to show is that ${\widetilde{\mathcal{E}}}_{\chi}({\mathcal}{K})$ is in fact a local system, and that ${\widetilde{\mathcal{E}}}_{\chi}$ is a tensor functor satisfying the conditions of Definition \[eigensheafdefn\]. This follows (by the monoidal property of the Hecke operators) by the same argument as [@heinloth-ngo-yun:kloosterman §4.2], since we have seen that $\left( V_{\chi}^* \otimes (u_0 \times \operatorname{id})^* \mathbb{T}_{{\mathcal}{K}}({\mathcal}{A}_{\chi}) \right)^{{}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}}$ lies in perverse degree one. To summarize:
\[locsyslift\] Assume $k$ is as in Definition \[Vchi\]. For every odd character $\chi \colon Z({}^{(2)}\mathrm{A})(\bar{k}) \to {\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell}^\times$, the object ${\mathcal}{A}_{\chi}$ of $D^b({\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}})_{{\mathrm}{odd}}$ given by ${\mathcal}{A}_{\chi}|_{{\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}^{\gamma}}= j_{\gamma, !}({\mathcal}{F}_{\chi})$ is a Hecke eigensheaf with eigen local system $$\widetilde{{\mathcal}{E}}_{\chi} \colon \operatorname{Sat}_{{\widetilde{G}}} \to \operatorname{Loc}(X^0, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}'),$$ giving rise by the Tannakian formalism to a monodromy representation (recall the notation from equation \[G1\]) $$\tilde{\rho}_{\chi} \colon \pi_1(X^0) \to {\widetilde{G}}^\vee_1({\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}').$$ The restriction of $\widetilde{{\mathcal}{E}}_{\chi}$ to the full subcategory $\operatorname{Sat}_G \subset \operatorname{Sat}_{{\widetilde{G}}}$ is naturally isomorphic to the eigen local system (there denoted ${\mathcal}{E}'_{\chi}$) of [@yun:exceptional Theorem 4.2].
Moreover, if ${\mathcal}{K}= \operatorname{IC}_{\lambda}(m)$ is simple, then ${\widetilde{\mathcal{E}}}_{\chi}({\mathcal}{K})$ is pure of weight $\langle 2 \rho, \lambda \rangle-2m$.
We have established everything except the purity claim, which follows from the argument of Theorem \[eigensheaf\]. Namely, equations (\[semiperverse\]) and (\[dualsemiperverse\]) imply that ${\widetilde{\mathcal{E}}}_{\chi}({\mathcal}{K})$ is mixed of weights $\leq$ and $\geq$ $\langle 2\rho, \lambda, \rangle - 2m$ (by [@deligne:weil2]). Consequently, we have a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
& {\widetilde{G}}^\vee_1({\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}') \ar[d] \\
\pi_1(X^0) \ar[ur]^{\tilde{\rho}_{\chi}} \ar[r]^{\rho_{\chi}} & G^\vee_1({\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}'),
}$$ where $\rho_{\chi}$ is (of course these monodromy representations are only well-defined up to ${\widetilde{G}}^\vee$, respectively $G^\vee$, conjugation) Yun’s local system.
The motives
===========
Having established the Hecke eigensheaf property, we can now describe the local systems ${\widetilde{\mathcal{E}}}_{\chi}({\mathcal}{K})$ for all ${\mathcal}{K} \in \operatorname{Sat}_{{\widetilde{G}}}$. We continue to assume $k$ is as in Definition \[Vchi\]; in particular, the $k$-group scheme $Z({}^{(2)}\mathrm{A})$ is discrete. Let us fix a dominant weight $\lambda \in X^\bullet({\widetilde{T}}^\vee)= X_{\bullet}({\widetilde{T}})$, and restrict to the case of ${\mathcal}{K}= \operatorname{IC}_{\lambda}$. In this case the sheaf ${\mathcal}{K}_{{\widetilde{\mathrm{Hk}}}}$ is supported on a sub-stack ${\widetilde{\mathrm{Hk}}}_{\leq \lambda}$, and the sheaf $${\overleftarrow{h}}^*({\mathcal}{A}_{\chi}^0) \otimes {\mathcal}{K}_{{\widetilde{\mathrm{Hk}}}}$$ is supported on the locus of $({\mathcal}{P}, {\mathcal}{P}', x, \iota)$ where ${\mathcal}{P} \in {\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}^0$ and ${\mathcal}{P}$ and ${\mathcal}{P}'$ are in relative position $\leq \lambda$, i.e. $\operatorname{ev}({\mathcal}{P}, {\mathcal}{P}', \iota, x)$ lies in the $\leq \lambda$ strata of $\left[ (L^+ {\widetilde{G}}{\backslash}L {\widetilde{G}}/ L^+ {\widetilde{G}})/\operatorname{Aut}_{{\mathcal}{O}} \right]$. This forces ${\mathcal}{P}'$ to lie in the component ${\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}^{\nu \circ \lambda}$, where recall $\nu \colon {\widetilde{G}}\to S$ is the multiplier character. It follows that to compute $\mathbb{T}_{{\mathcal}{K}}({\mathcal}{A}_{\chi}^0)$ we can restrict ${\overleftarrow{h}}\colon {\widetilde{\mathrm{Hk}}}_{\leq \lambda} \to {\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}$ to the preimage of ${\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}^0$, and thus consider instead the correspondence diagram $$\xymatrix{
& {\widetilde{\mathrm{Hk}}}_{\leq \lambda}|_{{\overleftarrow{h}}^{-1}({\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}^0)} \ar[ld]_{{\overleftarrow{h}}} \ar[dr]^{{\overrightarrow{h}}} & \\
{\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}^0 & & {\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}^{\nu \circ \lambda} \times X^0.
}$$ In terms of this diagram, we find $$\label{eigencomp}
\mathbb{T}_{{\mathcal}{K}}({\mathcal}{A}_{\chi}^0) \xrightarrow{\sim} {\mathcal}{A}_{\chi}^{\nu \circ \lambda} \boxtimes {\widetilde{\mathcal{E}}}_{\chi}({\mathcal}{K}).$$ Recall we are trying to describe ${\widetilde{\mathcal{E}}}_{\chi}({\mathcal}{K})$. The argument is that of [@yun:exceptional Lemma 4.3], except we have to keep track of the different connected components. Pulling back equation (\[eigencomp\]) by $(u_{\nu \circ \lambda} \times \operatorname{id})$, we obtain, just as in equations (\[maindiagram\]) and (\[basechange\]), a diagram with Cartesian squares $$\label{maindiagrambis}
\xymatrix{
& \widetilde{{\mathfrak}{G}}^U_{\leq \lambda} \ar[ld] \ar[r]^{\upsilon_0} & {\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}^U_{u_{\nu \circ \lambda}, \leq \lambda} \ar[ld]_-{\omega^U_{u_{\nu \circ \lambda}}} \ar[r] & {\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}_{u_{\nu \circ \lambda}, \leq \lambda} \ar[ld]_-{\omega_{u_{\nu \circ \lambda}}} \ar[r] \ar[d] & {\widetilde{\mathrm{Hk}}}_{\leq \lambda}|_{{\overleftarrow{h}}^{-1}({\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}^0)} \ar[d]^{{\overrightarrow{h}}} \\
\operatorname{Spec}k \ar[r]^{u_0} & [{{}^{(2)}K}_0 {\backslash}U] \ar[r] & {\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}^0 & X^0 \ar[r]^-{u_{\nu \circ \lambda} \times \operatorname{id}} & {\widetilde{\mathrm{Bun}}}^{\nu \circ \lambda} \times X^0;
}$$ and letting $\pi^U_{u_{\nu \circ \lambda}}$ denote the composite map ${\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}^U_{u_{\nu \circ \lambda}, \leq \lambda} \to X^0$, we obtain an identification $$\label{pulledback}
V_{\chi} \otimes {\widetilde{\mathcal{E}}}_{\chi}({\mathcal}{K}) \cong (u_{\nu \circ \lambda} \times \operatorname{id})^* \mathbb{T}_{{\mathcal}{K}}({\mathcal}{A}_{\chi}^0) \cong \pi^U_{u_{\nu \circ \lambda}, !} \left( \omega^{U, *}_{u_{\nu \circ \lambda}}({\mathcal}{F}_{\chi}) \otimes {\mathcal}{K}_{{\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}} \right).$$ (We will write ${\mathcal}{K}_{{\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}}$ for the pull-back of ${\mathcal}{K}_{{\widetilde{\mathrm{Hk}}}}$ to either of ${\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}_{u_{\nu \circ \lambda}, \leq \lambda}$ or ${\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}_{u_{\nu \circ \lambda}, \leq \lambda}^U$.) Also let $$\pi_{{\widetilde{\mathfrak{G}}^U_{\leq \lambda}}} \colon {\widetilde{\mathfrak{G}}^U_{\leq \lambda}}\to X^0$$ denote the corresponding projection. We now exploit the fact that $\widetilde{{\mathfrak}{G}}^U_{\leq \lambda}$ carries a ${}^{(2)}\mathrm{A} \times {}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}$-action: for clarity the first copy, acting via the pull-back on the ${\overleftarrow{h}}$ (or as here, $\omega_{u_{\nu \circ \lambda}}$) projection, will be denoted ${}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}(1)$, and the second copy, acting via pull-back on the ${\overrightarrow{h}}$ projection, will be denoted ${}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}(2)$. Decomposing the regular representation of ${}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}$, we obtain a ${}^{(2)} {\mathrm}{A}(1)$-equivariant isomorphism $$(\upsilon_{0, *} {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}')_{{\mathrm}{odd}} \cong \bigoplus_{\substack{\chi \colon Z({}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}) \to {\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell}^\times \\ \text{$\chi$ is odd}}} V_{\chi}^* \otimes \omega_{u_{\nu \circ \lambda}}^{U, *} {\mathcal}{F}_{\chi}.$$ Here ${}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}(1)$ acts on $V_{\chi}^*$. Since the isomorphism (\[pulledback\]) is ${}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}(2)$-equivariant (acting on $V_{\chi}$ on the left-hand side, and on the right-hand side since ${\mathcal}{K}_{{\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}}$ is the pull-back of ${\mathcal}{K}_{{\widetilde{\mathrm{Hk}}}}$), we obtain a ${}^{(2)}\mathrm{A} \times {}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}$-equivariant isomorphism $$\begin{aligned}
\left( \pi_{{\widetilde{\mathfrak{G}}^U_{\leq \lambda}}, !} \upsilon_0^* {\mathcal}{K}_{{\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}} \right)_{{\mathrm}{odd}} &\cong \left(\pi^U_{u_{\nu \circ \lambda}, !} \upsilon_{0, !}(\upsilon_0^* {\mathcal}{K}_{{\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}}) \right)_{{\mathrm}{odd}} \\
&\cong \bigoplus_{\substack{\chi \colon Z({}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}) \to {\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell}^\times \\ \text{$\chi$ is odd}}} V_{\chi}^* \otimes \pi^U_{u_{\nu \circ \lambda, !}} (\omega^{U, *}_{u_{\nu \circ \lambda}} {\mathcal}{F}_{\chi} \otimes {\mathcal}{K}_{{\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}} ) \cong \bigoplus_{\substack{\chi \colon Z({}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}) \to {\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell}^\times \\ \text{$\chi$ is odd}}} V_{\chi}^* \otimes V_{\chi} \otimes {\widetilde{\mathcal{E}}}_{\chi}({\mathcal}{K}).\end{aligned}$$ Writing ${\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}'[{}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}]_{\chi}$ for the ${}^{(2)}\mathrm{A} \times {}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}$-equivariant local system on $\operatorname{Spec}k$ corresponding to the representation $V_{\chi}^* \otimes V_{\chi}$ of the group $$\left({}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}(\bar{k}) \times {}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}(\bar{k})\right) \rtimes {\Gamma_{k}},\footnote{Equivalently, regarding ${\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}'[{}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}(\bar{k})]$ as ${}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}(\bar{k}) \times {}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}(\bar{k})$-module via $(a_1, a_2) \cdot a= a_1 a a_2^{-1}$, and extracting the constituent where $Z({}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}(2))$ acts by $\chi$.}$$ we summarize what we have shown (compare [@yun:exceptional Lemma 4.3]):
\[calceigen\] There is a canonical isomorphism of ${}^{(2)}\mathrm{A} \times {}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}$-equivariant local systems on $X^0$ $$\left( \pi_{{\widetilde{\mathfrak{G}}^U_{\leq \lambda}}, !} \upsilon_0^* {\mathcal}{K}_{{\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}} \right)_{{\mathrm}{odd}} \cong \bigoplus_{\substack{\chi \colon Z({}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}) \to {\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell}^\times \\ \text{$\chi$ is odd}}} {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}'[{}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}]_{\chi} \otimes {\widetilde{\mathcal{E}}}_{\chi}({\mathcal}{K}).$$ In particular, the left-hand side is a local system.
It is explained in [@yun:exceptional §3.3.4] how to take the invariants of an equivariant perverse sheaf under a (not necessarily discrete) finite group scheme. Applying this:
For all ${\mathcal}{K} \in \operatorname{Sat}_{{\widetilde{G}}}$ and all odd $\chi \colon Z({}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}) \to {\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell}^{\times}$, there is an isomorphism of local systems on $X^0$: $${\widetilde{\mathcal{E}}}_{\chi}({\mathcal}{K}) \cong \left({\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}'[{}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}]_{\chi}^* \otimes (\pi_{\widetilde{{\mathfrak}{G}}^U_{\leq \lambda}, !} \upsilon_0^* {\mathcal}{K}_{{\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}})_{{\mathrm}{odd}} \right)^{{}^{(2)}\mathrm{A} \times {}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}}.$$
The case of minuscule weights {#minuscule}
=============================
We now want to make this description of ${\widetilde{\mathcal{E}}}_{\chi}({\mathcal}{K})$ explicit. Our ultimate goal is the following:
\[motivated\] Let $k$ be ${\mathbb{Q}}$ or ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-1})$ according as $G$ is of type $D_{4n}, G_2, E_8$ or $A_1, D_{4n+2}, E_7$. Consider any odd $\chi \colon Z({}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}) \to {\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell}^\times$ and any ${\mathcal}{K} \in \operatorname{Sat}_{{\widetilde{G}}}$. Let $F$ be any number field containing $k$. Then for any point $t \in X^0(F)$, the specialization $$\tilde{\rho}_{\chi, {\mathcal}{K}, t} \colon \pi_1(\operatorname{Spec}F) \xrightarrow{t} \pi_1(X^0) \xrightarrow{\tilde{\rho}_{\chi}} {\widetilde{G}}^\vee_1({\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}') \to {\mathrm}{GL}\left(H^*_w ({\mathcal}{K})\right)$$ (the representation of ${\widetilde{G}}^\vee_1$ is that induced by ${\mathcal}{K}$ under the Satake isomorphism, as in §\[satake\]) is, as ${\Gamma_{F}}$-representation, isomorphic to the ${\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}'$-realization of an object of ${\mathcal}{M}_{F, {\mathbb{Q}}'}$.
The case of ${\mathcal}{K}$ corresponding to a quasi-minuscule weight is considered in [@yun:exceptional §4.3]. Although our discussion is valid for any ${\widetilde{G}}$ as in §\[setting\], there are certain cases in which it is uninteresting: for instance, if $G= {\mathrm}{SL}_2$, we gain nothing by taking ${\widetilde{G}}= {\mathrm}{SL}_2 \times \mathbb{G}_m$; however, by taking ${\widetilde{G}}= {\mathrm}{GL}_2$, we gain the representations of ${\mathrm}{SL}_2= G^\vee_{{\mathrm}{sc}}$ (the simply-connected cover of $G^\vee$), and it is these new representations that will be of interest, just as in the classical setting the Kuga-Satake abelian variety is found via the spin representation of ${\mathrm}{Spin}_{21}$, while the motive of the $K3$ arises from the standard 21-dimensional representation.
To show that $\tilde{\rho}_{\chi, {\mathcal}{K}, t}$ arises from an object of ${\mathcal}{M}_{F, {\mathbb{Q}}'}$ demands a significant digression into understanding intersection cohomology of varieties with arbitrarily bad singularities. A good first approximation to understanding the motivic nature of $\tilde{\rho}_{\chi, t} \colon {\Gamma_{F}} \to {\widetilde{G}}^\vee_1({\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}')$ is to verify this after composition with a single *faithful* finite-dimensional representation of ${\widetilde{G}}^\vee_1$ (i.e., to show $\tilde{\rho}_{\chi, t}$ is weakly motivic in the sense of Definition \[genKSdefn\]). That is what we will do in this section.
First, we make a robust choice of ${\widetilde{G}}$, such that ${\widetilde{G}}^\vee$ has representations restricting to each of the minuscule representations of $G^\vee_{{\mathrm}{sc}}$. For instance, we can take:
- ($A_1$) ${\widetilde{G}}= {\mathrm}{GL}_2$;
- ($E_7$) Let $c$ denote the non-trivial element of $Z_G= \mu_2$. Then take ${\widetilde{G}}= (G \times \mathbb{G}_m)/\langle (c, -1) \rangle$;
- ($D_n$, $n$ even) Let $c$ and $z$ be generators of $Z_G \cong \mu_2 \times \mu_2$. Then take $${\widetilde{G}}= (G \times \mathbb{G}_m \times \mathbb{G}_m)/\langle (c, -1, 1), (z, 1, -1) \rangle.$$
Each minuscule representation of $G^\vee_{{\mathrm}{sc}}$[^15] extends to an irreducible representation of ${\widetilde{G}}^\vee$, and then to an irreducible representation of ${\widetilde{G}}^\vee_1$. Taking a direct sum, we obtain a faithful family of representations $$\label{faithfulfamily}
r_{{\mathrm}{min}} \colon {\widetilde{G}}^\vee_1 \to {\mathrm}{GL}(V_{{\mathrm}{min}}),$$ and set ourselves the goal of showing that each $r_{{\mathrm}{min}} \circ \tilde{\rho}_{\chi, t}$ is motivated. The full force of Theorem \[motivated\] is considerably deeper (it is new even in Yun’s original setting), so in the present section we will only treat the case of these minuscule weights, which has the added advantage that the relevant geometry–of the corresponding affine Schubert varieties–is especially simple.
We begin, however, with some generalities: continue to let ${\mathcal}{K} \in \operatorname{Sat}_{{\widetilde{G}}}$ be any irreducible object of the form ${\mathcal}{K}= \operatorname{IC}_{\lambda}$, $\lambda \in X^\bullet({\widetilde{T}}^\vee)$ (the discussion will apply equally well to ${\mathcal}{K}$ of the form $\operatorname{IC}_{\lambda}(m)$, but we take $m=0$ to simplify the notation). What we denoted above by ${\mathcal}{K}_{{\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}}[1]$ is the intersection complex of ${\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}_{u_{\nu \circ \lambda}, \leq \lambda}^U$ (or the same before restricting to $U$). Since the map $$\upsilon_0 \colon \widetilde{{\mathfrak}{G}}^U_{\leq \lambda} \to {\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}_{u_{\nu \circ \lambda}, \leq \lambda}$$ is étale, $\upsilon_0^* {\mathcal}{K}_{{\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}}[1]$ is again the intersection complex of $\widetilde{{\mathfrak}{G}}^U_{\leq \lambda}$. Recall that the stratification of the affine Grassmannian induces one for the Beilinson-Drinfeld Grassmannian: $${\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}_{u_{\nu \circ \lambda}, \leq \lambda}= \coprod_{\substack{\mu \leq \lambda \\ \text{$\mu$ dominant}}} {\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}_{u_{\nu \circ \lambda}, \mu}.$$ The terms on the right-hand side are defined by replacing ${\widetilde{\mathrm{Hk}}}_{\leq \lambda}$ by ${\widetilde{\mathrm{Hk}}}_{\mu}$ in diagram (\[maindiagrambis\]). Note that $\nu \circ \mu= \nu \circ \lambda$ since $\lambda- \mu \in X_\bullet(T)$ lies in the co-root lattice of $G$. The dense open locus ${\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}_{u_{\nu \circ \lambda}, \lambda}$ is smooth over $X^0$: fiber-wise it is the smooth stratum $\operatorname{Gr}_{{\widetilde{G}}, \lambda}$ of $\operatorname{Gr}_{{\widetilde{G}}, \leq \lambda}$. We write $\widetilde{{\mathfrak}{G}}^U_{\lambda}$ and $\widetilde{{\mathfrak}{G}}^U_{< \lambda}$ for the preimages in $\widetilde{{\mathfrak}{G}}^U_{\leq \lambda}$ of ${\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}_{u_{\nu \circ \lambda}, \lambda}$ and $\coprod_{\mu < \lambda} {\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}_{u_{\nu \circ \lambda}, \mu}$.
Taking the $t$-fiber ($t \in X^0(F)$) of the isomorphism in Lemma \[calceigen\], we obtain a (quasi-)isomorphism $$\label{IHc}
\operatorname{IH}_c(\widetilde{{\mathfrak}{G}}^U_{\leq \lambda, t})_{{\mathrm}{odd}} \cong \bigoplus_{\text{$\chi$ odd}} {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}'[{}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}]_{\chi} \otimes \tilde{\rho}_{\chi, {\mathcal}{K}, t}.$$ Let us explain the notation. For any irreducible variety $Y$ over a field $F$, the intersection complex $\operatorname{IC}_Y$ is a perverse sheaf in cohomological degrees $[-\dim Y, 0]$. It is pure of weight $\dim Y$. We denote by $\operatorname{IH}_c(Y)$ the complex $R\Gamma_c(\operatorname{IC}_Y)$ on $\operatorname{Spec}F$: it lies in cohomological degrees $[-\dim Y, \dim Y]$, and is pure of weights $\leq \dim Y$. As usual, we then define the compactly-supported intersection cohomology $\operatorname{IH}_c^i(Y_{\overline{F}})$ (a ${\Gamma_{F}}$-representation) as $H^{i-\dim Y}(\operatorname{IH}_c(Y))$ (note the degree shift). We also observe that while (compactly-supported) intersection cohomology is not in general functorial for (proper) morphisms of varieties, it is for (proper) étale morphisms: $\operatorname{IC}_{\widetilde{{\mathfrak}{G}}^U_{\leq \lambda, t}}$ is still ${}^{(2)}\mathrm{A} \times {}^{(2)} A$-equivariant, as is the isomorphism (\[IHc\]). Now as in [@yun:exceptional §4.3.2], we let $e_{\chi} \in {\mathbb{Q}}'[{}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}(\bar{k}) \times {}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}(\bar{k})]^{{\Gamma_{k}}}$ be the idempotent whose action on the ${}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}(\bar{k})\times {}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}(\bar{k})$-module ${\mathbb{Q}}'[{}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}(\bar{k})]$ projects to the component ${\mathbb{Q}}'[{}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}]_{\chi}$ and then onto the line spanned by $\operatorname{id}\in \operatorname{End}(V_{\chi})$ (a direct factor of the representation ${\mathbb{Q}}'[{}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}]_{\chi}$ after restricting to the diagonal copy ${}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}(\bar{k}) {\hookrightarrow}{}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}(\bar{k}) \times {}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}(\bar{k})$). Explicitly, $$e_{\chi}= \frac{1}{|{}^{(2)} A(\bar{k}) \times {}^{(2)} A(\bar{k})|} \sum_{(a_1, a_2)} \theta_{\chi}(a_1 a_2^{-1}) (a_1, a_2),$$ where $\theta_{\chi}$ denotes the character of the ${}^{(2)} A(\bar{k})$-representation $V_{\chi}$.
\[explicit\] Let ${\mathcal}{K}= \operatorname{IC}_{\lambda} \in \operatorname{Sat}_{{\widetilde{G}}}$, let $\chi \colon Z({}^{(2)}\mathrm{A}) \to {\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell}^\times$ be odd, and let $t \in X^0(F)$ for any number field $F$ containing $k$. Then $$\tilde{\rho}_{\chi, {\mathcal}{K}, t} \cong \operatorname{Gr}^W_{\langle 2\rho, \lambda \rangle} \left( e_{\chi} \operatorname{IH}^{\langle 2 \rho, \lambda \rangle}_c(\widetilde{{\mathfrak}{G}}^U_{\leq \lambda, t})\right).$$
Apply $e_{\chi}$ to equation (\[IHc\]), noting that the right-hand side is concentrated in degree zero. Since we have seen that ${\widetilde{\mathcal{E}}}_{\chi}(\operatorname{IC}_{\lambda})$ is pure of weight $\langle 2 \rho, \lambda \rangle$, the claim is immediate. Proposition \[explicit\] reduces Theorem \[motivated\] to a special case of the following general theorem:
\[ICmotivated\] Let $k$ be a finitely-generated field of characteristic zero, and let $Y/k$ be a quasi-projective variety. Then for all $i, r \in {\mathbb{Z}}$, $\operatorname{Gr}^W_i(\operatorname{IH}^r_c(Y))$ is as ${\Gamma_{k}}$-representation isomorphic to the $\ell$-adic realization of an object of ${\mathcal}{M}_k$.
Next consider the case in which $Y$ is acted on by a finite $k$-group scheme $\Gamma$. Let $e \in {\overline{\mathbb{Q}}}[\Gamma(\bar{k})]^{{\Gamma_{k}}}$ be an idempotent. Fix an embedding ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}}{\hookrightarrow}{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell}$. Then for all $i, r \in {\mathbb{Z}}$, $\operatorname{Gr}^W_i(e \operatorname{IH}^r_c(Y, {\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell}))$ is as ${\Gamma_{k}}$-representation isomorphic to the ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}}{\hookrightarrow}{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell}$-realization of an object of ${\mathcal}{M}_{k, {\overline{\mathbb{Q}}}}$.
See §\[overview\] for what is meant by the weight-gradings $\operatorname{Gr}^W_{\bullet}$. Note that in the application we only need the case $i=r$.
Theorem \[ICmotivated\] will be proven in Corollary \[ICmotpf\]. For the remainder of this section, we content ourselves with showing that $\tilde{\rho}_{\chi, t}$ is weakly motivic. Thus, it suffices to assume that $\lambda$ restricts to a minuscule weight of $G^\vee_{{\mathrm}{sc}}$. In this case, $\operatorname{Gr}_{{\widetilde{G}}, \leq \lambda}= \operatorname{Gr}_{{\widetilde{G}}, \lambda}$ has non-singular reduced part, so that $$\tilde{\rho}_{\chi, \operatorname{IC}_{\lambda}, t} \cong \operatorname{Gr}^W_{\langle 2 \rho, \lambda \rangle} \left(e_{\chi} H^{\langle 2 \rho, \lambda \rangle }_c(\widetilde{{\mathfrak}{G}}^U_{\lambda, t}) \right).$$ That the right-hand side is isomorphic to the $\ell$-adic realization of an object of ${\mathcal}{M}_{F, {\mathbb{Q}}'}$ follows from the standard description (originating in [@deligne:ht1]) of the weight filtration on the cohomology of a smooth variety, via the Leray spectral sequence for its inclusion into a smooth compactification with boundary given by a smooth normal crossings divisor. See [@yun:exceptional §4.3.1] or [@patrikis-taylor:irr] (the discussion between Remark 2.6 and Lemma 2.7) for this equivariant version. We conclude:
For all choices of ${\widetilde{G}}$ as in §\[setting\], there exists a faithful finite-dimensional representation $r \colon {\widetilde{G}}^\vee_1 {\hookrightarrow}{\mathrm}{GL}(V_r)$ such that for all number field specializations $\operatorname{Spec}F \xrightarrow{t} X^0$ with $F$ satisfying condition (\[khassqrt\]), $$r \circ \tilde{\rho}_{\chi, t} \colon {\Gamma_{F}} \to {\mathrm}{GL}(V_r \otimes {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}')$$ is isomorphic to the ${\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}'$-realization of an object of ${\mathcal}{M}_{F, {\mathbb{Q}}'}$. For all $G$, we may choose ${\widetilde{G}}$ and $r$ such that $r|_{G^\vee_{{\mathrm}{sc}}}$ is isomorphic to the direct sum of all the minuscule representations of $G^\vee_{{\mathrm}{sc}}$.
In particular, the lifts $\tilde{\rho}_{\chi, t}$ of Yun’s $\rho_{\chi, t}$ satisfy the generalized Kuga-Satake property of Definition \[genKSdefn\].
Intersection cohomology is motivated
====================================
Overview
--------
In the remaining sections, which are logically independent of the rest of the paper, we prove Theorem \[ICmotivated\]. Let $k$ be a field of characteristic zero, and fix an algebraic closure $\bar{k}$ of $k$. As usual let ${\Gamma_{k}}= {\mathrm{Gal}}(\bar{k}/k)$. Let $Y/k$ be any quasi-projective variety. If $Y$ is irreducible of dimension $d_Y$, we can form the $\ell$-adic intersection cohomology groups $$\operatorname{IH}^{r+d_Y}(Y)= H^r(Y_{\bar{k}}, \operatorname{IC}_Y|_{Y_{\bar{k}}}),$$ as well as their analogues with compact supports, $\operatorname{IH}^{r+d_Y}_c(Y)$. If $Y$ is reducible, the definitions need a little more care, working component by component; see [@decataldo:pervfil §4.6] for an explanation. The intersection complex $\operatorname{IC}_{Y_{\bar{k}}}$ is ${\Gamma_{k}}$-equivariant, so ${\Gamma_{k}}$ acts on $\operatorname{IH}^*(Y)$ and $\operatorname{IH}^*_c(Y)$. Since we do not assume $Y$ is projective, these ${\Gamma_{k}}$-representations are not pure; in particular, Theorem \[ICmotivated\] cannot hold for the groups $\operatorname{IH}^*_c(Y)$ themselves. Thus we first need to make sense of the weight filtration on $\operatorname{IH}^*_c(Y)$, in order even to speak of the ${\Gamma_{k}}$-representations $\operatorname{Gr}^W_{\bullet} \operatorname{IH}^*_c(Y)$.
There are two basic templates, one ‘sheaf-theoretic’ and one ‘geometric,’ for endowing the cohomology of a variety with a weight filtration. The models for the former approach are [@deligne:weil2] and [@bbd]; the models for the latter are [@deligne:ht2] and [@deligne:ht3]. The latter approach typically depends on having resolution of singularities over the field $k$, and is consequently restricted to characteristic zero; but when available, it yields more robust, because more ‘motivic,’ results. Thus we will explain, at least for $k$ finitely-generated over ${\mathbb{Q}}$, how to give an *a priori* ‘sheaf-theoretic’ sense to $\operatorname{Gr}^W_{\bullet} \operatorname{IH}^*(Y)$, but then our main aim will be to give a ‘geometric’ construction, as part of the proof of Theorem \[ICmotivated\], that recovers the sheaf-theoretic definition of the ${\Gamma_{k}}$-representations $\operatorname{Gr}^W_{\bullet} \operatorname{IH}^*_c(Y)$. Let us begin then by recalling the sheaf-theoretic construction of a weight filtration on $\operatorname{IH}^*_c(Y)$.
Since we work with $k$ of characteristic zero, the basic case of positive characteristic addressed in [@deligne:weil2] and [@bbd] is not sufficient. But the results of those papers have been extended in a form suitable for our purposes, and indeed much more generally than we require, in [@huber:mixedperverse] and [@morel:weights].[^16] Namely, the intersection complex $\operatorname{IC}_Y$ is a horizontal, pure perverse sheaf in the sense of [@morel:weights §2], and [@morel:weights Théorème 3.2, Proposition 6.1] implies that $\operatorname{IH}_c^*(Y)$ (likewise $\operatorname{IH}^*(Y)$) carries a unique weight filtration $W_{\bullet}$. In particular, this means that each $\operatorname{Gr}^W_r \operatorname{IH}^*_c(Y)$ is pure of weight $r$ in the following sense: the underlying lisse sheaf on $\operatorname{Spec}k$ arises by base-change from a lisse sheaf ${\mathcal}{G}$ on some smooth sub-algebra $A \subset k$, of finite-type over ${\mathbb{Z}}$, and with $\operatorname{Frac}(A)=k$; and for all specializations at closed points $x$ of $\operatorname{Spec}A$, $x^* {\mathcal}{G}$ is pure of weight $r$ in the usual finite field sense. This characterizing property will hold for the output of our geometric construction; this is verified step-by-step as the construction proceeds.
We now outline the approach to Theorem \[ICmotivated\]. By Poincaré duality for intersection cohomology (which is ${\Gamma_{k}}$-equivariant), we may restrict to the case of $\operatorname{IH}^*(Y)$. First, we remark that the basic difficulty, and interest, of this problem is that both intersection cohomology and weight filtrations are *a priori* ‘sheaf-theoretically’ defined. The theorem shows that these sheafy constructions can in fact be realized just by playing with the cohomology of smooth projective varieties. There are two, essentially orthogonal, special cases of this problem:
- $Y$ may be smooth but non-projective. In this case, $\operatorname{IH}^r(Y)= H^r(Y_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}})$, and the result follows from the geometric approach of [@deligne:ht2]; namely, if $\overline{Y}$ is a smooth compactification of $Y$ with $\overline{Y} \setminus Y$ equal to a union of smooth divisors $D_{\alpha}$ with normal crossings, then the ($E_3$-degenerate) Leray spectral sequence for the inclusion $Y \subset \overline{Y}$ yields a description of $\operatorname{Gr}^W_{\bullet} H^r(Y_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}})$ in terms of the divisors $D_{\alpha}$ and their various (smooth, projective) intersections; see Theorem \[hfunctor\], part 3, below, for a slight rephrasing.
- $Y$ may be projective but singular. In this case, the result, when $k$ is algebraically closed,[^17] has been proven by de Cataldo and Migliorini. We briefly describe the two crucial geometric inputs (assume for this informal description that $k$ is algebraically closed). Let $f \colon X \to Y$ be a resolution of singularities. Roughly speaking, $\operatorname{IH}^*(Y)$ occurs as a ‘main term’ in $H^*(X, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}})= H^*(Y, f_* {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}})$ corresponding (via the decomposition theorem) to the summand of $f_* {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}$ in perverse degree $\dim X$ and supported along the open dense stratum (the non-singular locus) $Y^0$ of $Y$. The first key result is that the perverse (Leray) filtration on $H^*(Y, f_* {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}})$ admits ([@decataldo:pervfil Theorem 3.3.5]) a remarkable geometric description in terms of a suitably generic ‘flag filtration.’ The second is that the factor of $f_* {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}$ supported along $Y^0$ can, at least in cohomology, also be extracted ‘geometrically’: this follows from the novel approach to the decomposition theorem pioneered by de Cataldo-Migliorini in a series of papers (see [@decataldo-migliorini:decomproj §1.3.3] for a precise statement).
Our task is to fuse these two approaches, and to get everything to work over an arbitrary (not algebraically closed) field $k$ of characteristic zero. The chief obstruction to getting the relevant arguments of [@decataldo-migliorini:decomproj] to work over any $k$ is that the ‘generic flags’ mentioned above would need to be defined $k$-rationally. This it turns out is not so hard to achieve, using Bertini’s theorem over $k$ and, crucially, the fact that flag varieties are rational, so that any Zariski open over $k$ necessarily has $k$-points.
Rather more complicated is integrating the approaches of [@deligne:ht2] and [@decataldo-migliorini:decomproj] in order to prove Theorem \[ICmotivated\] for any quasi-projective $Y$. The basic difficulty is that, since motivated motives are only defined in the pure case, the argument (resting on [@deligne:ht2]) in the smooth case is not obviously ‘functorial in $Y$.’ Fortunately, it can be upgraded to one that is, using the results of [@guillen-navarro:criterion] on the existence of ‘weight complexes’ of motivated motives whose cohomology computes $\operatorname{Gr}^W_{\bullet} H^*(Y)$ for any $k$-variety $Y$. We will also use a version for cohomology with compact supports: the latter, due independently to Gillet-Soulé ([@gillet-soule:weights]) and Guillen-Navarro, is somewhat simpler, but not suited for describing the perverse Leray filtration as in [@decataldo:pervfil], even for cohomology with compact supports. It is crucial, however, that we exploit both theories: the inductive construction of the support decomposition as in [@decataldo-migliorini:decomproj Proposition 2.2.1] requires having motivated versions both of pull-back in $H^*$ and pull-back for proper morphisms in $H^*_c$ (note that these two kinds of pull-backs are not related by Poincaré duality; one cannot be formally reduced to the other). Once this setup is in place, however, the arguments of [@decataldo-migliorini:decomproj] go through *mutatis mutandis*. We consequently establish stronger results on finding ‘motivated’ splittings of the perverse Leray filtration, and a motivated support decomposition, closely in parallel to the main results of [@decataldo-migliorini:decomproj]: see Theorem \[motivateddecomposition\] and Corollary \[splitting\], which should be regarded as the main results of this half of the paper.
Except where we explicitly allow more general fields, from now on $k$ will be a finitely-generated field extension of ${\mathbb{Q}}$. Whenever we speak of the weight-grading $\operatorname{Gr}^W_{\bullet}$ on various cohomology groups of a variety over $k$, the grading is unique, and can be shown to exist by [@morel:weights Théorème 3.2, Proposition 6.1]. As before, ${\mathcal}{M}_k$ denotes André’s category of motives for motivated cycles over $k$ (with ${\mathbb{Q}}$-coefficients). For a smooth projective variety $X$ over $k$, we write $H(X)$ for the canonical object of ${\mathcal}{M}_k$ associated to $X$. Finally, given a map of varieties $f \colon X \to Y$, we always mean the derived functors when we write $f_*$, $f_!$, etc.
Weight-graded motivated motives associated to smooth varieties
--------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the theorem of Guillén and Navarro Aznar, specialized to the precise statement we require:[^18]
\[hfunctor\] Let $k$ be a field of characteristic zero, and let ${\mathrm}{Sch}/k$ denote the category of finite-type separated $k$-schemes. Then there exists a contravariant functor $$h \colon {\mathrm}{Sch}/k \to K^b({\mathcal}{M}_k),$$ valued in the homotopy category of bounded complexes in ${\mathcal}{M}_k$, such that
1. If $X$ is a smooth projective $k$-scheme, then $h(X)$ is naturally isomorphic to the canonical motivated motive $H(X)$ associated to $X$.
2. If $X$ is a smooth projective $k$-scheme, and $D= \cup_{\alpha=1}^t D_{\alpha}$ is a normal crossings divisor equal to the union of smooth divisors $D_{\alpha}$, we can form a cubical diagram of smooth projective varieties $$S_{\bullet}(D) \to X,$$ where for every non-empty subset $\Sigma \subset \{1, \ldots, t\}$, $S_{\Sigma}(D)$ is the (smooth) intersection $D_{\Sigma}= \cap_{\alpha \in \Sigma} D_{\alpha}$, with the obvious inclusion maps $S_{\Sigma}(D) \to S_{\Sigma'}(D)$ whenever $\Sigma' \subset \Sigma$. Using the **covariant** functoriality arising from Gysin maps, we can then associate a cubical diagram $h_*(S_{\bullet}(D) \to X)$ in ${\mathcal}{M}_k$; to be precise, $h_*(S_{\Sigma}(D))$ is the object of ${\mathcal}{M}_k$ $$h(D_{\Sigma})(\dim D_{\Sigma}),$$ with the Gysin maps $h_*(S_{\Sigma}(D)) \to h_*(S_{\Sigma'}(D))$ whenever $\Sigma' \subset \Sigma$. Then $h(X \setminus D)$ is isomorphic to the simple complex associated to this cubical diagram (see the proof for what this means): $$\label{opensmoothcalc}
h(X \setminus D) \cong {\mathbf}{s}\left(h_*(S_{\bullet}(D) \to X)\right)(-\dim X).$$
3. In particular, $h(X \setminus D)$ is a complex whose degree $r$ homology[^19] $H_r(h(X \setminus D))$ is an object of ${\mathcal}{M}_k$ whose $\ell$-adic realization is given by (for $k$ finitely-generated over ${\mathbb{Q}}$) $$H_{\ell}\left( H_r(h(X \setminus D)) \right) \cong \bigoplus_q \operatorname{Gr}^W_{q+r} H^q((X\setminus D)_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}).$$
Except for the third assertion, this is all explicitly in [@guillen-navarro:criterion Théorème 5.10]. The remaining claim follows from the usual ([@deligne:ht2]) description of the weight gradeds for $H^*((X \setminus D)_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}})$: ignoring for notational convenience the Tate twists, the degree $r$ term $h(X \setminus D)_r$ (to be precise, after the identification of equation (\[opensmoothcalc\])) is $\oplus_{|\Sigma|=r|} h(D_{\Sigma})$, with the boundary map $h(X \setminus D)_r \to h(X \setminus D)_{r-1}$ given by an alternating sum of Gysin maps. The $\ell$-adic realization of this complex can be identified (up to a sign in the boundary maps, at least: see [@guillen-navarro:locinvcyc 1.8 Proposition]) with the complex $$\cdots \to K_r= \bigoplus_q E_1^{-r, q+r} \xrightarrow{\oplus_q d_1^{-r, q+r}} K_{r-1}= \bigoplus_q E_1^{-r+1, q+r} \to \cdots$$ built out of the $E_1$ terms of the (weight) spectral sequence of the filtered complex (bête filtration) $$E_1^{-r, q+r}= H^q(X_{\bar{k}}, \operatorname{Gr}^W_r j_* {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}) \implies H^q(X_{\bar{k}}, j_* {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}})= H^q( (X \setminus D)_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}).$$ This spectral sequence degenerates at the $E_2$ page (by the yoga of weights), and its $E_2$ terms then give the weight gradeds of $H^q((X \setminus D)_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}})$; part (3) of the Theorem follows. This is not a full description of the result of Guillén and Navarro Aznar, but it contains the two points of interest for us: the explicit description of the objects $H_r(h(X \setminus D))$, and in particular their connection with the weight filtration on $H^*((X \setminus D)_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}})$; and, crucially, the fact that $h$ is functorial. In particular, for any morphism $\phi \colon U \to V$ in ${\mathrm}{Sch}/k$, we get, for all $r$, morphisms $H_r(h(V)) \to H_r(h(U))$ in ${\mathcal}{M}_k$.
Here is the compact supports version:
\[Wfunctor\] Let $k$ be a field of characteristic zero, and let ${\mathrm}{Sch}_c/k$ denote the category of separated finite-type $k$-schemes with morphisms given by proper maps. Then there exists a contravariant functor $$W \colon {\mathrm}{Sch}_c/k \to K^b({\mathcal}{M}_k)$$ such that
1. If $X$ is a smooth projective $k$-scheme, then $W(X)$ is naturally isomorphic to the canonical motivated motive $H(X)$ associated to $X$.
2. If $X$ is a smooth projective $k$-scheme, and $D= \cup_{\alpha=1}^t D_{\alpha}$ is a normal crossings divisor equal to the union of smooth divisors $D_{\alpha}$, then $W(X \setminus D)$ is isomorphic to the simple complex (we now use cohomological conventions and normalize $W(X \setminus D)$ to live in cohomological degrees $[0, t]$) $$H(X) \to \oplus_{\alpha} H(D_{\alpha}) \to \cdots \to \oplus_{|\Sigma|=s} H(D_{\Sigma}) \to \cdots,$$ with coboundaries given by an alternating sum of restriction maps $H(D_{\Sigma'}) \to H(D_{\Sigma})$ whenever $\Sigma' \subset \Sigma$. (See [@gillet-soule:weights Proposition 3].)
3. In particular, $W(X \setminus D)$ is a complex whose degree $s$ cohomology $H^s(W(X \setminus D))$ is an object of ${\mathcal}{M}_k$ whose $\ell$-adic realization is given by (for $k$ finitely-generated over ${\mathbb{Q}}$) $$H_{\ell} \left( H^s(W(X \setminus D))\right) \cong \bigoplus_p \operatorname{Gr}^W_p H^{p+s}_c((X \setminus D)_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}).$$
In the setting of parts 2 and 3 of Theorems \[hfunctor\] and \[Wfunctor\], let $U= X \setminus D$. Poincaré duality for $U$ descends to a duality relation in ${\mathcal}{M}_k$ between the cohomologies of the complexes $h(U)$ and $W(U)$. Before stating it, we introduce a little more notation:
Let $H^q_r(h(U))$ be the canonical summand of $H_r(h(U))$ in ${\mathcal}{M}_k$ of weight $q+r$. Let $W^p(U)$ be the canonical complex of weight $p$ summands of the terms of $W(U)$, and let $H^s(W^p(U))$ be the degree $s$ cohomology.
The object $H^q_r(h(U))$ of ${\mathcal}{M}_k$ has $\ell$-adic realization $\operatorname{Gr}^W_{q+r} H^q(U_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}})$. The object $H^s(W^p(U))$ of ${\mathcal}{M}_k$ has $\ell$-adic realization $\operatorname{Gr}^W_p H^{p+s}_c(U_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}})$.
\[motivatedopenPD\] Let $U= X \setminus D$ as above, and assume $U$ is equidimensional of dimension $d$. Then there is a canonical isomorphism in ${\mathcal}{M}_k$ $$H^q_r(h(U))^\vee \cong H^r(W^{2d-q-r}(U))(d)$$
Poincaré duality for each $D_{\Sigma}$ induces a perfect duality between $h(U)_s$ and $W(U)^s$ (the degree $s$ terms of each complex) for all $s$. The Gysin maps $H(D_{\Sigma'})(d-|\Sigma'|) \to H(D_{\Sigma})(d-|\Sigma|)$ are Poincaré dual to the pull-back maps $H(D_{\Sigma}) \to H(D_{\Sigma'})$ for all $\Sigma \subset \Sigma'$, and we can deduce perfect dualities (in ${\mathcal}{M}_k$ ) $$H_s(h(U))^\vee \cong H^s(W(U))(d).$$ The result follows from decomposing these dualities into each of their graded components.
The perverse Leray filtration
=============================
Relation to flag filtrations
----------------------------
In this section we recall the beautiful and fundamental result of de Cataldo-Migliorini and de Cataldo that describes the perverse Leray filtration for a map of varieties in terms of a certain flag filtration: see [@decataldo-migliorini:pervfil] and, for the specific result we use, [@decataldo:pervfil Theorem 3.3.5]. These results are worked out over an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero, and so our first aim in this section is to check the analogue for any $k \supset {\mathbb{Q}}$.
We first recall the Jouanolou trick.
Let $Y$ be a variety over $k$. An *affinement* of $Y$ is a map ${\mathcal}{Y} \xrightarrow{p} Y$ in ${\mathrm}{Sch}/k$ with ${\mathcal}{Y}$ an affine $k$-scheme, such that $p$ is a torsor for some vector bundle on $Y$.
Suppose $Y \in {\mathrm}{Sch}/k$ is quasi-projective. Then an affinement of $Y$ exists.
Jouanolou’s result in fact holds for arbitrary quasi-projective schemes, but we are only interested in the case of varieties over $k$.
Now let $f \colon X \to Y$ be a morphism of $k$-varieties. It induces the (increasing) perverse Leray filtration on $H^*(X_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}})$ via $$\label{defpervfil}
{\mathcal}{P}^f_j \left(H^*(X_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}) \right)= \operatorname{im}\left( H^*(Y_{\bar{k}}, {}^p \tau_{\leq j} f_* {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}) \to H^*(Y_{\bar{k}}, f_* {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}) \right) \subseteq H^*(Y_{\bar{k}}, f_* {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}})=H^*(X_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}).$$ Here ${}^p \tau_{\leq j}$ denotes perverse truncation.[^20] We make the analogous definition of the perverse Leray filtration on $H^*_c(X_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}})$, replacing $f_* {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}$ by $f_! {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}$ (the only case of interest to us will be when $f$ is proper, so $f_*=f_!$).
\[pervleraythm\] Assume $k= \bar{k}$ is an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero. Let $f \colon X \to Y$ be a morphism in ${\mathrm}{Sch}/k$ with $Y$ quasi-projective. Let $p \colon {\mathcal}{Y} \to Y$ be an affinement of $Y$ of relative dimension $d(p)$,[^21] and choose a closed embedding ${\mathcal}{Y} {\hookrightarrow}\mathbb{A}^N$ of ${\mathcal}{Y}$ into some affine space. Let $$\mathbb{A}_{\bullet}= \{ \emptyset= \mathbb{A}_{-N-1} \subset \mathbb{A}_{-N} \subset \cdots \subset \mathbb{A}_0= \mathbb{A}^N\}$$ be a full flag of affine linear sections of $\mathbb{A}^N$, and form the Cartesian diagram $$\label{flagdiagram}
\xymatrix{
{\mathcal}{X}_{\bullet} \ar@/^2 pc/[rr]^{r_{\bullet}} \ar[r]^{i_{\bullet}} \ar[d] & {\mathcal}{X} \ar[r]^{p} \ar[d] & X \ar[d]^f \\
{\mathcal}{Y}_{\bullet} \ar[r] \ar[d] & {\mathcal}{Y} \ar[r]^p \ar[d] & Y \\
\mathbb{A}_{\bullet} \ar[r] & \mathbb{A}^N & \\
}$$ We define the associated (increasing) flag filtrations $$F^{\mathbb{A}_{\bullet}}_j H^*(X_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}) = \ker \left(r_{-j}^* \colon H^*(X_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}) \to H^*(({\mathcal}{X}_{-j})_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}) \right)$$ and (see Remark \[flagexp\]) $$F^{\mathbb{A}_{\bullet}}_j H^*_c(X_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}) = \operatorname{im}\left( r_{!, j} \colon H^*_c(({\mathcal}{X}_j)_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}) \to H^*_c(X_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}) \right)$$ Then for a general flag $\mathbb{A}_{\bullet}$, $$\label{perv=flag}
{\mathcal}{P}^f_{j} H^q(X_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}})= F^{\mathbb{A}_{\bullet}}_{1+d(p)-q+j} H^q(X_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}),$$ and $$\label{perv=flagc}
{\mathcal}{P}^f_j H^q_c(X_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}})= F^{\mathbb{A}_{\bullet}}_{j-q-d(p)}H^q_c(X_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}).$$
\[flagexp\]
1. Let us spell out the construction of the maps $r_{!, j}$. There is a canonical identification $$H^k_c(X_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}) \cong H^k_c({\mathcal}{X}_{\bar{k}}, p^! {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}) \cong H^{k+2d(p)}_c({\mathcal}{X}_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}})(d(p)),$$ and then adjunction gives maps $$H^k_c(({\mathcal}{X}_{-j})_{\bar{k}}, i_{-j}^! {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}) \to H^k_c({\mathcal}{X}_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}).$$ As part of the definition of ‘general position,’ we may assume the ${\mathcal}{X}_{-j}$ are smooth, so by cohomological purity these adjunction maps are identified with (Gysin) maps $$H^{k-2j}_c(({\mathcal}{X}_{-j})_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}})(-j) \to H^k_c({\mathcal}{X}_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}).$$ The ‘corestriction’ maps $r_{!, -j}$ are then given by the composites $$H^{k+2d(p)-2j}_c(({\mathcal}{X}_{-j})_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}})(d(p)-j) \to H^{k+2d(p)}_c({\mathcal}{X}_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}})(d(p)) \to H^k_c(X_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}).$$ Important for our purposes is that these are precisely the maps Poincaré dual to the pullback maps arising from the maps ${\mathcal}{X}_{-j} \to X$.
2. We need to specify what is meant by a *general* flag; this will be done in §\[strats\]. What matters for our purposes is that there exists a Zariski open, dense subspace ${\mathrm}{Flag}^{{\mathrm}{gen}}$ inside the variety ${\mathrm}{Flag}$ of full (affine linear) flags in $\mathbb{A}^N$ such that all points $\mathbb{A}_{\bullet} \in {\mathrm}{Flag}^{{\mathrm}{gen}}(k)$ are ‘general.’
3. Note that the degree shift between the perverse and flag filtrations depends on the degree ($q$ above) of cohomology. We will ultimately work one degree of cohomology at a time, and all that matters for us is that *some* shift of the flag filtration agrees with the perverse filtration. To extract the exact degree shift $j \mapsto 1+d(p)-q+j$, use [@decataldo:pervfil Theorem 3.3.5, (3.8), Example 3.1.6, and (3.16)], and similarly for cohomology with compact supports.
We now explain why this result can be refined $k$-rationally, so that the diagram (\[flagdiagram\]) for which the conclusion of Theorem \[pervleraythm\] holds can be taken to be a diagram in ${\mathrm}{Sch}/k$. In the process, we will say more explicitly what is meant by a ‘general’ flag in the case of *proper* $f \colon X \to Y$ (this case is somewhat simpler–see [@decataldo:pervfil Remark 3.2.13]–and it is all we need).
Stratifications {#strats}
---------------
To define ‘general’ flags, we need to say something about stratifications. From now on we will consider a proper map $f \colon X \to Y$ of varieties over $k$ with $Y$ quasi-projective. For the purposes of Theorem \[pervleraythm\], we need only find a stratification $\Sigma$ of $Y$ such that $f_* {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}$ is $\Sigma$-constructible. That is, we require a decomposition $Y= \sqcup_{\sigma \in \Sigma} Y_{\sigma}$ of $Y$ into locally closed, irreducible, non-singular varieties such that $f_* {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}|_{Y_{\sigma}}$ is lisse for all $\sigma$. This is easily arranged; note that the strata $Y_{\sigma}$ may be irreducible but not geometrically connected. Then we can deduce:
\[kpervleray\] Let $k$ be a field of characteristic zero, and let $f \colon X \to Y$ be a proper morphism in ${\mathrm}{Sch}/k$ with $Y$ quasi-projective. Then there exists a diagram (\[flagdiagram\]) defined over $k$ for which the conclusions (\[perv=flag\]) and (\[perv=flagc\]) of Theorem \[pervleraythm\] holds.
Choose as before an affinement $p \colon {\mathcal}{Y} \to Y$ and an embedding ${\mathcal}{Y} {\hookrightarrow}\mathbb{A}^N$, and let ${\mathrm}{Flag}$ denote the variety over $k$ of full affine linear flags in $\mathbb{A}^N$. Fix a stratification $\Sigma$ of $Y$ such that $f_* {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}$ is $\Sigma$-constructible, and pull it back to a stratification $p^{-1} \Sigma$ of ${\mathcal}{Y}$. We then consider full flags $$\{\mathbb{A}_{-N} \subset \cdots \subset \mathbb{A}_{-1} \subset \mathbb{A}^N\}$$ such that $\mathbb{A}_{-1}$ intersects every stratum ${\mathcal}{Y}_{\sigma}$ transversally; and, refining each $\mathbb{A}_{-1} \cap {\mathcal}{Y}_{\sigma}$ to the disjoint union of its connected components, $\mathbb{A}_{-2}$ intersects the induced stratification of ${\mathcal}{Y} \cap \mathbb{A}_{-1}$ transversally; and so on inductively. By Bertini’s theorem in exactly the form [@jouanolou:bertini Theoreme 6.3(2)], applied inductively to each of the (smooth) strata in each ${\mathcal}{Y} \cap \mathbb{A}_{-i}$, the collection of such flags defines a Zariski open (over $k$) dense subset ${\mathrm}{Flag}^{{\mathrm}{gen}} \subset {\mathrm}{Flag}$. Since ${\mathrm}{Flag}$ is a rational variety (for instance, by Bruhat decomposition), and $k$ has characteristic zero, ${\mathrm}{Flag}^{{\mathrm}{gen}}(k)$ is non-empty. The corollary then follows by the proof of [@decataldo:pervfil Theorem 3.3.1, Theorem 3.3.5]. So that we can directly invoke the results of de Cataldo-Migliorini, in what follows we will make further demands on the stratification, as explained in [@decataldo-migliorini:decomproj §1.3.2]. For a fixed proper map $f \colon X \to Y$, we consider stratifications of $X$ and $Y$ as the disjoint unions of smooth, locally closed, irreducible (over $k$) subvarieties, such that every stratum of $X$ maps smoothly and surjectively onto a stratum of $Y$. Organizing the strata of $Y$ by dimension, we write $Y= \sqcup_{l=0}^{\dim Y} S_l$, where $S_l$ has pure dimension $l$. Each $S_l$ is a disjoint union of smooth and irreducible components of dimension $l$; these irreducible components need not be geometrically irreducible, but that does not affect our arguments. We then have Zariski open (dense) subsets $U_l= \sqcup_{m \geq l} S_m$, and we get associated closed and open immersions $\alpha_l \colon S_l {\hookrightarrow}U_l$ (closed) and $\beta_l \colon U_{l+1} {\hookrightarrow}U_l$ (open), with $U_l= S_l \sqcup U_{l+1}$. For more background on these stratifications, see [@decataldo-migliorini:htalgmaps §3.2].
Motivated perverse Leray filtration
-----------------------------------
By Corollary \[kpervleray\], we have ${\Gamma_{k}}$-equivariantly identified the perverse Leray filtrations on $H^*(X_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}})$ and $H^*_c(X_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}})$ with certain flag filtrations, given in terms of maps of $k$-varieties $X \to {\mathcal}{X}_{-j}$. With an eye toward our final application, in which case $f \colon X \to Y$ will be a resolution of singularities of $Y$, we continue to assume $f$ is proper, but also require that $X$ is non-singular and irreducible,[^22] and we use Theorem \[hfunctor\], Lemma \[motivatedopenPD\] and Corollary \[kpervleray\] to *define* the ‘perverse Leray filtration’ on the motivated motives $H_r (h(X))$ and $H^s(W(X))$. Consider a diagram (\[flagdiagram\]) over $k$ for which the conclusion of Theorem \[pervleraythm\] holds. Since $h \colon {\mathrm}{Sch}/k \to K^b({\mathcal}{M}_k)$ is a functor, we obtain a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
h(X) \ar[r]^{r_{-i}^*} \ar[dr]_{r_{-i+1}^*} & h({\mathcal}{X}_{-i}) \ar[d] \\
& h({\mathcal}{X}_{-i+1}) \\
}$$ in $K^b({\mathcal}{M}_k)$. Recall that since ${\mathcal}{M}_k$ is canonically weight-graded (it has Künneth projectors), we can apply the composite functor $H^q_r$ given by taking cohomology $H_r$ of this diagram and projecting to the weight $q+r$-component for any $q \in {\mathbb{Z}}$, obtaining a commutative diagram in ${\mathcal}{M}_k$, $$\xymatrix{
H_r^q(h(X)) \ar[r]^{r_{-i}^*} \ar[rd]_{r_{-i+1}^*} & H_r^q(h({\mathcal}{X}_{-i})) \ar[d] \\
& H_r^q(h({\mathcal}{X}_{-i+1})).\\
}$$ Recall that the $\ell$-adic realization of $H_r^q(h(X))$ is (by Theorem \[hfunctor\]) isomorphic to $\operatorname{Gr}^W_{q+r} H^q(X_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}})$; this accounts for the notation.
\[motpervleraydef\] The perverse Leray filtration of $H_r^q(h(X))$ is defined to be $${\mathcal}{P}^f_j H^q_r(h(X))= \ker \left\{ r^*_{-(1+d(p)-q+j)} \colon H^q_r(h(X)) \to H^q_r(h({\mathcal}{X}_{-(1+d(p)-q+j)})) \right\}.$$ The gradeds for the perverse filtration, still objects of ${\mathcal}{M}_k$, are then denoted $$\operatorname{Gr}^{{\mathcal}{P}^f}_j H^q_r(h(X))= {\mathcal}{P}^f_j H^q_r(h(X))/{\mathcal}{P}^f_{j-1} H^q_r(h(X)).$$
Our indexing convention is somewhat different from that of de Cataldo-Migliorini (compare [@decataldo-migliorini:htalgmaps Definition 2.2.2]).
Now, we already have a definition (equation (\[defpervfil\])) of ${\mathcal}{P}^f$ on $H^q(X_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}})$ before passing to the weight-gradeds; the two versions of ${\mathcal}{P}^f$ are compatible in the following sense:
The $\ell$-adic realization $H_{\ell}\left( {\mathcal}{P}^f_j H^q_r(h(X))\right)$ is isomorphic to $\operatorname{Gr}^W_{q+r} {\mathcal}{P}^f_j H^q(X_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}})$, and likewise with $\operatorname{Gr}^{{\mathcal}{P}^f}_j$ in place of ${\mathcal}{P}^f_j$.
The $\ell$-adic realization functor is exact, and the maps on cohomology induced by the morphisms ${\mathcal}{X}_{\bullet} \to X$ are strict for the associated weight filtrations, so this follows from the choice of ${\mathcal}{X}_{\bullet}$ as in Corollary \[kpervleray\]. We also need a ‘motivated’ description of the perverse Leray filtration in compactly-supported cohomology, i.e. a filtration by sub-motives on each $H^s(W^p(X))$. Taking our cue from Remark \[flagexp\], we formally define a filtration on $H^q_r(h(X))^\vee$ by $$\left( H^q_r(h(X))/ {\mathcal}{P}^f_j H^q_r(h(X)) \right)^\vee \subset H^q_r(h(X))^\vee,$$ and then invoke duality to define:
The perverse Leray filtration of $H^s(W^p(X))$ is defined to be $$\begin{aligned}
\label{motivatedlerayc}
{\mathcal}{P}^f_j H^r(W^{2 \dim X-q-r}(X))&= \left( H^q_r(h(X))/ {\mathcal}{P}^f_{-j+2\dim X-1} H^q_r(h(X)) \right)^\vee(- \dim X) \\ \nonumber
&\subseteq H^q_r(h(X))^\vee(-\dim X) \xrightarrow{\sim} H^r(W^{2 \dim X -q-r}(X)).\end{aligned}$$
Again, we check that this definition is compatible with the usual one in cohomology:
The $\ell$-adic realization $H_{\ell} \left( {\mathcal}{P}^f_j H^r(W^{2 \dim X-q-r}(X)) \right)$ is canonically isomorphic to $$\operatorname{Gr}^W_{2\dim X-q-r} {\mathcal}{P}^f_j H^{2\dim X-q}_c(X_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}),$$ and likewise for $\operatorname{Gr}^{{\mathcal}{P}^f}_j$.
By the description (Remark \[flagexp\]) of $r_{!, -j}$ as the map Poincaré dual to $r_{-j}^*$, we see that Poincaré duality for $X$ induces a duality (here $F_{\bullet}$ denotes the flag filtrations for general flags) $$\left(F_j H^q(X_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}) \right)^\vee \cong \left( H^{2\dim X-q}_c(X_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}})/F_{-j} H^{2 \dim X-q}_c(X_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}})\right) (\dim X),$$ i.e. $$\left( {\mathcal}{P}^f_{-l+2\dim X-1} H^q(X_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}) \right)^\vee \cong \left( H^{2\dim X-q}_c(X_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}})/{\mathcal}{P}^f_{l} H^{2 \dim X-q}_c(X_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}})\right) (\dim X).$$ The lemma follows by passing to $\operatorname{Gr}^W_{\bullet}$. By definition, we obtain the following duality in ${\mathcal}{M}_k$, a motivated analogue of [@decataldo-migliorini:decomproj §1.3.3(12)]: $$\label{pervgradedPD}
\operatorname{Gr}^{{\mathcal}{P}^f}_j H^r(W^{2\dim X-q-r}(X)) \times \operatorname{Gr}^{{\mathcal}{P}^f}_{-j+2\dim X} H^q_r(h(X)) \to {\mathbb{Q}}(-\dim X).$$ We next check a functoriality property of these motivated perverse Leray filtrations.
\[functoriality\] Suppose $$\xymatrix{
{\mathcal}{T} \ar[r] \ar[dr]_{g} & X \ar[d]^f \\
& Y \\
}$$ is a commutative diagram in ${\mathrm}{Sch}/k$. Then the pull-back maps $H^q_r(h(X)) \to H^q_r(h({\mathcal}{T}))$ induce morphisms (in ${\mathcal}{M}_k$) $${\mathcal}{P}^f_j H^q_r(h(X)) \to {\mathcal}{P}^{g}_j H^q_r(h({\mathcal}{T})).$$ If $g$ factors as ${\mathcal}{T} \xrightarrow{\gamma} Z \xrightarrow{\iota} Y$ with $\iota$ a closed immersion, then the filtrations ${\mathcal}{P}^{\gamma}_{\bullet}$ and ${\mathcal}{P}^{g}_{\bullet}$ on $H^*({\mathcal}{T}_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}})$, or on $H^q_r(h({\mathcal}{T}))$, coincide.
If ${\mathcal}{T} \to X$ is proper, then proper pull-back $H^s(W^p(X)) \to H^s(W^p({\mathcal}{T}))$ also preserves the perverse Leray filtrations (\[motivatedlerayc\]).
Since the $\ell$-adic realization functor on ${\mathcal}{M}_k$ is exact, it suffices to check the statement in cohomology. Here it is elementary: see for instance [@decataldo-migliorini:htalgmaps Remark 4.2.3]. For the second statement, use the fact that $\iota_*$ is exact for the perverse t-structure (so commutes with perverse truncation).
Motivated support decomposition
-------------------------------
Now we proceed as in [@decataldo-migliorini:decomproj Proposition 2.2.1] to establish a ‘motivated support decomposition’ of the $\operatorname{Gr}^{{\mathcal}{P}^f}_j H^q_r(h(X))$, corresponding to the support decomposition of the perverse sheaf ${}^p H^j(f_* {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}})$. We begin by checking that the desired support decomposition exists $k$-rationally. Continue to let $f \colon X \to Y$ be our proper map of quasi-projective varieties over $k$ with $X$ non-singular. Let $Y= \sqcup_{l=0}^{\dim Y} S_{l}$ be a stratification for $f$ as in §\[strats\], with the collection of closed and open immersions $$S_{l} \xrightarrow{\alpha_{l}} U_{l} \xleftarrow{\beta_{l}} U_{l+1}.$$
\[supportdecomp\] In the above setting, there is a canonical isomorphism in ${\mathrm}{Perv}(Y)$ $$\label{supporteqtn}
{}^p H^j (f_* {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}[\dim X]) \xrightarrow{\sim} \bigoplus_{l= 0}^{\dim Y} \operatorname{IC}_{\overline{S_{l}}}\left( \alpha_{l}^* H^{-l} ({}^p H^j (f_* {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}[\dim X]) \right),$$ where the $\alpha_{l}^* H^{-l} ({}^p H^j (f_* {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}[\dim X])$ are (geometrically semi-simple) local systems on $S_l$. Replacing $\alpha_{l}$ by the inclusion $S \xrightarrow{\iota_S} S_{l} \xrightarrow{\alpha_{l}} U_{l}$ of an irreducible ($=$ connected) component $S$ of $S_l$, we obtain the refined $k$-rational support decomposition $$\label{fullsupportdecomp}
{}^p H^j (f_* {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}[\dim X]) \xrightarrow{\sim} \bigoplus_{l= 0}^{\dim Y} \bigoplus_{S \in \pi_0(S_{l})} \operatorname{IC}_{\overline{S}} \left( (\alpha_{l} \circ \iota_S)^* H^{-l} ({}^p H^j (f_* {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}[\dim X])\right).$$
The second claim follows from the first, so we focus on establishing (\[supporteqtn\]). This statement in ${\mathrm}{Perv}(Y_{\bar{k}})$ is a precise form–see [@decataldo-migliorini:htalgmaps Theorem 2.1.1c]–of the semi-simplicity assertion of the decomposition theorem, so it suffices to check that the map in equation (\[supporteqtn\]) can be defined in ${\mathrm}{Perv}(Y)$. For notational simplicity, denote the perverse sheaf ${}^p H^j (f_* {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}[\dim X])$ on $Y$ simply by $K$. We follow closely the argument of [@decataldo-migliorini:htalgmaps Lemma 4.1.3], and, as there, the claim will follow from the following assertion: for all $l=0, \ldots, \dim Y$, there is a canonical isomorphism $$K|_{U_l} \xrightarrow{\sim} \beta_{l !*}(K|_{U_{l+1}}) \oplus H^{-l}(K|_{U_l})[l].$$ We now explain this isomorphism, which itself follows from the the corresponding geometric statement in [@decataldo-migliorini:htalgmaps Lemma 4.1.3, §6]. The second projection comes from the truncation triangle $$\tau_{\leq -l-1} K|_{U_l} \to \tau_{\leq -l} K|_{U_l} \to H^{-l} K|_{U_l}[l] \xrightarrow{+1},$$ whose middle term is canonically $K|_{U_l}$, and whose right-hand term is perverse (by the support conditions in the definition of perverse sheaves; see [@decataldo-migliorini:htalgmaps §4.1]).
To define the first projection, recall the successive truncation description of intermediate extension as $$\tau_{\leq -l-1} \beta_{l *}\beta_l^* K|_{U_l} \cong \beta_{l !*}(K|_{U_{l+1}}).$$ This suggest applying $\operatorname{Hom}(K|_{U_l}, \cdot)$ to the truncation triangle $$\tau_{\leq -l-1} \beta_{l *}\beta_l^* K|_{U_l} \to \tau_{\leq -l} \beta_{l *}\beta_l^* K|_{U_l} \to H^{-l}(\beta_{l *}\beta_l^* K|_{U_l})[l] \xrightarrow{+1}.$$ There is a canonical map $$\xymatrix{
K|_{U_l} \ar@/_2 pc/[rr]^a & \tau_{\leq -l} K|_{U_l} \ar[l]_{\sim} \ar[r] & \tau_{\leq -l} \beta_{l*} \beta_l^* K|_{U_l},
}$$ and to construct the projection $K|_{U_{l}} \to \beta_{l !*}(K|_{U_{l+1}})$, it suffices to check that the image of $a$ in $$\operatorname{Hom}(H^{-l}(K|_{U_l}), H^{-l}(\beta_{l *}\beta_l^* K|_{U_l})) \xrightarrow{\sim} \operatorname{Hom}(K|_{U_l}, H^{-l}(\beta_{l *}\beta_l^* K|_{U_l})[l])$$ (recall $\tau_{\leq -l} K|_{U_l} \xrightarrow{\sim} K|_{U_l}$) is zero. But we can check whether a map of constructible sheaves on $Y$ is zero by passing to $Y_{\bar{k}}$, so the geometric assertion ([@decataldo-migliorini:htalgmaps §6]) implies our corresponding arithmetic assertion. We have maneuvered into a position to invoke the argument of [@decataldo-migliorini:decomproj Proposition 2.2.1] to prove:
\[motivateddecomposition\] Let $f \colon X \to Y$ be a proper map of quasi-projective varieties over $k$ with $X$ non-singular. Then for each triple of integers $j$, $q$, $r$, there exists a decomposition in ${\mathcal}{M}_k$ $$\operatorname{Gr}^{{\mathcal}{P}^f}_j H^q_r(h(X)) \xrightarrow{\sim} \bigoplus_{l=0}^{\dim Y} \bigoplus_{S \in \pi_0(S_l)} \operatorname{Gr}^{{\mathcal}{P}^f}_{j, S} H^q_r(h(X))$$ whose $\ell$-adic realization is the output of applying $\operatorname{Gr}^W_{q+r} H^q(Y_{\bar{k}}, \bullet)$ to the splitting of Lemma \[supportdecomp\], equation (\[fullsupportdecomp\]).[^23]
Similarly for cohomology with compact supports, i.e. for the motives $\operatorname{Gr}^{{\mathcal}{P}^f}_j H^s(W^p(X))$.
When $X$ is projective, this is established in [@decataldo-migliorini:decomproj Theorem 3.2.2], via the argument of [@decataldo-migliorini:decomproj Proposition 2.1.1]; the impediment to that argument going through for non-projective $X$ is dealt with by our systematic use of the motivated motives $H^q_r(h(X))$ and $H^s(W^p(X))$. We do not repeat the proof, but we will remark on the key points. The argument proceeds by induction on $\dim X$; the inductive step is achieved by using [@decataldo-migliorini:decomproj Equations (13) and (14)] to define the summands $\operatorname{Gr}^{{\mathcal}{P}^f}_{j, S} H^q_r(h(X))$ in terms of already-defined terms for lower-dimensional $X$. Note that it is essential that we have at our disposal motives corresponding both to cohomology without supports (the $H^q_r(h(X))$) and to cohomology with compact supports (the $H^s(W^p(X))$), with their respective pull-back functorialities (Theorems \[hfunctor\] and \[Wfunctor\]) and the duality (Lemma \[motivatedopenPD\] and Equation (\[pervgradedPD\])) relating them. The corresponding result in [@decataldo-migliorini:decomproj] uses the relative hard Lefschetz theorem to obtain an absolute Hodge splitting (in the case $k= \bar{k}$) of $H^*(X_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}})$ corresponding to the full splitting of $f_* {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}$ given by the decomposition theorem, rather than as here merely the support decomposition in a particular perverse degree; a similar strengthening can be established in our context, which we now briefly sketch, although it is not needed for our primary goal, Theorem \[ICmotivated\]. For $X$ as in the theorem, consider as usual a smooth compactification $\overline{X}$ with $\overline{X} \setminus X = \cup_{\alpha} D_{\alpha}$ equal to a union of smooth divisors with normal crossings. We may assume $\overline{X}$ is projective, and then take $\eta$ to be a hyperplane line bundle arising from some projective embedding. The required motivated version of the relative Hard Lefschetz theorem is that there are isomorphisms $$\label{motHL}
\cup \eta^j \colon \operatorname{Gr}^{{\mathcal}{P}^f}_{-j+\dim X} H^q_r(h(X)) \xrightarrow{\sim} \operatorname{Gr}^{{\mathcal}{P}^f}_{j+ \dim X}H^{q+2j}_r(h(X)) (j).$$ To construct this isomorphism, note first that we can pull $\eta$ back to any of the intersections $D_{\Sigma}= \cap_{\alpha \in \Sigma} D_{\alpha}$ and obtain a morphism of complexes $h(X) \to h(X)(1)$;[^24] passing to cohomology, $\eta$ induces maps $$\eta \colon H^q_r(h(X)) \to H^{q+2}_r(h(X))(1).$$ The required compatibility $$\eta \colon {\mathcal}{P}^f_j H^q_r(h(X)) \to {\mathcal}{P}^f_{j+2} H^{q+2}_r(h(X))(1)$$ with the perverse filtrations follows directly from Definition \[motpervleraydef\]. We therefore have constructed the maps appearing in Equation (\[motHL\]); that they are isomorphisms, as are the corresponding maps for each term of the support decomposition, then follows as usual from the corresponding statement in cohomology. The formalism of ‘hard Lefschetz triples’ ([@decataldo-migliorini:decomproj §1.3.4]) in the abelian category ${\mathcal}{M}_k$ allows us to enhance Theorem \[motivateddecomposition\] with the following:
\[splitting\] The choice of $\eta$ gives rise to a distinguished splitting of the motivated perverse Leray filtration, $$H^q_r(h(X)) \xrightarrow{\sim} \bigoplus_j \operatorname{Gr}^{{\mathcal}{P}^f}_j H^q_r(h(X))$$
Of course, ${\mathcal}{M}_k$ is semi-simple, so we already knew that some splitting exists. The combination of Theorem \[motivateddecomposition\] and Corollary \[splitting\] can be regarded as a ‘motivated decomposition theorem.’ Finally, we reach the motivating application:
\[ICmotpf\] Let $Y/k$ be any quasi-projective variety. Then there is an object $M \in {\mathcal}{M}_k$ whose $\ell$-adic realization is isomorphic as ${\Gamma_{k}}$-representation to $\operatorname{Gr}^W_i \operatorname{IH}^q(Y_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}})$. If ${\mathrm}{A}$ is a finite group scheme over $k$ acting on $Y$, and $e \in {\overline{\mathbb{Q}}}[{\mathrm}{A}(\bar{k})]^{{\Gamma_{k}}}$, then for any embedding ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}}{\hookrightarrow}{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell}$ there is an object of ${\mathcal}{M}_{k, {\overline{\mathbb{Q}}}}$ whose ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}}{\hookrightarrow}{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell}$-realization is isomorphic as ${\Gamma_{k}}$-representation to $\operatorname{Gr}^W_i e(\operatorname{IH}^q(Y_{\bar{k}}, {\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell}))$.
The same holds for intersection cohomology with compact supports.
We can assume $Y$ is irreducible. Let $f \colon X \to Y$ be a resolution of singularities; $X$ is then irreducible of dimension $\dim X$. For the motive $M$ having $\ell$-adic realization $\operatorname{Gr}^W_{q+r} \operatorname{IH}^q(Y_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}})$, we can take $$M= \operatorname{Gr}^{{\mathcal}{P}^f}_{\dim X, Y^{{\mathrm}{sm}}} H^q_r(h(X)),$$ where $Y^{{\mathrm}{sm}}$ denotes the smooth locus of $Y$. (Compare [@decataldo-migliorini:decomproj Remark 1.4.2], noting that we have normalized the perverse filtration differently than they do.)
For the equivariant statement, take $f \colon X \to Y$ to be an ${\mathrm}{A}$-equivariant resolution of singularities.[^25] By Lemma \[functoriality\], each $\gamma \in \Gamma(\bar{k})$ induces an automorphism of $\operatorname{Gr}^{{\mathcal}{P}^f}_{\dim X} H^q_r(h(X_{\bar{k}}))$. For $e \in {\overline{\mathbb{Q}}}[{\mathrm}{A}(\bar{k})]^{{\Gamma_{k}}}$, we obtain (after extending scalars to ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}}$) an endomorphism of $\operatorname{Gr}^{{\mathcal}{P}^f}_{\dim X} H^q_r(h(X))$. That this endomorphism preserves the canonical sub-motive (Theorem \[motivateddecomposition\]) $$\operatorname{Gr}^{{\mathcal}{P}^f}_{\dim X, Y^{{\mathrm}{sm}}} H^q_r(h(X)) \subset \operatorname{Gr}^{{\mathcal}{P}^f}_{\dim X} H^q_r(h(X))$$ is then verified by checking the corresponding statement for $\ell$-adic realizations.
The statement for compact supports follows similarly, or by now invoking Poincaré duality.
\[finalrmk\]
1. The motive underlying $\operatorname{Gr}^W_i \operatorname{IH}^k(Y_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}})$ is canonical in the following sense. The only ambiguity in its construction is that we may take a second resolution $f' \colon X' \to Y$ before applying the argument of Corollary \[ICmotpf\]. But any two resolutions of singularities can be dominated by a third, and so the functoriality property of Lemma \[functoriality\] implies that by passing through this third resolution we can deduce an isomorphism in ${\mathcal}{M}_k$: $$\operatorname{Gr}^{{\mathcal}{P}^f}_{\dim X, Y^{{\mathrm}{sm}}} H^q_r(h(X)) \cong \operatorname{Gr}^{{\mathcal}{P}^{f'}}_{\dim X', Y^{{\mathrm}{sm}}} H^q_r(h(X')).$$
2. In particular, Corollary \[ICmotpf\] completes the proof of Theorem \[motivated\].
3. Let us now take $k$ to be a finite extension of ${\mathbb{Q}}_p$, with $\ell=p$. Let $Y/k$ be a projective variety–this way we avoid discussing weight filtrations, and in particular do not have to be concerned that $k$ is not finitely-generated over ${\mathbb{Q}}$–so that $\operatorname{IH}^q(Y_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}}_p)$ has underlying motive $\operatorname{Gr}^{{\mathcal}{P}^f}_{\dim X, Y^{{\mathrm}{sm}}}(H^q(X))$ where $f \colon X \to Y$ is any resolution of singularities. By part 1 of Remark \[finalrmk\], we can then canonically define the intersection de Rham cohomology of $Y/k$ to be the de Rham realization (a filtered $k$-vector space) of the motive $\operatorname{Gr}^{{\mathcal}{P}^f}_{\dim X, Y^{{\mathrm}{sm}}}(H^q(X))$, and by general properties of ${\mathcal}{M}_k$ we obtain a $p$-adic de Rham comparison isomorphism, compatible with morphisms of motivated motives.
4. Finally, taking $k$ to be a totally real field, [@patrikis-taylor:irr Corollary B] extends from smooth projective varieties over $k$ with Hodge-regular cohomology in some degree to arbitrary projective varieties over $k$ with Hodge-regular intersection cohomology in some degree. Here we use the theorems of Gabber that $\{ \operatorname{IH}^q(Y_{\bar{k}}, {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}})\}_{\ell}$ forms a weakly compatible system of pure ${\Gamma_{k}}$-representations. Consequently, these compatible systems (in the regular case) are strongly compatible, and the corresponding L-functions admit meromorphic continuation to the whole complex plane, with the expected functional equation. Is it possible to construct examples of such singular varieties $Y$? Note that Yun’s construction in type $G_2$ and $D_{2n}$ (the latter regarded as ${\mathrm}{SO}_{4n-1}$-valued) do give families of examples of potentially automorphic motives: this is a special case of the examples arising from Katz’s theory as discussed in [@patrikis-taylor:irr §2]. The lifts of Yun’s examples constructed in Corollary \[locsyslift\] are no longer Hodge-Tate regular, so no further examples of potentially automorphic motives result from the constructions of the present paper.
[^1]: This paper could not exist without the beautiful work [@yun:exceptional] of Zhiwei Yun. I am moreover very grateful to Yun for generously sharing his understanding of [@yun:exceptional] with me. I thank Bhargav Bhatt for answering a question about stratifications, and Mark de Cataldo for his feedback on a draft of this paper. I thank the Institut Mathématique de Jussieu for its hospitality during part of the preparation of this paper. This work was supported by NSF grant DMS-1303928.
[^2]: That this motivic Galois representation should be special orthogonal, rather than merely orthogonal, is non-trivial; it follows from work of Andre: [@andre:hyperkaehler].
[^3]: For $F={\mathbb{C}}$, that is. When $F$ is a number field, the existence of $\tilde{\rho}$ requires the Tate conjecture for abelian varieties, and rather delicate descent arguments: see [@stp:variationsarxiv §4.2].
[^4]: This should be contrasted with the situation in which the kernel of ${\widetilde{H}}\to H$ is an isogeny, where geometric lifts, even after allowing a finite base-change on $F$, need not exist: for a simple example, consider the case ${\mathrm}{SL}_2 \to {\mathrm}{PGL}_2$ in which $\rho$ is the projective representation associated to the Tate module of an elliptic curve (or even more simply, consider multiplication by $N >1$ on $\mathbb{G}_m$, and let $\rho$ be the cyclotomic character). For the full story, see [@wintenberger:relevement].
[^5]: For an ‘axiomatic’ generalization of this context, see [@andre:hyperkaehler], which, for instance, further allows $X$ to be a hyperkähler variety, or a cubic four-fold.
[^6]: Also, in this case, a more elementary construction of the lift can be achieved using Katz’s theory ([@katz:rls]) of rigid local systems; this is a simple case of the strategy of [@stp:KSRLS1:middleconv].
[^7]: Not exactly, of course, since as we have phrased the result the theorem is vacuous for $k$ algebraically closed; in that case substitute for the $\ell$-adic cohomology the collection of Betti, de Rham, and $\ell$-adic realizations.
[^8]: For any two such choices, the resulting objects of $\operatorname{Bun}_{G, S, \infty}(k)$ become uniquely isomorphic modulo the $\operatorname{Aut}_{{\mathcal}{O}}^n$-action.
[^9]: Note that this is a special, and highly simplifying, feature of our particular context: for contrast, observe that the degree zero and degree one connected components of $\operatorname{Bun}_{{\mathrm}{GL}_2}$ ($X= \mathbb{P}^1$ still) are not isomorphic, since no degree 1 vector bundle has ${\mathrm}{GL}_2$ as its automorphism group.
[^10]: Note that this is what Yun denotes $\widetilde{A}$.
[^11]: Namely, that argument uses the incorrect assertion that $H^2(\overline{\Gamma}, {\overline{\mathbb{Q}}}^\times)=0$ for $\overline{\Gamma}$ a finite group isomorphic to a direct sum of ${\mathbb{Z}}/2{\mathbb{Z}}$’s.
[^12]: Which of course cannot be done over $k= {\mathbb{Q}}$, although it is possible over many quadratic extensions of ${\mathbb{Q}}$.
[^13]: Note that we continue to adhere to the notational pattern of using $\widetilde{(\ast)}$ to denote the ${\widetilde{G}}$-version of an object that could similarly be defined for $G$. Our notation is as a result not always consistent with that of [@yun:exceptional]: for instance, ${\widetilde{\mathrm{GR}}}^U$ denotes there (the version for $G$ of) what we will call ${\mathfrak}{G}^U$ below (see diagram (\[maindiagrambis\])).
[^14]: To be absolutely precise: consider along with the affine Grassmannian the affine flag variety $\operatorname{Fl}_{{\widetilde{G}}}= L{\widetilde{G}}/\widetilde{{\mathbf}{I}}$, where $\widetilde{{\mathbf}{I}}$ denotes the Iwahori. The connected components $\operatorname{Fl}_{{\widetilde{G}}}^0$ and $\operatorname{Gr}_{{\widetilde{G}}}^0$ are, up to taking reduced sub-schemes, isomorphic to their semi-simple counterparts $\operatorname{Fl}_G$ and $\operatorname{Gr}_G$ (see, eg, [@pappas-rapoport:twistedloop Proposition 6.6]). As in §\[ramifiedHecke\], the different component of $\operatorname{Fl}_{{\widetilde{G}}}$ are isomorphic via ramified Hecke operators $\operatorname{Fl}_{{\widetilde{G}}}^0 \xrightarrow{\mathbb{T}_{\gamma}} \operatorname{Fl}_{{\widetilde{G}}}^{\gamma}$. $\operatorname{Pic}(\operatorname{Gr}_{{\widetilde{G}}}^0)$ is isomorphic to the subgroup of $\operatorname{Pic}(\operatorname{Fl}_{{\widetilde{G}}}^0)$ corresponding to the unique minimal parahoric ${\mathbf}{P}$ properly containing $\widetilde{{\mathbf}{I}}$ but not contained in $L^+ {\widetilde{G}}$ (see the proof of [@faltings:algloop Corollary 12]); by the same argument, $\operatorname{Pic}(\operatorname{Gr}_{{\widetilde{G}}}^{\gamma})$ can be described inside of $\operatorname{Pic}(\operatorname{Fl}_{{\widetilde{G}}}^{\gamma})$ as the subspace spanned by the natural ${\mathcal}{O}(1)$ on $\mathbb{T}_{\gamma}({\mathbf}{P})/\widetilde{{\mathbf}{I}}$.
[^15]: These are, in the three cases: the standard representation of ${\mathrm}{SL}_2$, the 56-dimensional representation of $E_7$, and the standard ($2n$-dimensional) and two half-spin representations of ${\mathrm}{Spin}_{2n}$.
[^16]: The basic notions of horizontal sheaf, perverse t-structure on the ‘derived’ category of horizontal sheaves, and weights for horizontal sheaves are developed in, respectively, §1, 2, and 3 of [@huber:mixedperverse]. Morel’s paper builds on these foundations, generalizing the results of [@huber:mixedperverse] to any finitely-generated $k$, and establishing a sort of six operations functoriality for complexes having weight filtrations.
[^17]: In this case one should work not just with $\ell$-adic cohomology but also with (compatible) Betti and de Rham realizations, in order for the assertion to have any content.
[^18]: They prove something stronger, with Chow motives in place of motivated motives.
[^19]: We use homological conventions here.
[^20]: It is defined for the complex $f_* {\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}$ on $Y$ itself, and we omit the base-change to $\bar{k}$ in the notation of these cohomology groups.
[^21]: If $Y$ is not connected, $d(p)$ is a function $\pi_0(Y) \to {\mathbb{Z}}$; we can always reduce to the case of connected $Y$, so do not dwell on this.
[^22]: The irreducibility assumption is only for convenience in certain intermediate results, in which, for instance, we wish to invoke Poincaré duality without complicating the notation. Eventually, we extend component by component to the reducible case.
[^23]: Rather, the slight relabeling of this splitting that results from replacing $f_*{\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}[\dim X]$ in equation (\[fullsupportdecomp\]) with $f_*{\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}$.
[^24]: Essentially by the projection formula: writing $\eta_{\Sigma}$ for the pull-back of $\eta$ to $D_{\Sigma}$, we have, for any inclusion $\iota \colon D_{\Sigma} {\hookrightarrow}D_{\Sigma'}$, $\iota_*(a \cup \eta_{\Sigma})= \iota_*(a) \cup \eta_{\Sigma'}$. That is, cup-product with $\eta$ commutes with the boundary (Gysin) maps of the complex $h(X)$.
[^25]: For the existence, including our case in which ${\mathrm}{A}$ is not necessarily a discrete group scheme, see, e.g., [@kollar:resolutionlecture 9.1].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Ground-based high angular-resolution images of asteroid (2) Pallas at near-infrared wavelengths have been used to determine its physical properties (shape, dimensions, spatial orientation and albedo distribution).\
We acquired and analyzed adaptive-optics (AO) *J/H/K*-band observations from Keck II and the Very Large Telescope taken during four Pallas oppositions between 2003 and 2007, with spatial resolution spanning 32–88 km (image scales 13–20 km/pix). We improve our determination of the size, shape, and pole by a novel method that combines our AO data with 51 visual light-curves spanning 34 years of observations as well as archived occultation data.\
The shape model of Pallas derived here reproduces well both the projected shape of Pallas on the sky (average deviation of edge profile of 0.4 pixel) and light-curve behavior (average deviation of 0.019 mag) at all the epochs considered. We resolved the pole ambiguity and found the spin-vector coordinates to be within 5[$^\circ$]{} of \[long, lat\] = \[30[$^\circ$]{}, -16[$^\circ$]{}\] in the Ecliptic J2000.0 reference frame, indicating a high obliquity of about 84[$^\circ$]{}, leading to high seasonal contrast. The best triaxial-ellipsoid fit returns ellipsoidal radii of $a$=275 km, $b$= 258 km, and $c$= 238 km. From the mass of Pallas determined by gravitational perturbation on other minor bodies \[(1.2 $\pm$ 0.3) $\times$ 10$^{-10}$ M$_\odot$, Michalak 2000, A&A, 360\], we derive a density of 3.4 $\pm$ 0.9 g.cm$^{-3}$ significantly different from the density of C-type (1) Ceres of 2.2 $\pm$ 0.1 g.cm$^{-3}$ \[Carry et al. 2008, A&A, 478\]. Considering the spectral similarities of Pallas and Ceres at visible and near-infrared wavelengths, this may point to fundamental differences in the interior composition or structure of these two bodies.\
We define a planetocentric longitude system for Pallas, following IAU guidelines. We also present the first albedo maps of Pallas covering $\sim$80% of the surface in K-band. These maps reveal features with diameters in the 70$-$180 km range and an albedo contrast of about 6% with respect to the mean surface albedo.
address:
- 'ESO, Alonso de Córdova 3107, Vitacura, Casilla 19001, Santiago de Chile, Chile'
- 'LESIA, Observatoire de Paris, CNRS, 5 place Jules Janssen, 92190 Meudon Cedex, France'
- 'P.O. Box 68 (Gustaf Hällströmin katu 2b), FI-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland'
- 'IMCCE, Observatoire de Paris, CNRS, 77 av. Denfert Rochereau, 75014 Paris, France'
- 'Southwest Research Institute, 1050 Walnut St. \# 300, Boulder, CO 80302, U.S.A.'
- 'W. M. Keck Observatory, Hawaii, U.S.A.'
- 'Starfire Optical Range, Directed Energy Directorate, Air Force Research Laboratory, Kirtland AFB, New Mexico 87117-577, U.S.A.'
- 'ONERA, BP 72, 92322 Châtillon Cedex, France'
author:
- Benoît Carry
- Christophe Dumas
- Mikko Kaasalainen
- Jérôme Berthier
- 'William J. Merline'
- Stéphane Erard
- Al Conrad
- 'Jack D. Drummond'
- Daniel Hestroffer
- Marcello Fulchignoni
- Thierry Fusco
title: 'Physical Properties of (2) Pallas'
---
ASTEROIDS,ADAPTIVE OPTICS,INFRARED OBSERVATIONS,ASTEROIDS, SURFACES,OCCULTATIONS
Introduction
============
A considerable amount of information regarding the primordial planetary processes that occurred during and immediately after the accretion of the early planetesimals is still present among the population of small solar system bodies [@2002-AsteroidsIII-1-Bottke].\
Fundamental asteroid properties include composition (derived from spectroscopic analysis) and physical parameters (such as size, shape, mass, and spin orientation). While compositional investigations can provide crucial information on the conditions in the primordial solar nebula [@2007-AREPS-35-Scott] and on asteroid thermal evolution [@1990-Icarus-88-Jones], the study of asteroid physical properties can yield insights on asteroid cratering history [@1999-Icarus-140-Davis], internal structure [@2002-AsteroidsIII-4.2-Britt], and volatile fraction [@2008-MNRAS-383-Mousis] for example. These approaches complement one another — the density derived by observations of physical properties strongly constrains the composition [@2002-AsteroidsIII-2.2-Merline], which is key to evaluation of evolution scenarios.\
Spacecraft missions to asteroids, for example NEAR to (253) Mathilde and (433) Eros [@1999-Icarus-140-Veverka], and Hayabusa to (25143) Itokawa [@2006-Science-312-Fujiwara], greatly enhanced our understanding of asteroids. The high cost of space missions, however, precludes exploration of more than a few asteroids, leaving most asteroids to be studied from Earth-based telescopes.\
Although several remote observation techniques can be used to determine the physical properties of asteroids, our technique relies primarily on disk-resolved observations. Indeed, knowing accurately the size is crucial for the determination of asteroid volume, and hence density. If enough chords are observed, occultations provide precise measurement of asteroid shape and size [@1989-AsteroidsII-Millis], but at only one rotational phase (per occultation event). Moreover, because occultations of bright stars seldom occur, only a small fraction of all occultations are covered by a significant number of observers. Describing an asteroid’s 3-D size and shape with this method thus requires decades. Assuming a tri-axial ellipsoidal shape is a common way to build upon limited observations of asteroid projected sizes [@1989-Icarus-78-Drummond]. From the inversion of photometric light-curves, one can also derive asteroid shapes [@2002-AsteroidsIII-2.2-Kaasalainen], with sizes then relying on albedo considerations. On the other hand, disk-resolved observations, either radar or high angular-resolution imagery, provide direct measurement of an asteroid’s size and shape when its apparent disk can be spatially resolved.\
For about a decade now, we have had access to instrumentation with the angular resolution required to spatially resolve large main-belt asteroids at optical wavelengths. This can be done in the visible from space with the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) or in near-infrared from large telescopes equipped with adaptive optics (AO) such as Keck, the Very Large Telescope (VLT), and Gemini. Disk-resolved observations allow direct measurement of an asteroid’s absolute size [@1993-Icarus-105-SaintPe2], and of its shape, if enough rotational-phase coverage is obtained [@2007-Science-316-Taylor; @2007-Icarus-191-Conrad]. One can also derive the spin-vector coordinates from the time evolution of limb contours [@2005-Nature-437-Thomas] or from the apparent movement of an albedo feature [@2008-AA-478-Carry]. Ultimately, albedo maps may provide significant constraints on surface properties such as mineralogy or degree of space weathering [@1997-Icarus-128-Binzel; @2006-Icarus-182-Li; @2008-AA-478-Carry].\
Even if images can provide a complete description of asteroid properties, their combination with other sources of data (like light-curves or occultations) can significantly improve asteroid 3-D shape models [see the shape model of (22) Kalliope in @2008-Icarus-196-Descamps for instance].\
Pallas is a B-type asteroid [@2002-Icarus-158-BusII]. As such, it is thought to have a composition similar to that of the Carbonaceous Chondrite (CC) meteorites [see @1983-Icarus-56-Larson for a review]. Spectral analysis of the 3 micron band [@1990-Icarus-88-Jones] exhibited by Pallas suggests that its surface has a significant anhydrous component mixed with hydrated CM-like silicates (CM is a subclass of CC meteorites). Although Pallas is generally linked to CC/CM material, its composition remains uncertain. Indeed, Pallas’ visible and near-infrared spectrum is almost flat with only a slight blue slope, with the only absorption band clearly detected being the 3 micron band.\
Compositional/mineralogical studies for Pallas are further hampered by a poorly determined density. First, there is significant uncertainty in the mass, as most mass estimates do not overlap within the error bars [see @2002-AsteroidsIII-2.2-Hilton for a review]. Second, although the size of Pallas has been estimated from two occultations [@1979-AJ-84-Wasserman; @1990-AJ-99-Dunham], at least three events are required to determine asteroid spin and tri-axial dimensions [@1989-Icarus-78-Drummond].\
Until recently, the only published disk-resolved observations of Pallas were limited to some AO snapshots collected in 1991 by @1993-Icarus-105-SaintPe1, but the lack of spatial resolution prevented conclusions about Pallas’ size, shape, or spatial orientation. Recent observations of Pallas from Lick [@2008-Icarus-197-Drummond] and Keck Observatories [@2009-Icarus-Drummond] lead to new estimates for its triaxial ellipsoid dimensions, but there was still a relatively large uncertainty on the short axis. These Keck observations are included as a subset of the data considered here. Also, observations of Pallas were recently obtained using the WFPC2 instrument on HST [see @2009-LPI-Schmidt].
Observations
============
Here we present high angular-resolution images of asteroid (2) Pallas, acquired at multiple epochs, using AO in the near infrared with the Keck II telescope and the ESO Very Large Telescope (VLT).\
During the 2003, 2006 and 2007 oppositions, we imaged Pallas in Kp-band \[central wavelengths and bandwidths for all bands are given in Table \[tab-obs-settings\]\] with a 9.942 $\pm$ 0.050 milliarcsec per pixel image scale of NIRC2, the second generation near-infrared camera (1024$\times$1024 InSb Aladdin-3) and the AO system installed at the Nasmyth focus of the Keck II telescope [@2004-AppOpt-43-vanDam]. We acquired five other epochs near the more favorable 2005 opposition during which we imaged Pallas in J-, H-, and Ks-bands, with the 13.27 $\pm$ 0.050 milliarcsec per pixel image scale of CONICA (1024$\times$1026 InSb Aladdin-3) [@2003-SPIE-4839-Rousset; @2003-SPIE-4841-Lenzen] and the NAOS AO system installed at the Nasmyth B focus of UT4/Yepun at the VLT. We list in Table \[tab-obs-condition\] Pallas’ heliocentric distance and range to observer, phase angle, angular diameter and Sub-Earth-Point (SEP, with planetocentric coordinate system defined in section \[subsec-mapping-method\]) coordinates for each observation.\
Near-infrared broad-band filter observations of Pallas were interspersed with observations of a Point-Spread-Function (PSF) reference star at similar airmass and through the same set of filters (Tables \[tab-obs-settings\] & \[tab-obs-psf\]). This calibration was required to perform *a posteriori* image restoration (deconvolution) as described in @2008-AA-478-Carry. These observations of stars also can be used to measure the quality of the AO correction during the observations. We thus report in Table \[tab-obs-psf\] the Full Width at Half Max (FWHM) of each PSF, in milliarcseconds and also in kilometers at the distance of Pallas. No offset to sky was done, but the telescope position was dithered after one or a few exposures to place the object (science or calibration) at three different locations on the detector separated by $\sim$5 from each other. This allows a median sky frame to be created directly from the acquired targeted images.
**Observation Conditions**\
------------- ------- ---------- ------ -------- ---------------- -------- ---------------- ---------------- --------- ------------------------- --
Date UT $\Delta$ $r$ V $\alpha$ $\phi$ SEP$_\lambda$ SEP$_\varphi$ Airmass PSF
(AU) (AU) (mag.) ([$^\circ$]{}) () ([$^\circ$]{}) ([$^\circ$]{}) (Table \[tab-obs-psf\])
2003 Oct 10 12:00 2.73 1.80 8.25 9.4 0.39 107 -76 1.28 Oct.10-$\star$1
2003 Oct 12 09:13 2.73 1.80 8.24 9.5 0.39 183 -75 1.40 Oct.12-$\star$1
2003 Oct 12 11:14 2.73 1.80 8.24 9.5 0.39 90 -75 1.25 Oct.12-$\star$2
2005 Feb 02 06:30 2.27 1.60 8.04 21.9 0.44 265 +64 1.21 Feb.02-$\star$1
2005 Feb 02 08:05 2.26 1.60 8.04 21.9 0.49 192 +64 1.05 Feb.02-$\star$2
2005 Mar 12 06:02 2.34 1.37 7.20 6.9 0.52 54 +64 1.15 Mar.12-$\star$
2005 Mar 13 04:42 2.34 1.37 7.18 6.6 0.52 90 +64 1.21 Mar.13-$\star$
2005 May 08 23:30 2.47 1.77 8.39 20.1 0.40 326 +54 1.74 May.08-$\star$1
2005 May 09 23:18 2.47 1.78 8.41 20.3 0.40 309 +54 1.80 May.09-$\star$1
2006 Aug 16 06:55 3.35 2.76 9.85 15.5 0.26 22 +32 1.00 Aug.16-$\star$1
2006 Aug 16 07:22 3.35 2.76 9.85 15.5 0.26 1 +32 1.01 Aug.16-$\star$1
2006 Aug 16 07:45 3.35 2.76 9.85 15.5 0.26 343 +32 1.03 Aug.16-$\star$1
2006 Aug 16 08:12 3.35 2.76 9.85 15.5 0.26 322 +32 1.07 Aug.16-$\star$2
2006 Aug 16 08:45 3.35 2.76 9.86 15.5 0.26 297 +32 1.13 Aug.16-$\star$2
2006 Aug 16 09:00 3.35 2.76 9.86 15.5 0.26 285 +32 1.17 Aug.16-$\star$3
2006 Aug 16 09:18 3.35 2.76 9.86 15.5 0.26 272 +32 1.23 Aug.16-$\star$3
2007 Jul 12 13:15 3.31 2.69 9.78 15.5 0.26 211 -38 1.03 Jul.12-$\star$
2007 Nov 01 04:30 3.16 2.64 9.68 16.9 0.27 265 -27 1.19 Nov.01-$\star$
2007 Nov 01 06:06 3.16 2.64 9.68 16.9 0.27 191 -27 1.12 Nov.01-$\star$
------------- ------- ---------- ------ -------- ---------------- -------- ---------------- ---------------- --------- ------------------------- --
**Observation Settings**\
------------------- ------- --------- ------------- ------------------ -------- ---------- -----
Date Inst. Filters $\lambda_c$ $\Delta \lambda$ Images $\Theta$ ROI
(UT) ($\mu$m) ($\mu$m) \# (km) (%)
2003 Oct 10$^{a}$ NIRC2 Kp 2.124 0.35 4 57 60
2003 Oct 12$^{b}$ NIRC2 Kp 2.124 0.35 9 57 60
2005 Feb 02$^{a}$ NACO J 1.265 0.25 8 37 60
2005 Feb 02$^{a}$ NACO H 1.66 0.33 12 48 55
2005 Feb 02$^{a}$ NACO Ks 2.18 0.35 13 64 50
2005 Mar 12$^{a}$ NACO J 1.265 0.25 6 32 60
2005 Mar 12$^{a}$ NACO H 1.66 0.33 6 41 60
2005 Mar 12$^{a}$ NACO Ks 2.18 0.35 5 54 60
2005 Mar 13$^{a}$ NACO J 1.265 0.25 6 32 60
2005 Mar 13$^{a}$ NACO H 1.66 0.33 6 41 60
2005 Mar 13$^{a}$ NACO Ks 2.18 0.35 6 54 55
2005 May 08$^{c}$ NACO J 1.265 0.25 6 41 50
2005 May 08$^{c}$ NACO H 1.66 0.33 9 54 55
2005 May 08$^{c}$ NACO Ks 2.18 0.35 13 70 50
2005 May 09$^{c}$ NACO H 1.66 0.33 9 54 60
2005 May 09$^{c}$ NACO Ks 2.18 0.35 6 71 50
2006 Aug 16$^{d}$ NIRC2 Kp 2.124 0.35 35 88 50
2007 Jul 12$^{e}$ NIRC2 Kp 2.124 0.35 7 85 50
2007 Nov 01$^{e}$ NIRC2 Kp 2.124 0.35 19 84 50
------------------- ------- --------- ------------- ------------------ -------- ---------- -----
**Point-Spread-Function Observations**\
--------------------- ------------- ------- -------- ---------------- ------------ ------------ ------- --------- ------- ------
Name Date UT Filter Designation RA DEC V Airmass
(UT) (hh:mm:ss) (dd:mm:ss) (mag) (mas) (km)
Oct.10-[$\star$]{}1 2003 Oct 10 12:12 Kp HD 13093 02:07:47 -15:20:46 8.70 1.27 78 102
Oct.12-[$\star$]{}1 2003 Oct 12 09:04 Kp HD 7662 01:16:26 -12:31:50 10.35 1.25 56 73
Oct.12-[$\star$]{}2 2003 Oct 12 09:25 Kp HD 12628 02:03:25 -17:01:59 8.17 1.39 52 68
Feb.02-[$\star$]{}1 2005 Feb 02 06:59 J HD 109098 12:32:04 -01:46:20 7.31 1.16 62 72
Feb.02-[$\star$]{}1 2005 Feb 02 06:56 H HD 109098 12:32:04 -01:46:20 7.31 1.16 62 72
Feb.02-[$\star$]{}1 2005 Feb 02 06:51 Ks HD 109098 12:32:04 -01:46:20 7.31 1.16 64 74
Feb.02-[$\star$]{}2 2005 Feb 02 08:30 J HD 109098 12:32:04 -01:46:20 7.31 1.08 62 71
Feb.02-[$\star$]{}2 2005 Feb 02 08:27 H HD 109098 12:32:04 -01:46:20 7.31 1.08 64 74
Feb.02-[$\star$]{}2 2005 Feb 02 08:24 Ks HD 109098 12:32:04 -01:46:20 7.31 1.08 64 75
Mar.12-[$\star$]{} 2005 Mar 12 06:28 J HD 109098 12:32:04 -01:46:20 7.31 1.10 74 73
Mar.12-[$\star$]{} 2005 Mar 12 06:25 H HD 109098 12:32:04 -01:46:20 7.31 1.10 64 63
Mar.12-[$\star$]{} 2005 Mar 12 06:21 Ks HD 109098 12:32:04 -01:46:20 7.31 1.10 64 63
Mar.13-[$\star$]{} 2005 Mar 13 05:02 J HD 109098 12:32:04 -01:46:20 7.31 1.11 68 67
Mar.13-[$\star$]{} 2005 Mar 13 05:04 H HD 109098 12:32:04 -01:46:20 7.31 1.11 58 57
Mar.13-[$\star$]{} 2005 Mar 13 05:07 Ks HD 109098 12:32:04 -01:46:20 7.31 1.11 53 52
May.08-[$\star$]{}1 2005 May 08 22:51 H NGC 2818 TCW E 09:15:50 -36:32:36 12.21 1.02 51 65
May.08-[$\star$]{}1 2005 May 08 22:47 Ks NGC 2818 TCW E 09:15:50 -36:32:36 12.21 1.02 40 50
May.08-[$\star$]{}2 2005 May 09 01:58 J BD+20 2680 12:05:53 +19:26:52 10.13 1.39 113 145
May.08-[$\star$]{}2 2005 May 09 01:52 H BD+20 2680 12:05:53 +19:26:52 10.13 1.39 67 86
May.08-[$\star$]{}2 2005 May 09 01:47 Ks BD+20 2680 12:05:53 +19:26:52 10.13 1.39 64 82
May.08-[$\star$]{}3 2005 May 09 03:17 J BD-06 4131 15:05:39 -06:35:26 10.33 1.09 79 101
May.08-[$\star$]{}3 2005 May 09 03:26 H BD-06 4131 15:05:39 -06:35:26 10.33 1.09 66 84
May.08-[$\star$]{}3 2005 May 09 03:38 Ks BD-06 4131 15:05:39 -06:35:26 10.33 1.09 64 82
May.09-[$\star$]{}1 2005 May 10 00:27 H BD+20 2680 12:05:53 +19:26:52 10.13 1.47 71 92
May.09-[$\star$]{}1 2005 May 10 00:05 Ks BD+20 2680 12:05:53 +19:26:52 10.13 1.55 62 80
May.09-[$\star$]{}2 2005 May 10 01:45 H BD-06 4131 15:05:39 -06:35:26 10.33 1.40 72 93
May.09-[$\star$]{}2 2005 May 10 01:56 Ks BD-06 4131 15:05:39 -06:35:26 10.33 1.34 60 78
May.09-[$\star$]{}3 2005 May 10 08:28 H BD-06 4131 15:05:39 -06:35:26 10.33 1.92 66 85
May.09-[$\star$]{}3 2005 May 10 08:38 Ks BD-06 4131 15:05:39 -06:35:26 10.33 2.05 63 82
Aug.16-[$\star$]{}1 2006 Aug 16 07:12 Kp NLTT 45848 18:03:01 +17:16:35 9.89 1.01 43 86
Aug.16-[$\star$]{}2 2006 Aug 16 08:15 Kp NLTT 45848 18:03:01 +17:16:35 9.89 1.07 42 83
Aug.16-[$\star$]{}3 2006 Aug 16 09:22 Kp NLTT 45848 18:03:01 +17:16:35 9.89 1.25 42 83
Aug.16-[$\star$]{}4 2006 Aug 16 10:27 Kp NLTT 45848 18:03:01 +17:16:35 9.89 1.63 42 84
Jul.12-[$\star$]{} 2007 Jul 12 13:10 Kp G 27-28 22:26:34 +04:36:35 9.73 1.04 39 76
Nov.01-[$\star$]{} 2007 Nov 01 04:12 Kp HD 214425 22:38:07 -02:53:55 8.28 1.28 44 84
--------------------- ------------- ------- -------- ---------------- ------------ ------------ ------- --------- ------- ------
Data reduction
==============
We reduced the data using standard techniques for near-infrared images. A bad pixel mask was made by combining the hot and dead pixels found from the dark and flat-field frames. The bad pixels in our calibration and science images were then corrected by replacing their values with the median of the neighboring pixels (7$\times$7 pixel box). Our sky frames were obtained from the median of each series of dithered science images, and then subtracted from the corresponding science images to remove the sky and instrumental background. By doing so, the dark current was also removed. Finally, each image was divided by a normalized flat-field to correct the pixel-to-pixel sensitivity differences of the detector.\
We then restored the images to optimal angular-resolution by applying the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Mistral</span> deconvolution algorithm [@these-fusco; @2004-JOSAA-21-Mugnier]. This image restoration algorithm is particularly well suited to deconvolution of objects with sharp edges, such as asteroids. Image restoration techniques are known to be constrained by the limitation of trying to measure/estimate the precise instrumental plus atmospheric responses at the exact time of the science observations. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Mistral</span> is an iterative myopic deconvolution method, which estimates both the most probable object, and the PSF, from analysis of science and reference-star images [see @2004-JOSAA-21-Mugnier for details]. In total, we obtained 186 images of Pallas with a spatial resolution (Table \[tab-obs-settings\]) corresponding to the diffraction limit of the telescope (which we estimate by $\lambda$/$D$, with $\lambda$ the wavelength and $D$ the telescope diameter) and the range of the observer given in Table \[tab-obs-condition\]. A subset of the restored images is presented in Fig. \[fig-views\_of\_pallas\].
**Pallas in K-band**\
\[lastfig\]
Size, shape and spin-vector coordinates
=======================================
Disk-resolved observations (from space, ground-based AO, radar, or occultations) provide strong constraints on asteroid shape. The limb contour recorded is a direct measurement of the asteroid’s outline on the sky. Combination of such contours leads to the construction of an asteroid shape model and an associated pole solution [@2007-Icarus-191-Conrad]. To improve our shape model, we combined our AO data with the numerous light-curves available for Pallas (51 of them, which led @2003-Icarus-164-Torppa to their own shape model).
Discrimination of the pole solution
-----------------------------------
Due to an ambiguity inherent in the method and observation geometry, it is sometimes impossible to discriminate between the two possible pole solutions obtained from the light-curve inversion process. Therefore, we produced the two contours of both (light-curve-derived) shape models, as projected onto the plane of the sky for the time of our AO observations, and compared them with our images of Pallas, as shown in Fig. \[fig-wrong-pole\]. This simple comparison [@2003-Icarus-162-Cellino; @2006-Icarus-185-Marchis] allowed us to reject one pole solution (Fig. \[fig-wrong-pole\], right) in favor of the other (Fig. \[fig-wrong-pole\], left) based on its poor representation of the asteroid contour. Even though the selected pole solution and its associated shape model rendered better the AO images, it was clear that the shape model still needed improvement. Indeed, the light-curve inversion algorithm [@2001-Icarus-153-Kaasalainen-a] associates photometric variation with shape and not with albedo. The presence of albedo markings (as found here, see section \[sec-surface\]) would thus lead to an erroneous shape. We discuss the development of a new shape model in section \[ssec:shape\].\
Once we had rejected one of the possible pole-solution regions (from light-curves, above), we refined the pole solution by fitting (next section) against our ensemble of AO images. We find the spin-vector coordinates of Pallas to be within 5$^\circ$ of arc of \[$\lambda = 30$$^\circ$, $\beta = -16$$^\circ$\] in the Ecliptic J2000.0 reference frame (Table \[tab-PoleSolution\]). This value is roughly in agreement with the value (40[$^\circ$]{}, -16[$^\circ$]{}) in Ecliptic B1950 coordinates \[equivalent to (41[$^\circ$]{}, -16[$^\circ$]{}) in Ecliptic J2000\] found by @2007-Icarus-192-Kryszczynska from a synthesis of reported pole solutions (mainly from indirect methods). Recent pole solutions are reported near our solution. @2008-Icarus-197-Drummond give a solution of (32$^\circ$,-21$^\circ$) $\pm$ 6$^\circ$ (in Ecliptic J2000) based on AO observations done at Lick Observatory. In a follow-up report by the same authors [@2009-Icarus-Drummond], from AO observations at Keck (included as a subset here), a solution of (34$^\circ$,-27$^\circ$) $\pm$ 3$^\circ$ is quoted. These solutions are in rough agreement with the value derived here, and we note that @2009-Icarus-Drummond list their errors to be model-fit errors only, essentially precisions of the measures, while indicating there may be systematic errors that are not included in the quoted error. Because our solution is derived from a larger number of epochs, and because it also considers extensive light-curve datasets, we think the difference from the solution of @2009-Icarus-Drummond is the result of systematic errors in their more limited dataset.\
The present pole solution implies a high obliquity of $\sim$84$^\circ$, which means seasons on Pallas have high contrast. Large portions of both hemispheres will experience extended periods of constant sunlight or constant darkness over Pallas’ orbital period of 4.6 years. Locations near the poles would remain in total sunlight or darkness for as long as two years.\
**Pole Solution Selection**\
\
\[lastfig\]
**Pole solution**\
-------------------------- ------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------ --------------- ----------------
$P_s$ Ecliptic Equatorial $t_0$ $W_0$
(h) ($\lambda_0$, $\beta_0$ in [$^\circ$]{}) ($\alpha_0$, $\delta_0$ in [$^\circ$]{}) (JD) ([$^\circ$]{})
7.8132214 $\pm$ 0.000002 (30, -16) $\pm$ 5 (33, -3) $\pm$ 5 2433827.77154 38 $\pm$ 2
-------------------------- ------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------ --------------- ----------------
Construction of the shape model\[ssec:shape\]
---------------------------------------------
We constructed a shape model, based on both AO observations and optical light-curves, to render the aspect of Pallas at each epoch.
### Contour measurement\[sssec-contour\]
The deconvolution process is an ill-posed inverse problem [@1974-Tikhonov] and can introduce artifacts in the restored images. Although we carefully cross-checked the images after the deconvolution process, the presence of artifacts was still possible. Because reliable information is provided by limb contours, which are far less subject to artifact contamination in the deconvolution process [see @2006-Icarus-185-Marchis Fig. 2], we chose to discard the albedo information from our images at this stage.\
We measured 186 limb contours using the Laplacian of a Gaussian wavelet transform [@2008-AA-478-Carry] of the Pallas frames. Then, to minimize introduction of artifacts, we took the median contour (Fig. \[fig-shape\]) of each epoch (Table \[tab-obs-condition\]) and used them as fiducials during the light-curve inversion. For each observational series, all frames were taken within a span of 4–5 minutes, during which Pallas rotated only about 3–4$^\circ$. This translates into a degradation of the spatial information that is much lower than the highest angular resolution achieved in our images.\
**Contour extraction**\
\[lastfig\]
### KOALA
The shape and spin model was created by combining the two data modes, photometry (light-curves) and adaptive-optics contours, with the general principle described in @2006-IP-22-Kaasalainen: the joint chi-square is minimized with the condition that the separate chi-squares for the two modes be acceptable (the light-curve fit deviation is 0.019 mag and the profile fit deviation is 0.4 pixel). The light-curve fitting procedure is described in @2001-Icarus-153-Kaasalainen-b, and the edge fitting method and the choice of weights for different data modes is described in detail in Kaasalainen \[submitted to Inverse Problems and Imaging\]. We also used a smoothness constraint (regularizing function) to prevent artificial details in the model, *i.e.*, we chose the simplest model that was capable of fitting successfully the data. Since Pallas is a rather regular body to a first approximation, and the data resolution is limited, we chose to use a function series in spherical harmonics to represent the radii lengths in fixed directions [*see* @2001-Icarus-153-Kaasalainen-a]. In addition to reducing the number of free parameters and providing global continuity, the function series, once determined, gives a representation that can be directly evaluated for any number of radii (or any tessellation scheme) chosen without having to carry out the inversion again. The number of function coefficients, rather than the tessellation density, determines the level of resolution.\
As discussed in Kaasalainen \[submitted to Inverse Problems and Imaging\], profile and shadow edges (when several viewing angles are available) contain, in fact, almost as much information on the shape and spin as direct images. In our case, the edges are also considerably more reliable than the information across the deconvolved disk (see section \[sssec-contour\]), so the modeling is indeed best done by combining edges, rather than images, with light-curves. The procedure is directly applicable to combining photometry and occultation measurements as well. The technique of combining these three data modes we call KOALA for Knitted Occultation, Adaptive optics, and Light-curve Analysis.
The irregular shape of Pallas\[subsec-pallas\_model\]
-----------------------------------------------------
From the combination of light-curves and high angular-resolution images, we found Pallas to be an irregular asteroid with significant departures from an ellipsoid, as visible in Fig. \[fig-views\_of\_pallas\]. Our shape model, presented in Fig. \[fig-model\], is available either on request or from the Internet. Useful parameters (coordinates of the SEP and SSP as well as pole angle) to display the shape model of Pallas, as seen on the plane of the sky at any time, can be computed from the values reported in Table \[tab-PoleSolution\] and the following equation from @2001-Icarus-153-Kaasalainen-b, which transforms vectors (*e.g.* Earth-asteroid vector) from the ecliptic reference frame ($\vec{r}_{ecl}$) into the reference frame of the shape model ($\vec{r}_{ast}$). $$\vec{r}_{ast} = \mathcal{R}_z \left(\frac{2\pi}{P_s} (t - t_o)\right)
\mathcal{R}_y \left(\frac{\pi}{2} - \beta_0 \right)
\mathcal{R}_z(\lambda_0) \vec{r}_{ecl}$$ where $\lambda_0$, $\beta_0$ are the pole coordinates in the Ecliptic reference frame, $P_s$ the sidereal period (Table \[tab-PoleSolution\]), $t_0$ the epoch of reference (chosen arbitrarily as $t_0 = 2433827.77154$ JD, the starting time of the first light-curve used here), and $t$ is the time. $\mathcal{R}_i(\alpha)$ is the rotation matrix representing a rotation by angle $\alpha$ about axis $i$, in the positive sense. Then, we report in Table \[tab-triaxial\] our best-fit tri-axial ellipsoid values, with measurement dispersion, compared with the @2009-Icarus-Drummond and @2009-LPI-Schmidt studies.\
**Pallas Shape Model**\
\[lastfig\]
**Tri-Axial Solution**\
----------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ --------- --------- --------------------------
$a$ $b$ $c$ $R$ $a$/$b$ $b$/$c$ $V$
(km) (km) (km) (km) ($\times 10^6$ km$^{3}$)
This work 275 258 238 256 1.06 1.09 70
1$\sigma$ error 4 3 3 3 0.03 0.03 3
@2009-Icarus-Drummond 274 252 230 251 1.09 1.10 66
1$\sigma$ error 2 2 7 3 0.01 0.03 2
@2009-LPI-Schmidt 291 278 250 272 1.05 1.11 85
1$\sigma$ error 9 9 9 9 0.06 0.08 8
----------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ --------- --------- --------------------------
The dimensions derived here for Pallas are somewhat larger, at the few-$\sigma$ level, than those derived by @2009-Icarus-Drummond. The quoted errors by Drummond et al., however, do not include possible systematic effects, which they indicate could be in the range of 1-2% of the values. Once their quoted errors are augmented to include systematics, their dimensions are entirely consistent with our derived values. The smaller error bar quoted here for the $c$ dimension results from more observations, taken over a wider span of SEP latitudes (Table \[tab-obs-condition\]). We continue to refine our estimates of our absolute accuracy, but we are confident it is significantly smaller than the difference (16 km) between our value for the mean radius ($R = 256 \pm 3$ km) and that from HST WFPC2 ($R=272 \pm 9$ km) of @2009-LPI-Schmidt. Our method to determine the error relies on searching for the minimum and maximum possible dimensions of the shape-model contours that would be consistent with the images. Therefore, the quoted errors are the best approximation to absolute accuracy at this time. Further, in search of possible systematics in our technique, we have run a range of simulations for Pallas and a few other asteroids for which we have data. The preliminary results are that the errors quoted here appear to include systematics and, in any case, the absolute errors are unlikely to be much larger than the error quoted here. Two issues that may be relevant to systematics of the HST observations relative to ours, are [1) the WFPC2 PSF, although stable and well characterized, is under-sampled]{} (giving a resolution set by 2 pixels, or about 149 km at all wavebands) and [2)]{} the lack of deconvolution (for size determination), which would naturally result in larger values [[see Fig. 3 in @2006-Icarus-185-Marchis for instance]]{}.\
[ Next, we present in Fig. \[fig-occ\] our shape model, oriented on the sky to correspond to the times of four stellar occultations by Pallas [@2008-Occultations]. To assess quantitatively the match between the shape model from the AO/light-curve observations and the occultation chords, we show in Fig. \[fig-occdev\] the radius of the shape model as a function of azimuth angle from the center of the projected figure of the body, along with the measured endpoints of the chords (and their associated uncertainties). The correspondence for the 1985 and 2001 events is quite good, while that for 1978 and 1983 is less so. In Table \[tab-occ\], we display the RMS deviation of the chords from the shape model, both in km and in terms of the occultation uncertainties ($\sigma_c$). The 1985 and 2001 events are about 1$\sigma$, even without making an attempt to modify the shape model. The 3$\sigma$ for 1983 is still good, considering that this is not a description of a fit of a model to these (occultation) data, but instead assessing how well a model, fit to other data sets, corresponds to the occultation data. The 6$\sigma$ deviation for 1978 is driven almost entirely by one chord (the RMS deviation without taking this chord into account drops to 1.3$\sigma$, see Table \[tab-occ\]).]{}\
[Consideration of the RMS deviation in km shows that the observed deviation between the shape model and the occultation chords is on the same scale as possible topographic features. The localized deviations observed may thus reflect the presence of local topography. We found the RMS deviation similar to the uncertainty resulting from the typical occultation-timing error of 0.3 s. Here, we are demonstrating the potential utility of KOALA, by showing rough quantitative agreement between occultation and AO/light-curve-derived shape models. We are showing that the occultations are consistent with our triaxial dimensions as well as the general shape. For future work, we will use the occultation data as additional constraints on the shape model itself, modifying the shape accordingly]{}.\
[ Although the occultations show that the shape model is globally correct, there may exist local topography where no limb measurements were available to constrain the shape. As an exemple, t]{}he flat region or facet at the S-E limb [in the upper right of Fig. \[fig-occ\]]{} is not borne out by the chords [($\sim$ 20 km mismatch between the model and the occultation chords)]{}. This facet appears in the northern hemisphere of Pallas, where a large dark albedo patch is also present (see section \[subsec-mapping-description\]). Because our technique does not yet take into account the albedo information during the inversion, a dark patch may be misrepresented as a deficit/depression if no limb measurement from AO constrains it. This highlights the need for future development of the KOALA technique, including the effects of albedo, and the need for continued acquisition of high-quality imaging at the widest range of geometries (SEP longitude and latitude).
**Comparison with occultations**\
![ Comparison of our shape model with occultation chords for four occultation events. We use the method described by @1999-IMCCE-Berthier to convert the occultation timings reported by @2008-Occultations to their print on the plane of the sky. Celestial north is up and east is to the left. For each occultation, we list the date and time (UT), the occulted star, and the SEP coordinates and pole angle $p_n$ (defined in Fig. \[fig-model\]) for Pallas. [For each chord, the diamonds represent the exact time of disappearance and reappearance as reported by the observer, linked by the dashed lines, and the solid lines represent the error stated by the observer.]{} \[fig-occ\] \[lastfig\] ](fig5 "fig:"){width=".5\textwidth"}
**Occultation radial profiles**\
![ [ Higher resolution view of the contours for the four occultations presented in Fig. \[fig-occ\]. The distance to the body center of the shape model, and the locations of the chord endpoints, are represented as a function of an angle in the plane of sky (measured counter-clockwise from the celestial north through east). The chord endpoints and their associated errors are represented by the grey bars. The black bands show the contour of the shape model with its uncertainty.]{} \[fig-occdev\] \[lastfig\] ](fig5b "fig:"){width=".5\textwidth"}
**Comparison of the Occultations and the Shape Model**\
[ccccc]{} Occultation Date & Chords & $<\sigma_c>$ & RMS & RMS\
(UT) & (\#) & (km) & (km) & ($\sigma_c$)\
1978 May 29 - 05:27 $^{\alpha}$ & 7 & 5.4 & 12.9 & 6.1\
1978 May 29 - 05:27 $^{\beta}$ & 6 & 6.2 & 6.3 & 1.3\
1983 May 29 - 04:57 & 130 & 7.6 & 9.6 & 3.7\
1985 Oct 24 - 16:24 & 3 & 9.6 & 6.1 & 0.8\
2001 Jun 09 - 10:23 & 3 & 19.4 & 7.5 & 0.6\
\
Because of the high inclination of its orbit (35[$^\circ$]{}), Pallas remains above or below the canonical asteroid “belt” (and the ecliptic plane) most of the time. As a result, mass determinations for Pallas generally show poor agreement, depending on the method used [see @2002-AsteroidsIII-2.2-Hilton for a review]: perturbation of Mars [e.g., @1989-Icarus-80-Standish], asteroid close encounters [*e.g.,* @2001-AA-365-Goffin], or ephemeris theory [@2008-AA-477-Fienga]. To be conservative, we use the conservative estimate from @2000-AA-360-Michalak, which includes consideration of most previous mass estimates for Pallas. That value is 1.2 $\times$ 10$^{-10}$ M$_\odot$, with an uncertainty of $\pm$ 0.3 $\times$ 10$^{-10}$ M$_\odot$. Combined with our new estimates for Pallas’ dimensions, and hence volume, we derive a density for Pallas of $\rho = 3.4 \pm$ 0.9 g.cm$^{-3}$, where the uncertainty on the mass now dominates the density uncertainty.\
Until recently [@2009-LPI-Schmidt; @2009-Icarus-Drummond], the volume of Pallas was poorly constrained. The IRAS measurement led to a density of $\rho_{\textrm{\tiny{IRAS}}} = 3.7 \pm 1.1$ g.cm$^{-3}$, and not enough occultations were observed to derive an accurate volume [see @1989-Icarus-78-Drummond]. The density derived here agrees with @2009-Icarus-Drummond at the 5% level, but is about 20% higher than that determined by @2009-LPI-Schmidt due to the differences in measured dimensions (see above). Making further improvements on the density determination will now require improved mass estimates.\
The difference between the density of (2) Pallas ($3.4 \pm$ 0.9 g.cm$^{-3}$) and that of (1) Ceres [$\sim$2.2 g.cm$^{-3}$, @2008-AA-478-Carry] presents a bit of a puzzle. Because Ceres and Pallas have been predicted to present almost no macro-porosity [@2002-AsteroidsIII-4.2-Britt], their bulk densities should reflect something close to the mineral density. This difference suggests a compositional mismatch between these two large bodies, even though it has been believed for years that they have a similar composition [*e.g.,* @1983-Icarus-56-Larson], close to that of carbonaceous chondrites. The orbit of Pallas, however, being more eccentric than that of Ceres, has a perihelion that is closer to the Sun by 0.4 AU than the perihelion of Ceres. Ceres may thus have retained more hydrated (and less dense) materials, as is generally proposed to explain its low density [*e.g., see* @2005-JGR-110-McCord]. It is also possible that Ceres may retain reservoirs of water ice and/or may have a somewhat different internal structure than Pallas. For example, the near-surface of Ceres may support extensive voids relative to Pallas, resulting from sublimation of sub-surface water ice, as predicted by the models of its internal structure [@1989-Icarus-82-Fanale]. Marginal detection of sublimation was claimed by @1992-Icarus-98-AHearn, although more recent observations [@2008-ACM-Rousselot] do not support this idea. Based on its near-infrared spectrum, Pallas appears to lack a signature of organic or icy material. [@1990-Icarus-88-Jones]. We suggest that the sum of the evidence points to a dry Pallas, relative to Ceres.
Surface mapping\[sec-surface\]
==============================
As highlighted in @SurfaceMapping, the best way to study planetary landmarks is to produce surface maps. It allows location and comparison of features between independent studies and allows correction of possible artifacts (*e.g.*, from deconvolution). Here we do not describe the whole process of extracting surface maps from AO asteroid images, because it has been covered previously for Ceres [@2008-AA-478-Carry]. Instead, we report below the main improvements with respect to our previous study.
Method\[subsec-mapping-method\]
-------------------------------
#### Geometry: {#geometry .unnumbered}
Because a 3-D surface cannot be mapped onto a plane without introducing distortions, the projection choice is crucial, and depends on the geometry of the observations. Due to the high obliquity of Pallas (84[$^\circ$]{}) and its inclined orbit (35[$^\circ$]{}), the observations presented here span almost the entire latitude range. Following the recommendation of @SurfaceMapping, we produced one map for the equatorial band (Equidistant Cylindrical Projection) and two others for the polar regions (Orthographic Projection), thereby minimizing distortion over the entire surface of Pallas. We used the @2006-arXiv-Goldbergmapping flexion quantification method to choose both projections for this specific observation geometry.
#### Region of interest: {#region-of-interest .unnumbered}
We decided to exclude from the maps the outer annulus of the apparent disk of the asteroid in each image. We did this for two reasons: 1) the image scale (km/pixel) and spatial resolution are degraded there [@2008-AA-478-Carry section 4.2] and 2) the edges of many of the images suffer from brightness-ringing artifacts resulting from deconvolution. We defined a Region Of Interest (ROI) to select the range of pixels to be used for mapping. The ROI was defined by the projected shape of Pallas, reduced to a given percent of its radius to exclude any artifact. We defined the percentage for each night by inspection of the degree of ringing present after image restoration. The resulting ROI percentages are given in Table \[tab-obs-settings\].
#### Definition of the planetocentric coordinate system: {#definition-of-the-planetocentric-coordinate-system .unnumbered}
We define here, for the first time, a planetocentric coordinates system for Pallas, following the guidelines of the IAU Working Group on cartographic coordinates and rotational elements [@2007-CeMDA-98-Seidelmann]. Longitudes are measured from 0[$^\circ$]{} to 360[$^\circ$]{}, following the right-hand rule with respect to the spin vector. The prime meridian is aligned with the long axis, pointing toward negative $x$ in the shape model reference frame. Latitudes are measured $\pm$90[$^\circ$]{} from the equator, with +90[$^\circ$]{} being in the direction of the spin vector.
#### Projection: {#projection .unnumbered}
We used the shape model of Pallas (see section \[subsec-pallas\_model\]) to convert image pixels to their prints on the surface of Pallas. For each image, we produced an equivalent image of the shape model projected onto the plane of the sky. We then derived the planetocentric coordinates of each pixel (longitude and latitude). Finally, we convert those planetocentric coordinates to x, y positions on the map, using the translation equations appropriate for the particular map projection.
#### Combination of images into maps: {#combination-of-images-into-maps .unnumbered}
There was no overlap between the northern and southern hemispheres in our data. Therefore, we had to arbitrarily set their relative brightness to produce a complete map. Ultimately, we assumed both hemispheres to have the same mean albedo, because no evidence for such a difference exists in the literature. To handle redundant coverage, *i.e.*, where more than one image covers a specific region, we use an average of all the images, with higher weight given to higher resolution and/or higher quality images [see @2008-AA-478-Carry for detailed explanation].
(2) Pallas surface in the near-infrared\[subsec-mapping-description\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the J and H filters were used only sparsely (Table \[tab-obs-condition\]), the K-band map covers a larger fraction of the Pallas surface (80% for K *vs.* 40% for J and H). So limited imaging can, of course, restrict the explored area on the asteroid surface; but also, fewer overlapping images of one area will result in greater errors than for regions that have a larger number of redundant images. As explained in section \[sssec-contour\], the deconvolution process can lead to the creation of artifacts. Although we rejected deconvolved images of poor quality and re-applied the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Mistral</span> deconvolution process until the dataset was self-consistent, the final products can still show discrepancies between images of the same region of Pallas (e.g., introduced by the incomplete AO correction). The best way to smooth out such artifacts is to combine as many images as possible, and use their mean value to produce the final maps. This method assumes that the probability of recovering real information is greater than the probability of introducing additional artifacts with <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Mistral</span>. This assumption is increasingly valid with increasing signal-to-noise ratio and increasing number of overlapping images (our observations are optimized to provide high signal-to-noise, usually at levels of several hundred).
An additional test of the validity of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Mistral</span> deconvolution comes from the comparison of AO-VLT deconvolved images of bodies also observed *in situ* by spacecraft. Ground-based observations of Jupiter’s moon Io [@2002-Icarus-160-Marchis] and Saturn’s moon Titan [@2006-JGR-111-Witasse] have been found to be in good agreement with sizes measured from Galileo and Cassini spacecraft data.\
**K-band maps**\
{width=".4\textwidth"} {width=".4\textwidth"}\
{width=".8\textwidth"}\
{width=".4\textwidth"} {width=".4\textwidth"}\
**J- and H-band maps**\
{width=".5\textwidth"} {width=".5\textwidth"}\
{width=".5\textwidth"} {width=".5\textwidth"}\
The *J*-, *H*- and *K*-band maps shown in Fig. \[fig-map.K\] and Fig. \[fig-map.JH\] are the result of combining 27, 44 and 115 individual projections, respectively. The spatial resolution for these composite maps is nearly equivalent across the three bands, and is $\sim$60 km. The amplitude of the albedo variation is within $\pm$6% of the mean surface value for each band. From the albedo error maps (obtained by measuring, for each pixel, the intensity dispersion among the individual maps), we report a maximal error of $\sim$4% (mean error is below 2.5%).\
Pallas shows a large, dark region between 0$^\circ$ and $\sim$120$^\circ$ in longitude in the northern hemisphere, where the shape model presents a facet or “depression”. The fact that we see this feature at all wavelengths suggests that it is real and could be associated with a geological feature such as an impact crater. However, because the light-curve inversion was done without taking into account the albedo information, the depression seen in our model may be an artifact created by the light-curve inversion algorithm (as suggested by the occultation chords, see Fig. \[fig-occ\]). In future versions of the KOALA method, we will attempt to use the albedo information from the images to improve the shape model.\
Some other features are remarkable, such as the dark spot (diameter $\sim$70 km) surrounded by a bright annulus (about 180 km at its largest extent) at (185$^\circ$, +50$^\circ$) or the bright region (diameter of $\sim$110 km) around (300$^\circ$, +60$^\circ$). Southern features are more difficult to interpret because of the higher noise and the lack of observations in J- and H-band that preclude a cross-check with the features in the K-band observations.\
The surface of Pallas appears to have fewer small-scale structures (of size comparable to the resolution element) than Ceres [@2006-Icarus-182-Li; @2008-AA-478-Carry], even though both objects were observed at approximately the same spatial resolution. Similarly, Vesta also does not exhibit small-scale features when observed at comparable spatial resolution [see @1997-Icarus-128-Binzel; @2008-ACM-Li].\
To look for color variations, we also selected several regions in the northern hemisphere (three dark and four bright) and measured their relative flux in the three wavebands. As a result, we detect spectral variations slightly above the noise level, but without remarkable behavior. These differences could be due to morphological features or differences in the surface composition and/or regolith properties (such as grain size). One could interpret these variations as minealogical heterogeneity, but the differences are weak with the existing dataset.
Conclusion
==========
We report here the first study of an asteroid using a new approach combining light-curves and occultation data with high-angular resolution images obtained with adaptive optics (AO), which we have termed KOALA for Knitted Occultation, Adaptive optics and Light-curve Analysis. This method allows us to derive the spin vector coordinates, and to produce an *absolute-sized* shape model of the asteroid, providing an improved volume measurement. This method can be used on any body for which light-curves and disk-resolved images are available at several geometries.
Here, we analyze all the near-infrared high-angular resolution images of Pallas that we acquired from 2003 to 2007. We find the spin vector coordinates of Pallas to be within 5$^\circ$ of (30$^\circ$, -16$^\circ$) in the Ecliptic J2000.0 reference frame, indicating a high obliquity of about 84$^\circ$ and implying large seasonal effects on Pallas.\
The derived shape model reproduces well both the Pallas’ projected outline on the sky and its light-curve behavior at all epochs. Our best-fit tri-axial ellipsoid radii are $a$=275 $\pm$ 4 km, $b$= 258 $\pm$ 3 km, and $c$= 238 $\pm$ 3 km, allowing us to estimate an average density for Pallas of 3.4 $\pm$ 0.9 g.cm$^{-3}$ [using M=(1.2 $\pm$ 0.3) $\times$ 10$^{-10}$ M$_\odot$ from @2000-AA-360-Michalak]. The density uncertainty is now almost entirely due to mass uncertainty. This density might be interpreted as a result of a dryer Pallas with respect to Ceres (supported by spectroscopic studies).
The observation of such a large difference in the bulk density of two large asteroids of similar taxonomic type, of apparently similar surface compositions, and apparently lacking in significant macro-porosity, underscores the need for dedicated programs to monitor close encounters between asteroids [*e.g.,* from GAIA observations, @2007-AA-472-Mouret], in turn allowing us to derive more accurate masses and improve our knowledge of asteroid densities.\
We also present the first albedo maps of Pallas, revealing features with diameters in the 70$-$180 km range and an albedo contrast of about 6% with respect to the mean surface albedo. Weak spectral variations are also reported.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We would like to thank Franck Marchis (SETI Institute) for the flat-field frames he provided for our August 2006 observations. Thanks to Team Keck for their support and Keck Director Dr. Armandroff for the use of NIRC2 data obtained on 2007 July 12 technical time. Partial support for this work was provided by NASA’s Planetary Astronomy Program (PIs Dumas and Merline), NASA’s OPR Program (PI Merline) and NSF’s Planetary Astronomy Program (PI Merline). M.K. was supported by the Academy of Finland (project: New mathematical methods in planetary and galactic research). Thanks to Bill Bottke (SwRI), Anne Lemaître (University Notre-Dame de la Paix) and Ricardo Gil-Hutton (San Juan University) for discussions on Pallas. Thanks also to Francesca Demeo (Observatoire de Paris) for her careful reading of this article and the correction to the English grammar. Thanks to both anonymous referees who provided constructive comments on this article. The authors wish to recognize and acknowledge the very significant cultural role and reverence that the summit of Mauna Kea has always had within the indigenous Hawaiian community. We are most fortunate to have the opportunity to conduct observations from this mountain.
\[lastpage\]
[60]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}url \#1[[\#1]{}]{}
M. F. A’Hearn and P. D. Feldman, 1992. . , 98:0 54–60.
J. Berthier, 1998. . , S061.
J. Berthier, 1999. . , S064.
R. P. Binzel, M. J. Gaffey, P. C. Thomas, B. H. Zellner, A. D. Storrs, and E. N. Wells, 1997. . , 128:0 95–103.
W. F. Bottke, Jr., A. Cellino, P. Paolicchi, and R. P. Binzel, 2002. . , pages 3–15.
D. T. Britt, D. K. Yeomans, K. R. Housen, and G. J. Consolmagno, 2002. . , pages 485–500.
S. J. Bus and R. P. Binzel, 2002. . , 158:0 146–177.
B. Carry, C. Dumas, M. Fulchignoni, W. J. Merline, J. Berthier, D. Hestroffer, T. Fusco, and P. Tamblyn, 2008. . , 4780 (4):0 235–244.
A. Cellino, E. Diolaiti, R. Ragazzoni, D. Hestroffer, P. Tanga, and A. Ghedina, 2003. . , 162:0 278–284.
A. Conrad, C. Dumas, W. J. Merline, J. D. Drummond, R. D. Campbell, R. W. Goodrich, D. Le Mignant, F. H. Chaffee, T. Fusco, S. H. Kwok, and R. I. Knight, 2007. . , 1910 (2):0 616–627.
D. R. Davis, 1999. . , 140:0 49–52.
P. Descamps, F. Marchis, J. Pollock, J. Berthier, F. Vachier, M. Birlan, M. Kaasalainen, A. W. Harris, M. H. Wong, W. J. Romanishin, E. M. Cooper, K. A. Kettner, P. Wiggins, A. Kryszczynska, M. Polinska, J.-F. Coliac, A. Devyatkin, I. Verestchagina, and D. Gorshanov, 2008. . , 196:0 578–600.
J. D. Drummond and J. C. Christou, 2008. . , 197:0 480–496.
J. D. Drummond, J. C. Christou, and J. Nelson, 2009. . . doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2009.02.011.
J. D. Drummond and W. J. Cocke, 1989. . , 78:0 323–329.
D. W. Dunham, J. B. Dunham, R. P. Binzel, D. S. Evans, M. Freuh, G. W. Henry, M. F. A’Hearn, R. G. Schnurr, R. Betts, H. Haynes, R. Orcutt, E. Bowell, L. H. Wasserman, R. A. Nye, H. L. Giclas, C. R. Chapman, R. D. Dietz, C. Moncivais, W. T. Douglas, D. C. Parker, J. D. Beish, J. O. Martin, D. R. Monger, W. B. Hubbard, H. J. Reitsema, A. R. Klemola, P. D. Lee, B. R. McNamara, P. D. Maley, P. Manly, N. L. Markworth, R. Nolthenius, T. D. Oswalt, J. A. Smith, E. F. Strother, H. R. Povenmire, R. D. Purrington, C. Trenary, G. H. Schneider, W. J. Schuster, M. A. Moreno, J. Guichard, G. R. Sanchez, G. E. Taylor, A. R. Upgren, and T. C. von Flandern, 1990. . , 99:0 1636–1662.
D. W. Dunham and D. Herald. NASA Planetary Data System, 2008.
F. P. Fanale and J. R. Salvail, 1989. . , 82:0 97–110.
A. Fienga, H. Manche, J. Laskar, and M. Gastineau, 2008. . , 4770 (1):0 315–327.
A. Fujiwara, J. Kawaguchi, D. K. Yeomans, M. Abe, T. Mukai, T. Okada, J. Saito, H. Yano, M. Yoshikawa, D. J. Scheeres, O. S. Barnouin-Jha, A. F. Cheng, H. Demura, G. W. Gaskell, N. Hirata, H. Ikeda, T. Kominato, H. Miyamoto, R. Nakamura, S. Sasaki, and K. Uesugi, 2006. . , 312:0 1330–1334.
T. Fusco. . PhD thesis, Université de Nice Sophia-Antipolis, 2000.
E. Goffin, 2001. . , 365:0 627–630.
D. M. Goldberg and J. R. I. Gott, 2006. . .
R. Greeley and R. M. Batson. . Cambridge University Press, 1990.
J. L. Hilton, 2002. . , pages 103–112.
T. D. Jones, L. A. Lebofsky, J. S. Lewis, and M. S. Marley, 1990. . , 88:0 172–193.
M. Kaasalainen and L. Lamberg, 2006. . , 22:0 749–769.
M. Kaasalainen, S. Mottola, and M. Fulchignoni, 2002. . , pages 139–150.
M. Kaasalainen and J. Torppa, 2001. . , 153:0 24–36.
M. Kaasalainen, J. Torppa, and K. Muinonen, 2001. . , 153:0 37–51.
A. Kryszczy[ń]{}ska, A. La Spina, P. Paolicchi, A. W. Harris, S. Breiter, and P. Pravec, 2007. . , 192:0 223–237.
H. P. Larson, M. A. Feierberg, and L. A. Lebofsky, 1983. . , 56:0 398–408.
R. Lenzen, M. Hartung, W. Brandner, G. Finger, N. N. Hubin, F. Lacombe, A.-M. Lagrange, M. D. Lehnert, A. F. M. Moorwood, and D. Mouillet, 2003. first on sky results in a variety of observing modes. , 4841:0 944–952.
J.-Y. Li, L. A. McFadden, J. W. Parker, E. F. Young, S. A. Stern, P. C. Thomas, C. T. Russell, and M. V. Sykes, 2006. . , 182:0 143–160.
J.-Y. Li, L. A. McFadden, P. C. Thomas, M. J. Mutchler, J. W. Parker, E. F. Young, C. T. Russell, M. V. Sykes, and B. Schmidt, 2008. . . Poster 8288.
F. Marchis, I. de Pater, A. G. Davies, H. G. Roe, T. Fusco, D. Le Mignant, P. Descamps, B. A. Macintosh, and R. Prang[é]{}, 2002. . , 160:0 124–131.
F. Marchis, M. Kaasalainen, E. F. Y. Hom, J. Berthier, J. Enriquez, D. Hestroffer, D. Le Mignant, and I. de Pater, 2006. . , 1850 (1):0 39–63.
T. B. McCord and C. Sotin, 2005. . , 110:0 5009–5023.
W. J. Merline, S. J. Weidenschilling, D. D. Durda, J.-L. Margot, P. Pravec, and A. D. Storrs, 2002. . , pages 289–312.
G. Michalak, 2000. . , 360:0 363–374.
R. L. Millis and D. W. Dunham, 1989. . , pages 148–170.
S. Mouret, D. Hestroffer, and F. Mignard, 2007. . , 472:0 1017–1027.
O. Mousis, Y. Alibert, D. Hestroffer, U. Marboeuf, C. Dumas, B. Carry, J. Horner, and F. Selsis, 2008. . , 383:0 1269–1280.
L. M. Mugnier, T. Fusco, and J.-M. Conan, 2004. . , 210 (10):0 1841–1854.
P. Rousselot, O. Mousis, C. Dumas, E. Jehin, J. Manfroid, B. Carry, and J.-M. Zucconi, 2008. . , 1405:0 8337.
G. Rousset, F. Lacombe, P. Puget, N. N. Hubin, E. Gendron, T. Fusco, R. Arsenault, J. Charton, P. Feautrier, P. Gigan, P. Y. Kern, A.-M. Lagrange, P.-Y. Madec, D. Mouillet, D. Rabaud, P. Rabou, E. Stadler, and G. Zins, 2003. . , 4839:0 140–149.
O. Saint-P[é]{}, M. Combes, and F. Rigaut, 1993. . , 105:0 271–281.
O. Saint-P[é]{}, M. Combes, F. Rigaut, M. Tomasko, and M. Fulchignoni, 1993. . , 105:0 263–270.
B. E. Schmidt, P. C. Thomas, J. M. Bauer, J.-Y. Li, S. C. Radcliffe, L. A. McFadden, M. J. Mutchler, J. W. Parker, A. S. Rivkin, C. T. Russell, and S. A. Stern. . In [*Lunar and Planetary Institute Science Conference Abstracts*]{}, volume 40 of [*Lunar and Planetary Institute Science Conference Abstracts*]{}, pages 2421–2422, 2009.
E. R. D. Scott, 2007. . , 35:0 577–620.
P. K. Seidelmann, B. A. Archinal, M. F. A’Hearn, A. Conrad, G. J. Consolmagno, D. Hestroffer, J. L. Hilton, G. A. Krasinsky, G. Neumann, J. Oberst, P. Stooke, E. F. Tedesco, D. J. Tholen, P. C. Thomas, and I. P. Williams, 2007. . , 98:0 155–180.
E. M. Standish and R. W. Hellings, 1989. . , 80:0 326–333.
P. A. Taylor, J.-L. Margot, D. Vokrouhlick[ý]{}, D. J. Scheeres, P. Pravec, S. C. Lowry, A. Fitzsimmons, M. C. Nolan, S. J. Ostro, L. A. M. Benner, J. D. Giorgini, and C. Magri, 2007. . , 316:0 274–277.
P. C. Thomas, J. W. Parker, L. A. McFadden, C. T. Russell, S. A. Stern, M. V. Sykes, and E. F. Young, 2005. . , 437:0 224–226.
A. N. Tikhonov and V. Arsenine. . Mir:Moscou, 1974.
J. Torppa, M. Kaasalainen, T. Michalowski, T. Kwiatkowski, A. Kryszczy[ń]{}ska, P. Denchev, and R. Kowalski, 2003. . , 164:0 346–383.
M. A. van Dam, D. Le Mignant, and B. Macintosh, 2004. . , 430 (23):0 5458–5467.
J. Veverka, P. C. Thomas, A. Harch, B. E. Clark, B. Carcich, J. Joseph, S. L. Murchie, N. Izenberg, C. R. Chapman, W. J. Merline, M. Malin, L. A. McFadden, and M. Robinson, 1999. . , 140:0 3–16.
L. H. Wasserman, R. L. Millis, O. G. Franz, E. Bowell, N. M. White, H. L. Giclas, L. J. Martin, J. L. Elliot, E. Dunham, D. Mink, R. Baron, R. K. Honeycutt, A. A. Henden, J. E. Kephart, M. F. A’Hearn, H. J. Reitsema, R. Radick, and G. E. Taylor, 1979. . , 84:0 259–268.
O. Witasse, J.-P. Lebreton, M. K. Bird, R. Dutta-Roy, W. M. Folkner, R. A. Preston, S. W. Asmar, L. I. Gurvits, S. V. Pogrebenko, I. M. Avruch, R. M. Campbell, H. E. Bignall, M. A. Garrett, H. J. van Langevelde, S. M. Parsley, C. Reynolds, A. Szomoru, J. E. Reynolds, C. J. Phillips, R. J. Sault, A. K. Tzioumis, F. Ghigo, G. Langston, W. Brisken, J. D. Romney, A. Mujunen, J. Ritakari, S. J. Tingay, R. G. Dodson, C. G. M. van’t Klooster, T. Blancquaert, A. Coustenis, E. Gendron, B. Sicardy, M. Hirtzig, D. Luz, A. Negrao, T. Kostiuk, T. A. Livengood, M. Hartung, I. de Pater, M. [Á]{}d[á]{}mkovics, R. D. Lorenz, H. Roe, E. L. Schaller, M. E. Brown, A. H. Bouchez, C. A. Trujillo, B. J. Buratti, L. Caillault, T. Magin, A. Bourdon, and C. Laux, 2006. . , 111:0 7–19.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Tie-Feng Fang'
- 'Qing-feng Sun'
title: 'Supplementary information to “Kondo phase transitions of magnetic impurities in carbon nanotubes"'
---
[**1) The parameters $\alpha_1$, $\alpha_2$, and $\beta$**]{}
In the low-energy theory for carbon nanotubes, the effects of spin-orbit interaction and surface curvature on $\pi$ electrons are well described in second-order perturbation theory \[14,15\]. The effects are equivalent to shift the dispersion relation by $-\sigma\tau\alpha_2 V_{\text{so}}(a/R)\cos3\theta$, to shift the perpendicular wave vector by $\sigma\alpha_1\frac{V_{\text{so}}a}{\hbar v_FR}+\tau\beta\frac{a^2\cos3\theta}{\hbar v_FR^2}$, and to shift the parallel wave vector by $\tau\beta^\prime\frac{a^2\sin3\theta}{\hbar v_FR^2}$. Assuming sufficiently long nanotubes, the last shift is irrelevant, we thus drop it. The explicit forms of the parameters, $\alpha_1$, $\alpha_2$, and $\beta$, appearing in the remaining terms are \[14\]: $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_1&=&-\frac{\sqrt{3}\varepsilon_s(V^\pi_{pp}+V^\sigma_{pp})}{18V^2_{sp}},\\
\alpha_2&=&\frac{\sqrt{3}V^\pi_{pp}}{3(V^\pi_{pp}-V^\sigma_{pp})},\\
\beta&=&\frac{V^\pi_{pp}(V^\pi_{pp}+V^\sigma_{pp})}{8(V^\pi_{pp}-V^\sigma_{pp})}.\end{aligned}$$ Here $\varepsilon_s$ is the energy of the carbon $s$ orbital relative to the $p$ orbital energy. The latter (i.e., the on-site energy of $\pi$ electrons) is set to zero in our manuscript. $V_{sp}$ represents the unperturbed hopping amplitude between nearest-neighbor $s$ and $p$ orbitals. $V^{\pi(\sigma)}_{pp}$ is the unperturbed hopping amplitude between nearest-neighbor $p$ orbitals, giving rise to the $\pi(\sigma)$ band. In this work, we use the parameter set: $\varepsilon_s=-8.9\text{eV}$, $V_{sp}=5.6\text{eV}$, $V_{pp}^\pi=-3.0\text{eV}$, and $V^\sigma_{pp}=5.0\text{eV}$ \[R. Saito, G. Dresselhaus, and M.S. Dresselhaus, *Physical Properties of Carbon Nanotubes* (Imperial College Press, London, 1998)\], as it is also used in Ref.\[14\]. This give us, $\alpha_1\simeq0.055$, $\alpha_2\simeq0.217$, and $\beta\simeq93.75\text{meV}$, to carry out numerical calculations. Using other sets of parameters \[e.g., D. Tománek and M.A. Schluter, Phys. Rev. Lett. **67**, 2331 (1991); J.W. Mintmire and C.T. White, Carbon **33**, 893 (1995)\] does not change our numerical results qualitatively.
[**2) Phase diagrams for $S$- and $C$-site impurities in the ($\widetilde\varepsilon_d$, $E_F$) plane**]{}
As shown in Fig.S1, the Kondo and LM phases of $S$/$C$ impurities are also bounded by an arched borderline, showing features qualitatively same with $T$-site adatoms \[see, Fig.2(a) in the paper\]. For example, the boundary is p-h symmetric for armchair nanotubes, but becomes p-h asymmetric for nonarmchair nanotubes. The minimal radius $R_1$ derived in the paper for accessing the maximal p-h asymmetry also applies to this case. This is because $\widetilde\rho_{\text{sc}}(\varepsilon)$ and $\widetilde\rho_{_\text{T}}(\varepsilon)$ share the same gap structure. They scale differently only outside the gap region due to the quantum interference effect.
The effect of quantum interference is mainly reflected i) in the $R$-dependence of the boundary (see Fig.1 in the paper), ii) in the fact that the arched LM region of $S$/$C$ impurities are much sharper than $T$ adatoms \[compare Fig.2(a) in the paper with Fig.S1 here\], and iii) in the fact that for realistic nanotube parameters, the Kondo boundary of $S$/$C$ impurities, $\widetilde\varepsilon_{dc}$, is always much shallower than the boundary of $T$ adatoms, signaling the reduction of Kondo regime by interference.\
{width="1.0\columnwidth"}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
‘=11 \#1\#2 ‘=12
[TASI lectures: weak scale supersymmetry\
— a top-motivated-bottom-up approach]{}\
Gordon L. Kane\
Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics, Randall Physics Lab,\
University of Michigan\
E-mail: [email protected]
CONTENTS
$\circ$ Introduction, Perspective – since particle physics beyond the SM is presently in an incoherent state, with lots of static, a long introduction is needed, including some history of the supersymmetry revolutions, physics not described by the SM, indirect evidence for low energy supersymmetry and how flavor physics should be approached.
$\circ$ Derive the supersymmetric Lagrangian – the superpotential W
$\circ$ Soft supersymmetry breaking – underlying physics – $L_{soft}$ – the MSSM
$\circ$ The $\mu$ opportunity – R-parity conservation
$\circ$ Count of parameters – constraints – measuring the parameters
$\circ$ Connecting the weak and unification scale
$\circ$ Derivation of the Higgs mechanism – in what sense does supersymmetry *explain* the Higgs physics
$\circ$ The Higgs spectrum – $\tan\beta,$ Yukawa couplings, constraints
$\circ$ LEP Higgs physics – Tevatron Higgs physics can confirm the Higgs mechanism and coupling proportional to mass – Higgs sector measurements
$\circ$ g, Ñ, C – cannot in general measure $\tan\beta$ at hadron colliders
$\circ$ Effects of soft phases – all observables, not only CPV ones, $g_{\mu }-2$, EDMs, $\tilde{g}$ phase, LSP CDM, possible connections to stringy physics
$\circ$ Phase structure of simple D-brane models
$\circ$ Tevatron superpartner searches, signatures
$\circ$ Extensions of the MSSM
$\circ$ The importance of low scale supersymmetry is not only that we learn of another profound aspect of our world, but also to provide a window to Planck scale physics, in order to connect string theory and our world
Introduction
============
For about 400 years we have improved our understanding of the physical world until we discovered and tested the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics, which provides a complete description of our world, of all that we see. We know that the basic constituents are quarks and leptons, and we have a complete theory of the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces.
We also know that much is unexplained, such as what is the cold dark matter (CDM) of the universe, and why is the universe made of matter rather than being an equal mixture of matter and antimatter, neither of which can be explained by the SM. Below I will make a longer list of questions the SM cannot answer. And there are conceptual reasons also why we expect to find new physics beyond the SM.
While a number of approaches to physics beyond the SM have been worth considering, only one so far has actually explained and predicted phenomena beyond the SM, the supersymmetric extension of the SM, which will be the focus of these lectures. As we will see, the supersymmetric SM has a number of successes, and as yet no failures. It is not yet a complete theory in the sense that we do not yet understand fully the physics of all of its parameters, but it is a complete effective theory because we can write the full effective Lagrangian of the theory. One of its important successes is that it can be a valid theory to very high energy scales or very short distances, near to the Planck scale. Another is that it is not sensitive to new physics at some high scale.
Superstring theories have become very attractive in recent years as well. They are formulated near the Planck scale with ten dimensions and presumably unbroken supersymmetry. String theories only predict or explain that there is a gravitational force, and that we live in at most 10 dimensions. What is exciting about them from our point of view is that they seem to be able to accommodate the SM forces and quarks and leptons, and possibly explain how these forces and particles originate. So in these lectures we will assume that the basic theory is a string theory at the Planck scale (loosely speaking). We do not distinguish string theory from M-theory for our top-motivated purposes, since the effective low scale theory from both will be parameterized by the same Lagrangian.
Historically, physics has progressed by one basic method, with experiment and theory intermingling as each level of the world was understood. That method will continue to work as supersymmetry is established experimentally, as its parameters (masses, flavor rotation angles, phases, vacuum expectation values) are measured, and as supersymmetry breaking is studied. But the historical approach can only take us to a broken supersymmetric theory near the unification and string scales. It cannot be used to learn the form of the 10D supersymmetric string theory. There is a barrier that can only be crossed by human imagination. To cross it we must know the Lagrangian of the broken supersymmetric theory near the unification and string scales, and we must understand the 10 D supersymmetric string theory very well. Then it will be possible to guess how to jump the barrier. In my view it will not be possible to do that until the broken supersymmetric theory near the Planck scale is known. No amount of thinking will tell us how to compactify the string theory, or to break supersymmetry, or to recognize the vacuum of the theory, because there is no practical way to recognize if one has it right.
Let’s pursue this in a little more detail. Sometimes people argue that calculating fermion masses will be a convincing way to learn when a compactification is correct. But the hierarchy of fermion masses implies that will be very hard to do. The small masses are unlikely to arise at the tree level, but rather depend on non-renormalizable operators and possibly on supersymmetry breaking effects. So perhaps the large masses can be calculated, but not the smaller ones, and if the large ones have Yukawa couplings of order unity that will be common to many theories. It is of course known that huge numbers of manifolds give three families of chiral fermions. A little thought suggests very strongly that most of the usual “string phenomenology” is of a similar nature, and is very unlikely to point toward the correct vacuum. Indeed, suppose some string theorist already knew how to compactify and to break supersymmetry and to find the correct vacuum. How would they convince themselves, or anyone else?
However, the supersymmetry soft-breaking Lagrangian, $L_{soft}$ may offer more hope for testing theory. The parameters of $L_{soft}$ are measurable, though little has been known until recently about how to measure most of them, and much of these lectures will be about how to measure them. If a theorist has an approach to compactification and to breaking supersymmetry, then $L_{soft}$ is likely to be calculable more easily than the full Yukawa matrix in that approach, and thus knowledge of $L_{soft}$ may test ideas better than knowledge of the fermion masses. The parameters of $L_{soft}$ may be less sensitive to uncertain higher order corrections (unless the leading term vanishes in which case the one-loop radiative correction is usually not hard to work out). The flavor structure of $L_{soft}$ depends on the flavor structure of the Yukawas and may help untangle that. Progress will come from measuring $L_{soft}$ at the weak scale, and extrapolating it to the unification scale. The patterns of the soft parameters may be typical of one approach or another to compactification or supersymmetry breaking or the vacuum structure, so the measured $L_{soft}$ may focus attention toward particular solutions to these problems. Superpartners should be directly detected in the next few years, and once the initial excitement is past we will turn to the challenging and delightful opportunity to untangle the data and measure the Lagrangian.
Supersymmetry is an idea as old as the SM, and it has not been the most fashionable way to describe the real world in recent years. Consequently many students have not become familiar with supersymmetry as a practical theory, nor have they seen the arguments for its validity. Once superpartners are directly observed it will not be necessary to include these arguments, but at the present time there is some static in the messages most students get, so it is worthwhile to include some tables summarizing why classic supersymmetry is the best approach. In these largely pedagogical lectures I will also not focus on extensive referencing, with apologies to many authors. Some references are given to help the reader find the relevant additional papers. Many topics are integrated into these lectures, and most have been worked on by many authors, so I either have to provide extensive referencing or little referencing, and the latter seems reasonable here in a pedagogical treatment. For thorough referencing to the literature before the past three years the chapters in ref.[@1] are useful. I will in places follow the approach of Martin in ref. [@1], and he has very good referencing; the larger version of his chapter on the web is more valuable than the printed chapter [@2].
It is good to recall some of the history of supersymmetry. We can basically split it into five “revolutions”:
HISTORY OF SUPERSYMMETRY REVOLUTIONS
\[c\][lll]{}1$^{st}$ & 1970-72 & The idea\
2$^{nd}$ & 1974 & Supersymmetric relativistic quantum theory\
3$^{rd}$ & 1975 & Local supersymmetry, supergravity\
4$^{th}$ & 1979-83 & Supersymmetry solves many problems\
5$^{th}$ & 2000-03 & Higgs boson and superpartners observed
Next let us consider a list of important questions that the SM does not deal with. Consequently, these can point the way beyond the SM.
Physics not described by the Standard Model
===========================================
$\bullet$ Gravity
$\bullet$ Cosmological Constant
$\bullet$ Dark Energy
$\bullet$ What is (are) the inflation(s)?
$\bullet$ Strong CP problem
$\bullet$ Hierarchy problem
$\bullet$ How is the electroweak symmetry broken (EWSB)?
$\bullet$ Gauge coupling unification
$\bullet$ Matter asymmetry of the universe
$\bullet$ Cold dark matter
$\bullet$ 3 families
$\bullet$ Neutrino masses
$\bullet$ Values of quark and charged lepton masses
$\bullet$ Approximate Yukawa unification of bottom, tau, and perhaps top
$\bullet$ The value of the Higgs boson mass 115 GeV if the LEP signal is confirmed
The SM *cannot* account for or explain any of these. It can accommodate some of them. Any approach that claims to be making any progress (such as large extra dimension ideas) should be able to deal with some or most of these simultaneously. Where do they lead us? Supersymmetry of the form we are focusing on in these lectures is relevant to most or all of these. (There are additional reported deviations from the SM that could be relevant and arise from superpartner loops (a) the condition for charged current universality, or unitarity of the CKM matrix [@3], and (b) the number of neutrinos is slightly less than 3 [@4].)
The Hierarchy Problem
=====================
The hierarchy problem is the SM problem that quantum corrections raise the Higgs boson mass up to the highest mass scale there is. It is a serious problem — as someone said, the quantum corrections are not only infinite, they are large. The high mass scales do not have to couple directly to the Higgs boson; the coupling can be through several loops, as Martin explains in some detail. All SM masses (W and Z and quarks and charged leptons) are proportional to m$_{h}$ so if m$_{h}$ is large they are too.
Supersymmetry was not invented or designed to solve this problem (contrary to what is often stated), but it did. If supersymmetry is unbroken then loops with particles cancel loops with their superpartners in general. For broken supersymmetry the effect is proportional to a power of some couplings times the square of the difference of the masses of superpartner pairs, and a log of mass ratios. Any solution of the hierarchy problem must be insensitive to high scales, and to higher order corrections. If an approach is claimed to deal with the hierarchy problem it must explain how the weak and gravitational scales are determined. Later when we discuss EWSB we examine in what sense supersymmetry provides this explanation. Sometimes people make connections between the cosmological constant problem and the Higgs hierarchy problem, but they are not the same because the calculation of the cosmological constant sums over all states, while the calculation of the Higgs mass only sums over states with SM gauge quantum numbers. Another way to think of the supersymmetry solution is that the Higgs doublet becomes a chiral supermultiplet so h and its superpartner have the same mass, and the fermion masses are not quadratically divergent so its superpartner mass is not quadratically divergent.
Gauge Coupling Unification
==========================
One of the most important things we have learned from LEP is that the gauge couplings unify at an energy above about $10^{16}$ GeV in a world described by a supersymmetric theory, though not in the SM. Further, where they meet points toward a unification with gravity near the Planck scale. Together these make one of the strongest indications of the validity of the view of physics at the foundation of these lectures. Any other view has to claim this unification is a coincidence! The gauge coupling unification implies two important results:
\(1) The underlying theory is perturbative up to the unification scale. Sometimes it is said there should be a desert (apart from the superpartners) but that is not so — only that whatever is in that range (such as right handed neutrinos) does not destroy the perturbativity of the theory.
\(2) Physics is simpler at or near the unification scale. That need not have happened — nothing in the SM implies such a result.
There is another important clue. The supersymmetric gauge coupling unification misses by about 10%. More precisely, the experimental value of the strong coupling $\alpha_{3}$ is about 10-15% lower than the value computed by running down theoretically from the point were the SU(2) and U(1) couplings meet. The details are interesting here — the one-loop result is somewhat small because of a cancellation, and the two-loop contribution therefore not negligible. If one only took into account the one-loop effect the theoretical value would be close to the experimental one but the two-loop effect increases the separation. Nature is kind here, on the one hand giving us information about the need for supersymmetric unification, and on the other giving us a further clue about the physics near the unification scale, or about particles that occur in the “desert” and change the running somewhat.
(Indirect) Evidence for weak scale supersymmetry
================================================
We have described two of the strongest pieces of evidence for weak scale supersymmetry. The third and to some the strongest is that this approach can explain the central problem of how the electroweak symmetry is broken — we will consider that in great detail after we derive the supersymmetric Lagrangian. First we list here additional evidence for weak scale supersymmetry. Sometimes people wrongly imagine that supersymmetry was invented to explain some of what it explains so the approximate date when it was realized that each of these pieces of evidence existed is listed. Of course the theory existed even before it was realized that it solved these problems — it was not invented for any of them. For completeness we include the evidence we have already examined.
1980 — Can stabilize hierarchy of mass scales.
1982 — Provides an explanation for the Higgs mechanism.
1982 — Gauge coupling unification.
1982 — Provides cold dark matter candidate.
1982 — Heavy top quark predicted.
1992 — Can explain the baryon asymmetry of the universe.
1993 — Higgs boson must be light in general supersymmetric theory.
1990 — Realization that either superpartners are light enough to find at LEP, or their effects on precision data must be very small and unlikely to be observed at LEP/SLC. Supersymmetry effects at lower energies arise only from loops, which explains why the SM works so well even though it is incomplete.
1982/1995 — Starting from a high scale with a value for $\sin^{2}\theta_{W}$ of 3/8, which arises in any theory with a unified gauge group that contains SU(5), and also in a variety of string-based theories, the value for $\sin ^{2}\theta_{W}$ at the weak scale is $0.2315$ and agrees very accurately with the measured value.
Some of these successes are explanations, and some are correct predictions. It is also very important that all of them are simultaneously achieved — often efforts to deal with the real world can apparently work for one effect, but cannot describe the range of phenomena we know.
There are theoretical motivations for low energy supersymmetry too. It is the last four-dimensional space-time symmetry not yet known to be realized in some way in nature, it adds a fermionic or quantum structure to space-time, it allows theories to be extrapolated to near the Planck scale where they can be related to gravity, local supersymmetry is supergravity which suggests a connection of the supersymmetric SM to gravity, it allows many problems in string theory and string field theory to be solved, including stabilizing the string vacuum. It is expected, though not yet demonstrated, that low energy supersymmetry is implied by string theory. Not all of these necessarily require low energy supersymmetry. In any case, improving the theory is nice but is not strong motivation for something to exist in nature, so we have emphasized the evidence that actually depends on data.
Current limits on superpartner masses
=====================================
The general limits from direct experiments that could produce superpartners are not very strong. They are also all model dependent, sometimes a little and sometimes very much. Limits from LEP on charged superpartners are near the kinematic limits except for certain models, unless there is close degeneracy of the charged sparticle and the LSP, in which case the decay products are very soft and hard to observe, giving weaker limits. So in most cases charginos and charged sleptons have limits of about 95 GeV. Gluinos and squarks have typical limits of about 250 GeV, except that if one or two squarks are lighter the limits on them are much weaker. For stops and sbottoms the limits are about 85 GeV separately.
There are no general limits on neutralinos, though sometimes such limits are quoted. It is clear no general limits exist — suppose the LSP was pure photino. Then it could not be produced at LEP through a Z which does not couple to photinos, and suppose selectrons were very heavy so it’s production via selectron exchange is very small in pair or associated production. Then no cross section at LEP is large enough to set limits. There are no general relations between neutralino masses and chargino or gluino masses, so limits on the latter do not imply limits on neutralinos. In typical models the limits are $M_{LSP}\gtrsim
40$ GeV, $M_{\widetilde{N}_{2}}\gtrsim 85$ GeV. Superpartners get mass from both the Higgs mechanism and from supersymmetry breaking, so one would expect them to typically be heavier than SM particles. All SM particles would be massless without the Higgs mechanism, but superpartners would not. Many of the quark and lepton masses are small presumably because they do not get mass from Yukawa couplings of order unity in the superpotential, so one would expect naively that the normal mass scale for the Higgs mechanism was of order the Z or top masses. In models chargino and neutralino masses are often of order Z and top masses, with the colored gluino mass a few times the Z mass.
There are no firm indirect limits on superpartner masses. If the $g_{\mu}-2$ deviation from the SM persists as the data and theory improve the first such upper limits will be deduced. If in fact supersymmetry explains all that we argue above it is explaining, particularly the EWSB, then there are rather light upper limits on superpartner masses, but they are not easily made precise. Basically, what is happening is that EWSB produces the Z mass in terms of soft-breaking masses, so if the soft-breaking masses are too large such an explanation does not make sense. The soft parameters that are most sensitive to this issue are $M_{3}$ (basically the gluino mass) and $\mu$ which strongly affects the chargino and neutralino masses. Qualitatively one therefore expects rather light gluino, chargino, and neutralino masses. If one takes this argument *seriously* one is led to expect $M_{\tilde{g} }\lesssim 500$ GeV; $M_{\widetilde{N}_{2}},$ $M_{\widetilde{C}}\lesssim 250$ GeV; and $M_{\widetilde{N}_{1}}\lesssim 100$ GeV. These are upper limits, seldom saturated in models. There are no associated limits on sfermions. They suggest that these gaugino states should be produced in significant quantities at the Tevatron in the next few years.
There are some other clues that some superpartners may be light. If the baryon number is generated at the EW phase transition then the lighter stop and charginos should be lighter than the top. If the LSP is indeed the cold dark matter, then at least one scalar fermion is probably light enough to allow enough annihilation of relic LSPs, but there are loopholes to this argument.
What can supersymmetry explain?
===============================
Supersymmetry can explain much that the SM cannot, as described above, particularly the Higgs physics as we will discuss in detail below. Sometimes people who do not understand supersymmetry say it can “explain or fit anything”. In fact it is the opposite. Supersymmetry is a full theory, and all that is unknown is the masses (which are matrices in flavor space) and the vacuum expectation values, exactly as for the SM. There are many conceivable phenomena that supersymmetry could not explain, including sharp peaks in spectra at colliders, a world with no Higgs boson below about 200 GeV, a top quark lighter than the W, deviations from SM predictions greater than about 1% for any process with a tree-level SM contribution (including Z decay to $c\bar{c}$), leptoquarks, wide WW or ZZ resonances, excess high-P$_{t}$ leptons at HERA, large violations of $\mu/e$ universality, and much more. None of these has occurred, consistent with supersymmetry, but a number of them have been reported and then gone away, and supersymmetry did not “explain” them while they were around. Supersymmetry alone also cannot explain some real questions such as why there are three families or the $\mu-\tau$ mass ratio.
How does flavor physics enter the theory?
=========================================
The “flavor problem” is one of the most basic questions in physics. By this usually three questions are intended. First, why are there three families of quarks and leptons, and not more or less? Second, why are the symmetry eigenstates different from the mass eigenstates? Third, why do the quarks and leptons have the particular mass values they do? Supersymmetry does not provide the answers to those questions directly, though it will affect the answers. The second and third questions are of course related, but different. We could know the answer to the second question but not the third. For example, the actual values of masses of the lighter quarks and leptons could depend on operators beyond the tree level in the superpotential. The u,d,e masses are so small that they could get large corrections from a number of sources.
Where to look for those answers is not something that is agreed on — many people have tried to understand flavor physics at the TeV scale. Supersymmetry does suggest where to find the answers. Supersymmetry is like the SM in that it accommodates the three families and the flavor rotations but does not explain them. It clearly suggests that the flavor physics has basically entered once the superpotential is determined, i.e. when the Yukawa couplings in the superpotential are fixed. That occurs as soon as a 4D theory is written and depends in a basic way on the string physics and on the compactification and on the determination of the string vacuum. Since the superpotential of the observable sector does not know about supersymmetry breaking, the basic flavor physics probably does not depend on supersymmetry breaking either, though how the flavor physics manifests itself in $L_{soft}$ may. That in turn suggests that learning the Yukawa couplings and the off-diagonal structure of the trilinears and squark and slepton mass matrices can guide us to the formulation of how to compactify and how to find the string vacuum, and can test ideas about such physics. The role of supersymmetry breaking is unclear. For example, the structure of the trilinear soft-breaking terms can be calculated in terms of the Yukawa couplings and their derivatives, but may depend on how supersymmetry is broken as well.
An important point is that we are likely to learn more from data on the superpartner masses than we did from the quark masses (as we will discuss later). That is because the parameters of $L_{soft}$ are rather directly related to an underlying theory, while the quark and lepton masses probably are not. Probably what we learned from the fermion masses is that some Yukawa couplings are of order unity while others are small at tree level, arising from non-renormalizable operators and/or breaking of discrete symmetries and supersymmetry. The masses of the first and second family quarks and leptons are probably determined by or very sensitive to small effects that are hard to calculate (the first family masses are in the MeV range, while the theory makes sense for the 100 GeV range), while the squark and slepton masses, and probably the phases, and the approximate size of off-diagonal flavor dependent squark and slepton masses and trilinears all generally emerge from the theory at leading order and are thus much more easily interpretable than the fermion masses.
The next question is how to measure the flavor-dependent elements of $L_{soft},$ which has 112 flavor-dependent parameters not counting neutrino physics. Although certain combinations of them affect collider physics, and the masses of the mass eigenstates can be measured at colliders, most of them affect rare decays, mixing, and CP violation experiments. Collider studies of superpartners may tell us little about flavor physics directly. If they are to have an observable effect, of course, the supersymmetric contributions to the decays and mixing and CP violation must be significant, which is most likely for processes that are forbidden at tree level such as $b\rightarrow s+\gamma,$ mixing, penguin diagrams, $\mu\rightarrow
e+\gamma,$ etc.
The absence of flavor-changing decays for many systems puts strong constraints on some soft parameters. If the off-diagonal elements of the squark or slepton mass matrices and trilinears were of order the typical squark or slepton masses then in general there would be large flavor mixing effects, since the rotations that diagonalize the quarks and charged leptons need not diagonalize the squarks and sleptons. However, many of the constraints from flavor-changing processes in the literature have been evaluated with assumptions that may not apply, so people should reevaluate them for any approach they find attractive for other reasons. Much effort has gone into constructing models of $L_{soft}$ that guarantee without tuning the absence of FCNC, and several approaches exist. If one of them is confirmed when data exists it will be a major clue to the structure of the high energy theory. Our view that the flavor physics is determined at the high scale implies that the resulting structure of the squark and slepton mass matrices, and the trilinear coefficients, is also determined at the high scale and not by TeV-scale dynamics. Thus the absence of FCNC is not and should not be explained by an effective supersymmetric theory. Rather, the pattern of soft-breaking terms that is measured and gives small FCNC will help us learn about the underlying (presumably string) theory. Similar remarks could be made about proton decay.
Once the soft flavor parameters are measured it is necessary to deduce their values at the unification or string scales in order to compare with the predictions of string-based models, or to stimulate the development of string-based models. There are two main issues that arise. One is how to relate measured values of the CKM matrix and soft parameters to the values of Yukawa matrices and soft parameters at the unification scale, assuming no other physics enters between the scales. This is subtle because the number of independent parameters is considerably less than the number of apparent parameters in $L_{soft}$ and the superpotential Yukawas, as discussed in Section 17, and the RGE running will for a generic procedure involve non-physical parameters. This problem has recently been solved [@5], giving a practical technique to convert measurements into the form of the high scale theory.
The second issue is that presumably there is not a desert between the high and low scales. Both gauge coupling unification and radiative electroweak symmetry breaking imply that no part of the theory becomes strongly interacting below the unification scale. But we expect heavy RH neutrinos, axion physics, and perhaps “exotic” states such as those often generated in stringy models, e.g. vector multiplets, fractionally charged uncolored fermions, etc. This issue has not been studied much [@6]. Perhaps by examining appropriate combinations of quantities for the RGE running, and by imposing appropriate conditions, it will be possible to use consistency checks to control the effects of intermediate scale physics.
Derivation of the supersymmetry Lagrangian
==========================================
In order to understand the predictions and explanations of supersymmetry, particularly for the Higgs sector, we must learn the derivation of the supersymmetry Lagrangian. I will present the arguments fully though not all the algebra. I will largely follow the approach of Martin.
Consider a massless and therefore two-component fermion, $\psi$ whose superpartner is a complex scalar $\phi.$ Both have two real degrees of freedom. But in the off-shell field theory the fermion is a four-component field with four degrees of freedom, and we want supersymmetry to hold for the full field theory. So we introduce an additional complex scalar $F$ so that there are four scalar degrees of freedom also. $F$ is called an auxiliary field. The combined fields $(\psi,\phi,F)$ are called a chiral superfield or chiral supermultiplet. I will not be systematic or careful about the two-component vs. four-component notation since the context usual is clear. The Lagrangian can be taken to be
$$\begin{aligned}
-L_{free}=\sum_{i}(\partial^{\mu}\phi_{i}^{\ast}\partial_{\mu}\phi_{i}
+\bar{\psi}_{i}\gamma^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}\psi_{i}+F_{i}^{\ast}F_{i}).\end{aligned}$$
The sum is over all chiral supermulitplets in the theory. Note that the dimensions of $F$ are $[F]=m^{2}.$ The Euler-Lagrange equations of motion for $F$ are $F=F^{\ast}=0,$ so on-shell we revert to only two independent degrees of freedom. One can define supersymmetry transformations that take bosonic degrees of freedom into fermionic ones; we will look briefly at them later. The supersymmetry transformations can be defined so that $L_{free}$ is invariant. Next we write the most general set of renormalizable interactions,
$$\begin{aligned}
L_{chiral}=L_{free}+L_{int}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
L_{int}=-\frac{1}{2}W^{ij}\psi_{i}\psi_{j}+W^{i}F_{i}+c.c.\end{aligned}$$
Here $W^{ij}$ and $W^{i}$ are any functions of only the scalar fields, remarkably, and $W^{ij}$ is symmetric. If $W^{ij}$ or $W^{i}$ depended on the fermion or auxiliary fields the associated terms would have dimension greater than four, and would therefore not be renormalizable. There can be no terms in $L_{int}$ that depend on $\phi_{i}^{\ast}$ or $\phi_{i}$ since such terms would not transform into themselves under the supersymmetry transformations.
Now imagine supersymmetry transformations that mix fermions and bosons, $\phi\rightarrow\phi+\varepsilon\psi,\psi\rightarrow\psi+\varepsilon\phi$. We should go through these transformations in detail with indices, but one can see the basic argument simply. Here $\varepsilon$ must be a spinor so each term behaves the same way in spin space, and we can take $\varepsilon$ to be a constant spinor in space-time, and infinitesimal. Then the variation of the Lagrangian (which must vanish or change only by a total derivative if the theory is invariant under the supersymmetry transformation) contains two terms with four spinors:
$$\begin{aligned}
\delta L_{int}=-\frac{1}{2}\frac{\delta W^{ij}}{\delta\phi_{k}}(\varepsilon
\psi_{k})\psi_{i}\psi_{j}-\frac{1}{2}\frac{\delta
W^{ij}}{\delta\phi_{k}
^{\ast}}(\varepsilon^{\dagger}\psi_{k}^{\dagger})\psi_{i}\psi_{j}
+c.c.\end{aligned}$$
Neither term can cancel against some other term. For the first term there is a Fierz identity $(\varepsilon\psi_{i})(\psi_{j}\psi_{k})+(\varepsilon\psi
_{j})(\psi_{k}\psi_{i})+(\varepsilon\psi_{k})(\psi_{i}\psi_{j})=0$, so if and only if $\delta W^{ij}/\delta\phi_{k}$ is totally symmetric under interchange of i,j,k the first term vanishes identically For the second term the presence of the hermitean conjugation allows no similar identity, so it must vanish explicitly, which implies $\delta
W^{ij}/\delta\phi_{k}^{\ast}=0,$and thus $W^{ij}$ cannot depend on $\phi^{\ast}$! $W^{ij}$ must be an analytic function of the complex field $\phi.$
Therefore we can write
$$\begin{aligned}
W^{ij}=M^{ij}+y^{ijk}\phi_{k},\end{aligned}$$
where $M^{ij}$ is a symmetric matrix that will be the fermion mass matrix, and $y^{ijk}$ can be called Yukawa couplings since it gives the strength of the coupling of boson $k$ with fermions $i,j$; $y^{ijk}$ must be totally symmetric. Then it is very convenient to define
$$\begin{aligned}
W=\frac{1}{2}M^{ij}\phi_{i}\phi_{j}+\frac{1}{6}y^{ijk}\phi_{i}\phi_{j}\phi
_{k}\end{aligned}$$
and $W^{ij}=\delta^{2}W/\delta\phi_{i}\delta\phi_{j}.$ $W$ is the “superpotential”, an analytic function of $\phi$, and a central function of the formulation of the theory. $W$ is fully supersymmetric and gauge invariant and Lorentz invariant, and an analytic function of $\phi$ (i.e. it cannot depend explicitly on $\phi^{\ast}$), so it is highly constrained. It determines the most general non-gauge interactions of the chiral superfields.
A similar argument for the parts of $\delta L_{int}$ which contain a spacetime derivative imply that $W^{i}$ is determined in terms of $W$ as well,
$$\begin{aligned}
W^{i}=\frac{\delta W}{\delta\phi_{i}}=M^{ij}\phi_{j}+\frac{1}{2}y^{ijk}
\phi_{j}\phi_{k}.\end{aligned}$$
Because interactions are now present, the equations for $F$ are non-trivial,
$$\begin{aligned}
F_{i}=-W_{i}^{\ast}.\end{aligned}$$
The scalar potential is related to the Lagrangian by $L=T-V,$ so
$$\begin{aligned}
V=\sum_{i}\left| F_{i}\right| ^{2}\end{aligned}$$
This contribution is called an “F-term”, and is automatically bounded from below, an important improvement.
The above analysis was appropriate for chiral superfields, which will contain the fermions and their superpartners. Now we repeat the logic for the gauge supermultiplets that contain the gauge bosons and their superpartners. Initially they are massless gauge bosons, like photons, $A_{\mu}^{a},$ with gauge index $a,$ and two degrees of freedom. Their superpartners are two-component spinors $\lambda^{a}.$ But as above, off shell the fermion has four degrees of freedom, while the massive boson has three, the two transverse polarizations and a longitudinal polarization. So again it is necessary to add an auxiliary field, a real one since only one degree of freedom is needed, called $D^{a}.$ Then the Lagrangian has additional pieces
$$\begin{aligned}
L_{gauge}=-\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}^{a}F_{a}^{\mu\nu}-i\lambda^{\dagger a}
\gamma^{\mu}D_{\mu}\lambda^{a}+\frac{1}{2}D^{a}D^{a},\end{aligned}$$
where
$$\begin{aligned}
F_{\mu\nu}^{a}=\partial_{\mu}A_{\nu}^{a}-\partial_{\nu}A_{\mu}^{a}
-gf^{abc}A_{\mu}^{b}A_{\nu}^{c}\end{aligned}$$
and the covariant derivative is
$$\begin{aligned}
D_{\mu}\lambda^{a}=\partial_{\mu}\lambda^{a}-gf^{abc}A_{\mu}^{b}\lambda
^{c}.\end{aligned}$$
Note that the notation is unfortunate, with both the covariant derivative and the new field being denoted by the standard “$D$”. Also, I have not been careful about two component vs. four component spinors. It is crucial for gauge invariance that the same coupling $g$ appears in the definition of the tensor $F$ and in the covariant derivative. Lagrangians always have to contain all of the terms allowed by gauge invariance, etc., and here we can see another term to add,
$$\begin{aligned}
(\phi_{i}^{\ast}T^{a}\phi_{i})D^{a}.\end{aligned}$$
There is one more term that can be added that mixes the fields, $\lambda ^{\dagger a}(\psi^{\dagger}T^{a}\phi),$ and its conjugate, with an arbitrary dimensionless coefficient. Requiring the entire Lagrangian to be invariant under supersymmetry transformations determines the arbitrary coefficient and gives a resulting Lagrangian
$$\begin{aligned}
L=L_{gauge}+L_{chiral}+g_{a}(\phi^{\ast}T^{a}\phi)D^{a}-\sqrt{2}g_{a}
[(\phi^{\ast}T^{a}\psi)\lambda^{a}+\lambda^{\dagger a}(\psi^{\dagger}T^{a}
\phi)]\end{aligned}$$
where all derivatives in earlier forms are replaced by covariant ones. Remarkably, the requirement of supersymmetry fixed the couplings of the last terms to be gauge couplings even though they are not normal gauge interactions! The equations of motion for $D^{a}$ give $D^{a}=-g(\phi^{\ast }T^{a}\phi),$ so the scalar potential is
$$\begin{aligned}
V=F^{\ast i}F_{i}+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{a}D^{a}D^{a}=\left| \partial
W/\partial\phi_{i}\right| ^{2}+\sum_{a}g_{a}^{2}(\phi^{\ast}T^{a}\phi
)^{2}.\end{aligned}$$
The sum is over $a=1,2,3$ for the three gauge couplings. The two terms are called “F-terms” and “D-terms”. Remarkable, the unbroken supersymmetric theory gives a scalar potential bounded from below. On the one hand that is good since unbounded potentials are a problem, but it also implies that the Higgs mechanism cannot happen for unbroken supersymmetry since the potential will be minimized at the origin. In the above,
$$\begin{aligned}
L_{chiral}=D^{\mu}\phi_{i}^{\ast}D_{\mu}\phi_{i}+\bar{\psi}_{i}\gamma^{\mu
}D_{\mu}\psi_{i}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
+(\frac{1}{2}M_{ij}\psi_{i}\psi_{j}+\frac{1}{2}y^{ijk}\phi
_{i}\psi_{j}\psi_{k}+c.c.)+F_{i}^{\ast}F_{i}.\end{aligned}$$
This completes the derivation of the unbroken supersymmetry Lagrangian.
Non-renormalization theorem
===========================
For unbroken supersymmetry there is a very important result, called the non-renormalization theorem, that is very useful for building models to relate the theory to the real world. Because of this result the supersymmetry fields get a wave function renormalization only, so they have the familiar log running of couplings and masses, but no other renormalizations. Consequently the parameters of the superpotential $W$ are not renormalized, in any order of perturbation theory. In particular, terms that were allowed in $W$ by gauge invariance and Lorentz invariance are not generated by quantum corrections if they are not present at tree level$,$ so no F-terms are generated if they are initially absent. If there is no $\mu$ –term in the superpotential (see below), none is generated. The non-renormalization theorem is difficult to probe without extensive formalism, so I just state it here. References and a pedagogical derivation are given in reference 7.
Toward softly-broken supersymmetry with a toy model
===================================================
Consider the Wess-Zumino model, with,
$$\begin{aligned}
W=\frac{m}{2}\phi \phi +\frac{g}{6}\phi \phi \phi ,\end{aligned}$$
and
$$\begin{aligned}
L=(\partial \phi )^{2}+i\Psi ^{\dagger }\bar{\sigma}^{\mu }\partial _{\mu
}\Psi -F_{\phi }^{\ast }F_{\phi }+(\frac{1}{2}W_{\phi \phi }\Psi \Psi
-W_{\phi }F_{\phi }+c.c.).\end{aligned}$$
This is written in two component notation. $W_{\phi }=-F_{\phi }^{\ast
}=m\phi +\frac{g}{2}\phi \phi $ is the derivative of the superpotential with respect to $\phi ,$and $W_{\phi \phi }$ the second derivative. We put $ \phi =(A+iB)/2$ and $F_{\phi }=(F+iG)/2,$ where $A,B,F,G$ are real scalars, and switch to four component notation. Under the supersymmetry transformations, with $\varepsilon $ a constant spinor,
$$\begin{aligned}
\delta A& =\bar{\varepsilon}\gamma _{5}\Psi , \\
\delta B& =-\bar{\varepsilon}\Psi , \\
\delta \Psi & =F\varepsilon -G\gamma _{5}\varepsilon +\gamma ^{\mu }\partial
_{\mu }\gamma _{5}A\varepsilon +\gamma ^{\mu }\partial _{\mu }B\varepsilon ,
\\
\delta F& =-\bar{\varepsilon}\gamma ^{\mu }\partial _{\mu }\Psi , \\
\delta G& =-\bar{\varepsilon}\gamma _{5}\gamma ^{\mu }\partial _{\mu }\Psi ,
$$
the Lagrangian changes by a total derivative, so the action is invariant with the usual assumptions.
Now substitute for $W_{\phi }$ and $W_{\phi \phi }$ etc. Then the Lagrangian is
$$\begin{aligned}
L =\frac{1}{2}(\partial A)^{2}+\frac{1}{2}(\partial B)^{2}+\frac{i}{2}\bar{
\psi}\gamma ^{\mu }\partial _{\mu }\psi +\frac{1}{2}m\bar{\psi}\psi \end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
+\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}A\bar{\psi}\psi -\frac{ig}{\sqrt{2}}B\bar{\psi}\gamma
_{5}\psi-\frac{1}{2}(F^{2}+G^{2})\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{.7in}-\frac{m}{2}(2AF-2BG)-\frac{g}{2\sqrt{2}}(F(A^{2}-B^{2})-2GAB).\end{aligned}$$
Now the equations of motion for $F,G$ are
$$\begin{aligned}
F=-mA-\frac{g}{2\sqrt{2}}(A^{2}-B^{2}),G=mB+\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}AB.\end{aligned}$$
Substituting these gives interaction vertices $\frac{mg}{2\sqrt{2}}
A(A^{2}-B^{2}).$
With one coupling strength $g$ and one mass $m$ the full Lagrangian is supersymmetric. (Note that without supersymmetry there can be four different masses and four different couplings, so there are six relations predicted by supersymmetry which only allows one mass and one coupling.) But when supersymmetry is broken we expect the masses to differ. Suppose we allow four different masses, $m_{A},m_{B},m_{\psi },$ and $m_{g},$ where the last is the mass that is needed in some terms to give each term dimension four, so it multiplies $g.$ It’s clear how to rewrite the Lagrangian with these separate masses. There are four three-particle vertices, $A\bar{\psi}\psi $, $A^{3},AB^{2},B\bar{\psi}\psi .$ Now if we write the expression for a tadpole graph,
$$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-3.8in}\langle 0\left| L\right| A\rangle =\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{.4in}\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}\left\{ 4m_{\psi }\int
\frac{d^{4}p}{p^{2}-m_{\psi }^{2}}-m_{g}\int \frac{d^{4}p}{p^{2}-m_{B}^{2}}
-3m_{g}\int \frac{d^{4}p}{p^{2}-m_{A}^{2}}\right\},\end{aligned}$$
we see that in general this has a quadratic divergence, which cancels in the supersymmetry limit as expected. The fermion loop gives a minus sign, the factor of 4 in the first term arises from $Tr(\gamma
^{\mu }p_{\mu }+m_{\psi })=Trm_{\psi }=4m_{\psi }$, and the 3 in the last from the $A^{3}.$ But — and here is the important point — the divergence still cancels if $m_{A}\neq m_{B}\neq m_{g},$ but not if $m_{\psi }\neq m_{g}.$ Thus extra contributions to boson masses do not reintroduce quadratic divergences — they are called “soft” supersymmetry breaking. But extra contributions to fermion masses do lead to quadratic divergences, “hard” supersymmetry breaking. This result is true to all orders in perturbation theory, though this pedagogical argument does not show it. Some of the results are obvious since couplings proportional to masses will not introduce quadratic divergences, but it is still helpful to see the supersymmetry structure. After the supersymmetry breaking there are three masses and one coupling, so there are still four tests that the theory is a broken supersymmetric one.
To understand the general structure of supersymmetry breaking better, recall how symmetry breaking works in the SM. It is not possible to break the $
SU(2)\times U(1)$ symmetry from within the SM. So a new sector, the Higgs sector is needed. Interactions are assumed in the Higgs sector that give a potential with a minimum away from the origin, so the Higgs field gets a vev which breaks the symmetry. To generate mass for $W,Z,q,l$ an interaction is needed to transmit the breaking to the “visible” particles $W,Z,q,l.$ For fermions this interaction is $L_{fermion}=g_{e}\bar{e}
_{L}e_{R}h+cc\rightarrow g_{e}$v$\bar{e}e$ after h gets a vev for the fermions, and we can identify $m_{e}=g_{e}$v. Similarly, for the gauge bosons the Lagrangian term $(D^{\mu}h)(D_{\mu}h)\rightarrow
g^{2}hhW^{\mu}W_{\mu}\rightarrow g^{2}$v$^{2}W^{\mu}W_{\mu}$ giving $W,Z$ masses. The fundamental symmetry breaking is spontaneous (h gets a vev), but the effective Lagrangian appears to have explicit breaking.
The situation is very similar for supersymmetry. It is not possible to break supersymmetry in the “visible” sector, i.e. the sector containing the superpartners of the SM particles. A separate sector is needed where supersymmetry is broken. Originally it was called the “hidden” sector, but that is not a good name since it need not be really hidden. Then there must be some interaction(s) to transmit the breaking to the visible sector. Since the particles of both sectors interact gravitationally, gravity can always transmit the breaking. Other interactions may as well. We will have to find out how the breaking is transmitted from data on the superpartners, their masses and decays and phases and flavor rotations. Different ways of transmitting the breaking give different patterns of the soft parameters that we discuss below. A significant complication is that the effects of the supersymmetry breaking are mixed up with effects of the transmission. All the effects of the supersymmetry breaking and of the way it is transmitted, for any theory, are embedded in the soft-breaking Lagrangian that we turn to studying.
The soft-breaking Lagrangian
============================
The (essentially) general form of $L_{soft}$ is [@8]
$$\begin{aligned}
L_{soft}=\frac{1}{2}(M_{\lambda}\lambda^{a}\lambda^{a}+c.c.)+m_{ij}^{2}
\phi_{j}^{\ast}\phi_{i}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
+(\frac{1}{2}b_{ij}\phi_{i}\phi_{j}+\frac{1}{6}
a_{ijk}\phi_{i}\phi_{j}\phi_{k}+c.c.)\end{aligned}$$
This obviously breaks supersymmetry since only scalars and gauginos get mass, not their superpartners. It is soft as in our example above because it can be proved to not introduce any quadratic divergences. Models for supersymmetry breaking, however they originate, in string theory or supergravity or dynamically, all lead to this form. We will write it for the SSM shortly.
If all fields carry gauge quantum numbers there are terms that could be added to this without generating quadratic divergences, such as $\phi_{i}^{\ast} \phi_{j}\phi_{k},$ but such terms seldom arise in models so they are usually ignored [@9]. If such terms are truly absent once measurements are analyzed, their absence may be a clue to how supersymmetry is broken and transmitted.
[T]{}he [M]{}inimal [S]{}upersymmetric [S]{}tandard [M]{}odel
=============================================================
To write the supersymmetric SM we first take all of the quarks and leptons and put them in chiral superfields with superpartners. For each set of quantum numbers, such as up quarks or electrons, the scalar, fermion, and auxiliary fields $(\phi,\psi,F)$ form a supermultiplet in the same sense as $(n,p)$ form a strong isospin doublet or $(\nu_{e},e)$ form an electroweak doublet. All superpartners are denoted with a tilde, and there is a superpartner for each spin state of each fermion — that is important since the SM treats fermions of different chirality differently. The gauge bosons are put in vector superfields with their fermionic superpartners. Since $W$ is analytic in the scalar fields, we cannot include the complex conjugate of the scalar field as in the SM to give mass to the down quarks, so there must be two Higgs doublets (or more) in supersymmetry, and each has its superpartners. The requirement that the trace anomalies vanish so that the theories stay renormalizable, $TR(Y^{3})=TR(T_{3L}^{2}Y)=0,$ also implies the existence of the same two Higgs doublets. (The relevance of anomalies may seem unclear since we are only writing an effective theory, while anomaly conditions only need to be satisfied for the full theory. But if the anomaly conditions are not satisfied it may introduce a sensitivity to higher scales that the effective theory should not have.)
We proceed by first constructing the superpotential so we can calculate the F-terms, and then writing the Lagrangian, following equation 6 and summing over all the particles. The most general superpotential, if we don’t extend the SM and don’t include RH neutrinos, is
$$\begin{aligned}
W=\bar{u}Y_{u}QH_{u}-\bar{d}Y_{d}QH_{d}-\bar{e}Y_{e}LH_{d}+\mu H_{u}
H_{d}.\end{aligned}$$
All the fields are chiral superfields. The bars over $u,d,e$ are in the sense of Martin’s notation, specifying the conjugate fields. The signs are conventional so that masses later are positive. Indices are suppressed — for example, the fourth and first terms are
$$\begin{aligned}
\mu(H_{u})_{\alpha}(H_{d})_{\beta}\varepsilon_{\alpha\beta}\;{\rm and}\;\bar
{u}_{ai}(Y_{u})_{ij}Q_{j\alpha}^{a}(H_{u})_{\beta}\varepsilon_{\alpha\beta
}.\end{aligned}$$
The Yukawa couplings $Y_{u}$ etc. are dimensionless 3$\times3$ family matrices that determine the masses of quarks and leptons, and the angles and phase of the CKM matrix after $H_{u}^{0}$ and $H_{d}^{0}$ get vevs. They also contribute to the squark-quark-higgsino couplings etc. since the fields in $W$ are superfields containing all the components. This is the most general superpotential for the SSM if we assume baryon and lepton number are conserved (we’ll return to this question). To see the structure more explicitly we can use the approximations
$$\begin{aligned}
Y_{u}\approx\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{ccc}
0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & Y_{t}
\end{array}
\right) ,{ \ \ \ \ }Y_{d}\approx\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{ccc}
0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & Y_{b}
\end{array}
\right) ,{ \ \ \ \ }Y_{e}\approx\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{ccc}
0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & Y_{\tau}
\end{array}
\right) ,\end{aligned}$$
which gives
$$\begin{aligned}
W=Y_{t}(\bar{t}tH_{u}^{0}-\bar{t}bH_{u}^{+})-Y_{b}(\bar{b}tH_{d}^{-}-\bar
{b}bH_{d}^{0})\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{.5in}-Y_{\tau}(\bar{\tau}\nu_{\tau}H_{d}^{-}-\bar{\tau}\tau H_{d}
^{0})+\mu(H_{u}^{+}H_{d}^{-}-H_{u}^{0}H_{d}^{0})\end{aligned}$$
There are also other interactions from $W$ such as vertices $H_{u}^{0} t_{R}^{\ast}t_{L},$ $\tilde{H}_{u}^{0}t_{R}^{\ast}\tilde{t}_{L},$ $\tilde
{H}_{u}^{0}\tilde{t}_{R}t_{L},$ etc., all with the same strength $Y_{t}.$ All of them are measurable, and it will be an important check of supersymmetry to confirm they are all present with the same strength. All are dimensionless, so supersymmetry-breaking will only lead to small radiative corrections to these coupling strengths. In general one goes from one to another of these by changing any pair of particles into superpartners.
Before we turn to writing the full soft-breaking Lagrangian, we first look at two significant issues that depend on how supersymmetry is embedded in a more basic theory.
The $\mu$ opportunity
=====================
The term $\mu H_{u}H_{d}$ in the superpotential leads to a term in the Lagrangian
$$\begin{aligned}
L=........+\mu(\tilde{H}_{u}^{+}\tilde{H}_{d}^{-}-\tilde{H}_{u}^{0}\tilde
{H}_{d}^{0})+.......\end{aligned}$$
which gives mass terms for higgsinos in the chargino and neutralino mass matrices, so $\mu$ enters there. This term also contributes to the scalar Higgs potential from the F-terms,
$$\begin{aligned}
V=.......\left| \mu\right| ^{2}(\left| H_{u}^{0}\right| ^{2}+\left|
H_{d}^{0}\right| ^{2}+...)+........\end{aligned}$$
so these terms affect the Higgs mass, and F-terms also give contributions to the Lagrangian that affect the squark and slepton mass matrices,
$$\begin{aligned}
L=.....\mu^{\ast}(\widetilde{\bar{u}}Y_{u}\tilde{u}H_{d}^{0\ast}
+....)+....\end{aligned}$$
Thus phenomenologically $\mu$ must be of order the weak scale to maintain the solutions of the hierarchy problem, gauge coupling unification, and radiative electroweak symmetry breaking. The naive scale for any term in the superpotential is one above where the supersymmetry is broken, e.g. the string scale or unification scale, and since $\mu$ occurs in $W$ one would naively expect $\mu$ to be of order that scale, far above the weak scale. In the past that has been called the “$\mu$ problem”. But actually it is a clue to the correct theory and is an opportunity to learn what form the underlying theory must take. For example, in a string theory we expect all the mass terms to vanish since the SM particles are the massless modes of the theory, so in a string theory $\mu$, which is a mass term, would naturally vanish. That could be a clue that the underlying theory is indeed a string theory. In the following we will view $\mu=0$ as a “string boundary condition”. Older approaches added symmetries to require $\mu=0.$ Note that because of the non-renormalization theorem once $\mu$ is set to zero in $W$ it is not generated by loop corrections.
We also know phenomenologically that the $\mu$ contribution to the chargino and neutralino masses and the Higgs mass cannot vanish, or some of them would be so light they would have been observed, so we know that somehow a piece that plays the same role as $\mu$ is generated. We will call it $\mu_{eff},$ but whenever there is no misunderstanding possible we will drop the subscript and just write $\mu$ for $\mu_{eff}.$ Different ways of generating $\mu_{eff}$ give different relations to the other soft-breaking parameters, a different phase for $\mu_{eff},$ a characteristic size for $\mu_{eff},$ etc. Once it is measured we will have more clues to the underlying theory. Any top-down approach must generate $\mu_{eff}$ and its phase correctly.
R-parity conservation
=====================
The $\mu$ opportunity looks like the $\mu$ problem if one views supersymmetry as an effective low energy theory without seeing it as embedded in a more fundamental high scale theory. Similarly, if we view supersymmetry as only a low energy effective theory there is another complication that arises. There are additional terms that one could write in $W$ that are analytic, gauge invariant, and Lorentz invariant, but violate baryon and/or lepton number conservation. No such terms are allowed in the SM, which accidentally conserves B and L to all orders in perturbation theory, though it does not conserve them non-perturbatively. These terms are
$$\begin{aligned}
W_{R}=\lambda_{ijk}L_{i}L_{j}e_{k}+\lambda_{ijk}^{\prime}L_{i}Q_{j}\bar{d}
_{k}+\lambda_{ijk}^{\prime\prime}\bar{u}_{i}\bar{d}_{j}d_{k}.\end{aligned}$$
The couplings $\lambda,\lambda^{\prime},\lambda^{\prime\prime}$ are matrices in family space. Combining the second and third one can get very rapid proton decay, so one or both of them must be required to be absent. That is not the way one wants to have a theory behave. Rather, B and L conservation consistent with observation should arise naturally from the symmetries of the theory. Most, but not all, theorists expect that an underlying symmetry will be present in the broader case to forbid all of the terms in $W_{R}.$
There are two approaches to dealing with $W_{R}$. We can add a symmetry to the effective low energy theory, called R-parity or a variation called matter parity, which we assume will arise from a string theory or extended gauge group. R-parity is multiplicatively conserved,
$$\begin{aligned}
R=(-1)^{3(B-L)+2S}\end{aligned}$$
where $S$ is the spin. Then SM particles and Higgs fields are even, superpartners odd. This is a discrete Z$_{2}$ symmetry. Such symmetries that treat superpartners differently from SM particles and therefore do not commute with supersymmetry are called R-symmetries. Equivalently, one can use “matter parity”,
$$\begin{aligned}
P_{m}=(-1)^{3(B-L)}.\end{aligned}$$
A term in $W$ is only allowed if $P_{m}=+1.$ Gauge fields and Higgs are assigned $P_{m}=+1,$ and quark and lepton supermultiplets $P_{m}=-1.$ $P_{m}$ commutes with supersymmetry and forbids $W_{R}.$ Matter parity could be an exact symmetry, and such symmetries do arise in string theory. If R-parity or matter parity holds there are major phenomenological consequences,
$\bullet$ At colliders, or in loops, superpartners are produced in pairs.
$\bullet$ Each superpartner decays into one other superpartner (or an odd number).
$\bullet$ The lightest superpartner (LSP) is stable. That determines supersymmetry collider signatures, and makes the LSP a good candidate for the cold dark matter of the universe.
The second approach is very different, and does not have any of the above phenomenological consequences. One arbitrarily sets $\lambda^{\prime}$ or $\lambda^{\prime\prime}=0$ so there are no observable violations of baryon number or lepton number conservation. Other terms are allowed and one sets limits on them when their effects are not observed, term by term. In the MSSM itself R-parity must be broken explicitly if it is broken at all. If it were broken spontaneously by a sneutrino vev there would be a Goldstone boson associated with the spontaneous breaking of lepton number (called a Majaron), and some excluded Z decays would have been observed.
We will not pursue this ad hoc approach, because we do not like arbitrarily setting some terms to zero, and we do not like giving up the LSP as cold dark matter if we are not forced to. Further, large classes of theories conserve R-parity or matter parity [@10]. Often theories have a gauged U(1)$_{B-L}$ symmetry that is broken by scalar vevs and leaves $P_{m}$ automatically conserved. String theories often conserve R-parity or P$_{m}.$ Often theories conserve R-parity at the minimum of the Higgs potential. Baryogenisis via leptogenesis probably requires R-parity conservation because the usual $B+L$ violation plus $L$ violation would allow the needed asymmetries to be erased. The lepton number needed for $\nu$ seesaw masses violates $L$ by two units and does not violate R-parity conservation. In general, when supersymmetry is viewed as embedded in a more fundamental theory, R-parity conservation is very likely and easily justified. Ultimately, of course, experiment will decide, but we will assume R-parity conservation in the rest of these lectures.
Definition of MSSM
==================
At this stage we can define the effective low energy supersymmetry theory, which we call the MSSM, as the theory with the SM gauge group and particles, and the superpartners of the SM particles, and conserved $R$-parity, and two Higgs doublets. Perhaps it would be better to include right handed neutrinos and their superpartners as well, but that is not yet conventional.
The MSSM soft-breaking Lagrangian
=================================
We can now write the general soft-breaking Lagrangian for the MSSM,
$$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-.3in}-L_{soft} & =\frac{1}{2}(M_{3}\tilde{g}\tilde{g}+M_{2}\widetilde{W}
\widetilde{W}+M_{1}\widetilde{B}\widetilde{B}+c.c.)\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{.8in}+\widetilde{Q}^{\dag}m_{Q}^{2}\widetilde{Q}+\widetilde{\bar{u}}^{\dag}m_{\bar{u}}^{2}\widetilde{\bar{u}}+
\widetilde{\bar{d}}^{\dag}m_{d}^{2}\widetilde{\bar{d}}+
\widetilde{L}^{\dag}m_{L}^{2}\widetilde{L}+\widetilde{\bar{e}}^{\dag}m_{\bar{e}}^{2}\widetilde{\bar{e}}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{.5in}+(\widetilde{\bar{u}}^{\dag}a_{u}\widetilde{Q}H_{u}-\widetilde{\bar{d}
}^{\dag}a_{d}\widetilde{Q}H_{d}-\widetilde{\bar{e}}^{\dag}a_{e}\widetilde
{L}H_{d}+c.c.)\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{.5in}+m_{H_{u}}^{2}H_{u}^{\ast}H_{u}+m_{H_{d}}^{2}H_{d}^{2\ast}+(bH_{u}
H_{d}+c.c.).\end{aligned}$$
For clarity a number of the indices are suppressed. $M_{1,2,3}$ are the complex bino, wino, and gluino masses, e.g. $M_{3}=\left| M_{3}\right| e^{i\phi_{3}},$ etc. In the second line $m_{Q}^{2},$ etc, are squark and slepton hermitean 3$\times3$ mass matrices in family space. The $a_{u,d,e}$ are complex 3$\times3$ family matrices, usually called trilinear couplings. b is sometimes written as $B\mu$ or as $m_{3}^{2}$ or as $m_{12}^{2}.$ Additional parameters come from the gravitino complex mass and from $\mu_{eff}=\mu e^{i\phi_{\mu}};$ we will usually risk writing the magnitude of $\mu_{eff}$ as just $\mu$ assuming the context will distinguish this from the original $\mu$ of the superpotential. This may seem to involve a lot of parameters, but all the physical parameters are observable from direct production and study of superpartners and their effects. The absence of observation of superpartners and their effects already gives us useful information about some of the parameters. It is important to understand that all of these parameters are masses or flavor rotation angles or phases or Higgs vevs, just as for the SM. If we had no measurements of the quark and lepton masses and interactions there would be even more parameters for the SM than here.
With this Lagrangian we can do general, useful, reliable phenomenology, as we will see. For example, in the SM we did not know the top quark mass until it was measured. Nevertheless, for any chosen value of the top mass we could calculate its production cross section at any collider, all of its decay BR, its contribution to radiative corrections, etc. Similarly, for the superpartners we can calculate expected signals, study any candidate signal and evaluate whether it is consistent with the theory and with other constraints or data, and so on. A possible signal might have too small or large a cross section to be consistent with any set of parameters, or decay BR that could not occur here. Many examples can be given. We can also study whether superpartners can be studied at any proposed future facility. Further, most processes depend on only a few of the parameters — we will see several examples of this in the following.
Now let us count the parameters of the broken supersymmetric theory relative to the SM. There are no new gauge or Yukawa couplings, and still only one strong CP angle $\bar{\vartheta},$ so that is already rather economical. Then
$\bullet$ $m_{Q}^{2},$ etc are 5 3$\times3$ hermitean matrices $\rightarrow$ 9 real parameters each $\rightarrow$ 45
$\bullet$ $a_{u,d,e}$ are 3 3$\times3$ complex matrices $\rightarrow$ 18 real parameters each $\rightarrow$ 54
$\bullet$ $M_{1,2,3}$, $\mu,b$ are complex $\rightarrow$ 10
$\bullet$ $m_{H_{u,d}}^{2}$ are real by hermiticity $\rightarrow$ 2
giving a total of 111 parameters. As for the CKM quark matrix it is possible to redefine some fields and absorb some parameters. Baryon and lepton number are conserved, and there are two U(1) symmetries that one can see by looking at the Lagrangian. One arises because if $\mu$ and $b$ are zero there is a symmetry where $H_{u,d}\rightarrow$ $e^{i\alpha}H_{u,d}$ and the combinations $L\bar{e},Q\bar{u},Q\bar{d}\rightarrow
e^{-i\alpha}L\bar{e},Q\bar{u},Q\bar {d}.$ For example, one can take $Q\rightarrow e^{-i\alpha}Q,$ $L\rightarrow e^{-i\alpha}L,$ and $\bar{e},\bar{u},\bar{d}$ invariant. Such a symmetry is called a Peccei-Quinn symmetry if it holds for $\mu=0$ but is broken when $\mu\neq0.$ The other arises because if $M_{i},a_{i},b=0$ there is a continuous R-symmetry, e.g. the Higgs fields can have charge 2, the other matter fields charge 0, and the superpotential charge 2. Symmetries are called R-symmetries whenever members of a supermultiplet are treated differently.
With these four symmetries, four parameters can be absorbed. Also, the SM has two parameters in the Higgs potential, $\mu^{2}\phi^{2}+\lambda\phi^{4},$ so to count the number beyond the SM we subtract those 2. Then there are 111-4-2=105 new parameters. The SM itself has 3 gauge couplings, 9 quark and charged lepton masses, 4 CKM angles, 2 Higgs potential parameters, and one strong CP phase $\rightarrow$ 19. So there are 124 parameters altogether. When massive neutrinos are included one has RH $\nu$ masses, and the angles of the flavor rotation matrix (which has 3 real angles and 3 phases for the $\nu$ case since the Majorana nature of the neutrinos prevents absorbing two of the phases). In the following we will discuss how to measure many of the parameters. All are measurable in principle. Once they are measured they can be used to test any theory. In practice, as always historically, some measurements will be needed to formulate the underlying theory (e.g. to learn how supersymmetry is broken and to compactify) and others will then test approaches to doing that.
Only 32 of these parameters are masses of mass eigenstates! There are four neutralinos, two charginos, four Higgs sector masses, three LH sneutrinos, six each of charged sleptons, up squarks, and down squarks, and the gluino. We will examine the connections between the soft masses and the mass eigenstates below. Of the 32 masses, only the gluino occurs directly in $L_{soft}$ — the rest are all related in complicated ways to $L_{soft}!$ One could add the gravitino with its complex mass to the list of parameters. Even the gluino mass gets significant corrections that depend on squark masses.
Some of the ways these parameters contribute is to determining the breaking of the EW symmetry and therefore to the Higgs potential, and the masses and cross sections and decays of Higgs bosons, to the relic density and annihilation and scattering of the LSP, to flavor changing transitions because the rotations that diagonalize the fermion masses will not in general diagonalize the squarks and sleptons, to baryogenesis (which cannot be explained with only the CKM phase), to superpartner masses and signatures at colliders, rare decays with superpartner loops (e.g. $b\rightarrow s+\gamma),$ electric dipole and magnetic dipole moments, and more.
Connecting high and low scales
==============================
Two of the most important successes of supersymmetry depend on connecting the unification and EW scales. We will not study this topic in detail here since Martin covers it thoroughly, but we will look at the aspects we need, particularly for the Higgs sector. The connection is through the logarithmic renormalization and running of masses and couplings, with RGEs. In general we imagine the underlying theory to be formulated at a high energy scale, while we need to connect with experiment at the EW scale. We can imagine running the theory down (top-down) or running an effective Lagrangian determined by data up (bottom-up). It is necessary to calculate for all the parameters of the superpotential and of the soft-breaking Lagrangian. The RGEs are known for gauge couplings and for the superpotential couplings to three loops, and to two loops for other parameters, for the MSSM and its RH$\nu$ extension. We will only look at one-loop results since we are mainly focusing on pedagogical features. An interesting issue is that calculations must be done with regularization and renormalization procedures that do not break supersymmetry, and that is not straightforward. How to do that is not a solved problem in general, but it is understood through two loops and more loops in particular cases, so in practice there is no problem.
Since our ability to formulate a deeper theory will depend on deducing from data the form of the theory at the unification scale, learning how to convert EW data first into an effective theory at the weak scale, and then into an effective theory at the unification scale, is in a sense the major challenge for particle physics in the coming years. There are of course ambiguities in running to the higher scales. Understanding the uniqueness of the resulting high scale theory, and how to resolve ambiguities as well as possible, is very important.
For the Higgs sector we need to examine the running of several of the soft masses, whose RGEs follow. The quantity $t$ is $\ln(Q/Q_{0}),$ where $Q$ is the scale and $Q_{0}$ a reference scale.
$$\begin{aligned}
16\pi^{2}dM_{H_{u}}^{2}/dt\approx 3X_{t}-6g_{2}^{2}\left| M_{2}\right| ^{2}
-\frac{6}{5}g_{1}^{2}\left| M_{1}\right| ^{2}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
16\pi^{2}dM_{H_{d}}^{2}/d\approx 3X_{b}+X_{\tau}-6g_{2}^{2}\left| M_{2}\right|
^{2}-\frac{6}{5}\left| M_{1}\right| ^{2}\end{aligned}$$
where
$$\begin{aligned}
X_{t,b}\approx 2\left| Y_{t,b}\right| ^{2}(M_{H_{u,d}}^{2}+m_{Q_{3}}^{2}+m_{\bar
{u}_{3},\bar{d}_{3}}^{2})+2\left| a_{t,b}\right| ^{2}\end{aligned}$$
Note that $X_{t,b}$ are positive so $M_{H_{u,d}}^{2}$ decrease as they evolve toward the EW scale from a high scale, and unless $\tan\beta$ is very large, $X_{t}$ is larger than $X_{b}.$ We also need to look at just the leading behavior of the squark running,
$$\begin{aligned}
16\pi^{2}dM_{Q_{3}}^{2}/dt=X_{t}+X_{b}+...\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
16\pi^{2}dM_{\bar{u}_{3}}^{2}/dt=2X_{t}+...\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
16\pi^{2}dM_{\bar{d}_{3}}^{2}/dt=2X_{b}+...\end{aligned}$$
Think back to the SM, where the coefficient (usually called $\mu^{2}$ there but remember that $\mu$ is not the same as our $\mu)$ of $\phi^{2}$ in the Higgs potential must be negative to lead to spontaneous symmetry breaking with the minimum of the potential away from the origin. Here $M_{H_{u}}^{2}$ plays the role, effectively, of the SM $\mu^{2}.$ We see that because of the large $X_{t}$ the right hand side of the equation for $M_{H_{u}}^{2}$ is indeed the largest, and not only does $M_{H_{u}}^{2}$ decrease as it runs but the other quantities run slower so they do not get vevs at the same time. Thus the theory naturally can lead to a derivation of the Higgs mechanism! This is extremely important. The theory could easily have had a form where no Higgs vev formed, or where a Higgs vev could only form if some squark also got a vev, which would violate charge and color conservation. The precise conditions for REWSB are somewhat more subtle in supersymmetry — $M_{H_{u} }^{2}$ does not actually need to be negative, just smaller than $M_{H_{d}} ^{2},$ as we will see next.
Radiative electroweak symmetry breaking (REWSB)
===============================================
The Higgs sector is the natural domain of supersymmetry. The Higgs mechanism [@11] occurs as the scale decreases from the more symmetric high scale, with vacuum expectation values becoming non-zero somewhat above the EW scale. As we will see, the Higgs mechanism is intricately tied up with supersymmetry and with supersymmetry breaking — there is no Higgs mechanism unless supersymmetry is broken. This should be contrasted with the other big issue of flavor physics, the origin of the number of families and the differences between the flavor and mass eigenstates, which is already in the structure of the theory at the unification scale, as discussed above. Supersymmetry accommodates the flavor issues, and allows data to constrain them, but supersymmetry can explain the Higgs physics with string boundary conditions (we’ll be more precise about that later).
Once we have the superpotential and $L_{soft}$ we can calculate the scalar potential that determines the Higgs physics — that is very different from the SM case where one adds the scalar potential in by hand. The result is for the electrically neutral fields,
$$\begin{aligned}
V=\left| \mu_{eff}\right| ^{2}(\left| H_{u}\right| ^{2}+\left|
H_{d}\right| ^{2})\hspace{1.6in}F\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
+\frac{1}{8}(g_{1}^{2}+g_{2}^{2})(\left| H_{u}\right| ^{2}-\left|
H_{d}\right| ^{2})\hspace{1.5in}D\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
+m_{H_{u}}^{2}\left| H_{u}\right| ^{2}+m_{H_{d}}^{2}\left| H_{d}\right|
^{2}-(bH_{u}H_{d}+c.c.).\hspace{.6in}soft\end{aligned}$$
From now on again we will just write $\mu$ for $\mu_{eff}.$ Now we want to minimize this. If it has a minimum away from the origin vevs will be generated. If we had included the charged scalars we could use gauge invariance to rotate away any vev for (say) $H_{u}^{+}.$ Then we would find that the minimization condition $\partial V/\partial H_{d}^{-}=0$ implied that $\left\langle
H_{d}^{-}\right\rangle =0,$ so at the minimum electromagnetism is an unbroken symmetry. The only complex term in $V$ is $b.$ We can redefine the phases of $H_{u},H_{d}$ to absorb the b phase, so we can take $b$ as real and positive. Then by inspection we will have a minimum when the term with $b$ subtracts the most it can, so $\left\langle H_{u}\right\rangle \left\langle H_{d}\right\rangle $ will be real and positive. Since $H_{u},H_{d}$ have hypercharge $\pm\frac{1}{2},$ we can use a hypercharge gauge transformation to take the two vevs separately real and positive. Therefore at the tree level CP is conserved in the Higgs sector and we can choose the mass eigenstates to have definite CP.
Writing $\partial V/\partial H_{u}=\partial V/\partial H_{d}=0$ one finds that the condition for a minimum away from the origin is
$$\begin{aligned}
b^{2}>(\left| \mu\right| ^{2}+M_{H_{u}}^{2})(\left| \mu\right|
^{2}+M_{H_{d}}^{2}).\end{aligned}$$
So $M_{H_{u}}^{2}<0$ helps to generate EWSB but is not necessary. There is no EWSB if $b$ is too small, or if $\left|
\mu\right| ^{2}$ is too large. For a valid theory we must also have the potential bounded from below, which was automatic for the unbroken theory but is not when the soft terms are included. The quartic piece in $V$ guarantees $V$ is bounded from below except along the so-called D-flat direction $\left\langle H_{u}\right\rangle =\left\langle H_{d}
\right\rangle ,$ so we need the quadratic terms positive along that direction, which implies
$$\begin{aligned}
2b<2\left| \mu\right| ^{2}+M_{H_{u}}^{2}+M_{H_{d}}^{2}.\end{aligned}$$
Remarkably, the two conditions cannot be satisfied if $M_{H_{u}}^{2}=M_{H_{d}}^{2}$, so the fact that $M_{H_{u}}^{2}$ runs more rapidly than $M_{H_{d}}^{2}$ is essential. They also cannot be satisfied if $M_{H_{u}}^2 = M_{H_{d}}^2 = 0$, i.e. if supersymmetry is unbroken!
We write $\left\langle H_{u,d}\right\rangle =$v$_{u,d}.$ Requiring the Z mass be correct gives
$$\begin{aligned}
\rm{v}_{u}^{2}+\rm{v}_{d}^{2}=\rm{v}^{2}=\frac{2M_{Z}^{2}}{g_{1}
^{2}+g_{2}^{2}} \approx (174{\rm GeV})^{2}\end{aligned}$$
and it is convenient to write
$$\begin{aligned}
\tan\beta=\rm{v}_{u}/\rm{v}_{d}.\end{aligned}$$
Then v$_{u}=$v$\sin\beta,$ v$_{d}=$v$\cos\beta,$ and with our conventions $0<\beta<\pi/2.$
With these definitions the minimization conditions can be written
$$\begin{aligned}
\left| \mu\right| ^{2}+M_{H_{d}}^{2}=b\tan\beta-\frac{1}{2}M_{Z}^{2}
\cos2\beta\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\left| \mu\right| ^{2}+M_{H_{u}}^{2}=b\cot\beta+\frac{1}{2}M_{Z}^{2}
\cos2\beta.\end{aligned}$$
These satisfy the EWSB conditions. They can be used (say) to eliminate $b$ and $\left| \mu\right| ^{2}$ in terms of $\tan\beta$ and $M_{Z}^{2}.$ Note the phase of $\mu$ is not determined. These two equations have a special status because they are the only two equations of the entire theory that relate a measured quantity ($M_{Z}^{2})$ to soft parameters. If the soft parameters are too large, these equations would require very precise cancellations to keep the Z mass correct.
We have two Higgs fields, each an SU(2) doublet of complex fields, so 8 real scalars. Three of them are Nambu-Goldstone bosons that are eaten by $W^{\pm},Z$ to become the longitudinal states of the vector bosons, just as in the SM, so 5 remain as physical particles. They are usually classified as 3 neutral ones, $h,H,A,$ and a charged pair, $H^{\pm}.$ The mass matrix is calculated from $V$ with $M_{ij}^{2}=\frac{1}{2}\partial^{2}V/\partial\phi_{i}\partial\phi
_{j}$ where $\phi_{i,j}$ run over the 8 real scalars. Then the eigenvalue equation $\det\left| \lambda-M_{ij}^{2}\right| =0$ determines the mass eigenstates. This splits into block diagonal 2$\times2 $ factors. The factors for the charged states and the neutral one in the basis $({Im}H_{u},\;{Im}H_{d})$ each have one zero eigenvalue, the Nambu-Goldstone bosons. The two CP even neutrals can mix, with mixing matrix
$$\begin{aligned}
\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{c}
h\\
H
\end{array}
\right) =\sqrt{2}\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{cc}
\cos\alpha & -\sin\alpha\\
\sin\alpha & \cos\alpha
\end{array}
\right) \left(
\begin{array}
[c]{c}
{Re}H_{u}-\rm{v}_{u}\\
{Re}H_{d}-\rm{v}_{d}
\end{array}
\right) .\end{aligned}$$
The resulting tree level masses are
$$\begin{aligned}
m_{h,H}^{2}=\frac{m_{A}^{2}+M_{Z}^{2}}{2}\mp\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{(m_{A}^{2}
+M_{Z}^{2})^{2}-4m_{A}^{2}M_{Z}^{2}\cos^{2}2\beta},\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
m_{A}^{2}=2b/\sin2\beta,\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
m_{H^{\pm}}^{2}=m_{A}^{2}+M_{W^{\pm}}^{2}.\end{aligned}$$
From eq. 54, one can see that if $m_{A}^{2}\rightarrow0$ then $m_{h} ^{2}\rightarrow0,$ and if $m_{A}^{2}$ gets large then $m_{h}^{2}\rightarrow0,$ so $m_{h}^{2}$ has a maximum. A little algebra shows the maximum is
$$\begin{aligned}
m_{h}^{tree}\leq\left| \cos2\beta\right| M_{Z},\end{aligned}$$
where we have emphasized that this maximum does not include radiative corrections. This important result leads to the strongest quantitative test of the existence of supersymmetry, that there must exist a light Higgs boson. If the gauge theory is extended to larger gauge groups there are additional contributions to the tree level mass, but they are bounded too.
There are also significant radiative corrections [@12]. The Higgs potential has contributions to the $h^{4}$ term from loops involving top quarks and top squarks. These are not small because the top Yukawa coupling is of order unity and the top-Higgs coupling is proportional to the top mass. To include the effect one has to calculate the contribution to the Higgs potential, reminimize, and recalculate the mass matrix eigenvalues. The result is
$$\begin{aligned}
m_{h}^{2}\lesssim \cos^{2}2\beta M_{Z}^{2}+\frac{3\alpha_{2}}{2\pi}\frac
{m_{t}^{4}}{m_{W}^{2}}\ln\frac{\tilde{m}_{t}^{2}}{M_{Z}^{2}} \approx
M_{Z}^{2}(1+\frac{1}{4}\ln\frac{\tilde{m}^{2}_t}{M_{Z}^{2}})\end{aligned}$$
where the last equality uses $\left| \cos2\beta\right| =1,$ which is true for $\tan\beta\gtrsim 4.$ The contributions from two loops have mainly been calculated and are small but not negligible. This result shows that if $m_h \approx 115$ GeV, it is necessary that the tree level term give essentially the full $M_Z$ contribution, so $\cos^2 2\beta \approx 1$.
If $\tan\beta$ is large the REWSB situation is more complicated. Then the top and bottom Yukawa couplings are approximately equal, so from the RGEs \[equations 39-41\] we see that $M_{H_{u}}^{2},M_{H_{d} }^{2}$ run together, and both can go negative, or the conditions \[equations 48,49\] may not be satisfied. The EWSB conditions can be rewritten \[using equation 55\] so one condition is that
$$\begin{aligned}
2m_{A}^{2}\approx M_{H_{d}}^{2}-M_{H_{u}}^{2}-M_{Z}^{2}.\end{aligned}$$
Experimentally, $m_{A}^{2} \gtrsim M_{Z}^{2}$ (or $A$ would have been observed at LEP or the Tevatron), so the EWSB condition is that $M_{H_{u}}^{2}$ must be smaller than $M_{H_{d}}^{2}$ by an amount somewhat larger than $M_{Z}^{2}.$ That allows a narrow window, and preferably the theory would not have to be finely adjusted to allow the REWSB to occur. Also, in this situation the other condition can be written
$$\begin{aligned}
b\approx\frac{M_{H_{d}}^{2}-M_{H_{u}}^{2}}{\tan\beta}\sim\frac{M_{Z}^{2}}
{\tan\beta}\ll M_{Z}^2\end{aligned}$$
when $\tan\beta$ is large, and this is a clear fine tuning [@31] since the natural scale for $b$ is of order the typical soft term, presumably of order or somewhat larger than $M_{Z}^{2}.$ So REWSB is possible with large $\tan \beta$ but it is necessary to explain why this apparent fine tuning occurs. The actual effects of increasing $\tan\beta$ are complicated. The b and $\tau$ Yukawas get larger, so the top and stop and $m_{H_{u,d}}^{2}$ RGEs change. $m_{H_{u,d}}^{2}$ get driven more negative, but the larger Yukawas decrease the stop masses, which makes $m_{H_{u}}^{2}$ less negative, etc.
If $\tan\beta$ is large, theories with $M_{H_{u}}^{2}$ and $M_{H_{d}}^{2}$ split are then favored. That could occur in the unification scale formulation of the theory. One possible way to get a splitting even if $M_{H_{u}}^{2}, M_{H_{d}}^{2}$ start degenerate is via D-terms from extending the gauge theory[@13]. D-terms arise whenever a U(1) symmetry is broken. Under certain circumstances their magnitude may be of order the weak scale even though the U(1) symmetry is broken at a high scale, and they can contribute if the superpartners are charged under that U(1) symmetry. If one looks at SO(10) breaking to SU(5)$\times$U(1) and the breaking of this U(1), the soft masses are
$$\begin{aligned}
m_{Q}^{2} = m_{\bar{e}}^{2}=m_{\bar{u}}^{2}=m_{10}^{2}+m_{D}^{2}\\
m_{L}^{2} = m_{\bar{d}}^{2}=m_{5}^{2}-3m_{D}^{2}\\
m_{H_{d,u}}^{2} = m_{10}^{2}\pm2m_{D}^{2}.\end{aligned}$$
The main point for us is that $m_{H_{u}}^{2}$ and $m_{H_{d}}^{2}$ are split. The splitting affects the other masses, so in principle $m_{D}^2$ is accessible experimentally if sufficiently many scalar masses can be measured.
Note that because $b$ is in $L_{soft}$ it is not protected by a non-renormalization theorem. So to have $b$ small at the weak scale does not mean it is small at the unification scale. It’s RGE is
$$\begin{aligned}
16\pi^{2}db/dt=b(3Y_{t}^{2}-3g_{2}^{2}+...)+\mu(6a_{t}Y_{t}+6g_{2}^{2}
M_{2}+...)\end{aligned}$$
so if it starts out at zero it is regenerated from the second term, or alternatively cancellations can make it small at the weak scale. Such cancellations would look accidental or fine tuned if one did not know the high scale theory, but the appropriate way to view them would be as a clue to the high scale theory. Similarly, large $\tan\beta$ would presumably mean that one vev is approximately zero at tree level and a small value is generated for it by radiative corrections. No theory is currently known that does that, but if an appropriate symmetry can be found that does it will be a clue to the high scale theory.
Before we leave Higgs physics we will derive one Feynman rule to illustrate how that works. From above we write
$$\begin{aligned}
H_{d}=\rm{v}\cos\beta+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(-h\sin\alpha+H\cos\alpha
+iA\sin\beta)\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
H_{u}=\rm{v}\sin\beta+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(h\cos\alpha+H\sin\alpha+iA\cos
\beta).\end{aligned}$$
Then from the covariant derivative term there is the Lagrangian contribution
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{g_{2}^{2}}{\cos^{2}\theta_{W}}(\left| H_{u}\right| ^{2}+\left|
H_{d}\right| ^{2})Z^{\mu}Z_{\mu}\end{aligned}$$
so substituting this gives the $hZZ$ vertex
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{g_{2}^{2}\rm{v}}{2\cos^{2}\theta_{W}}Z^{\mu}Z_{\mu}h(\sin\beta
\cos\alpha-\cos\beta\sin\alpha)=\frac{g_{2}M_{Z}}{\cos\theta_{W}}\sin
(\beta-\alpha)Z^{\mu}Z_{\mu}h.\end{aligned}$$
Similar manipulations give the couplings
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{tabular}
[c]{cccc}
\ & $h$ & $H$ & $A$\\
$\bar{t}t,$ $\bar{c}c,$ $\bar{u}u$ & $\cos\alpha/\sin\beta$ & $\sin\alpha
/\cos\beta$ & $\cot\beta$\\
$\bar{b}b,$ $\bar{\tau}\tau...$ & -$\sin\alpha/\cos\beta$ & $\cos\alpha
/\sin\beta$ & $\tan\beta$\\
$WW,ZZ$ & $\sin(\beta-\alpha)$ & $\cos(\beta-\alpha)$ & 0\\
$ZA$ & $\cos\left( \beta-\alpha\right) $ & $\sin\left( \beta-\alpha\right)
$ & 0
\end{tabular}\end{aligned}$$
The $ZAh$ and $ZHA$ vertices are non-zero, while the $Zhh$ and $ZHH$ vertices vanish; there is no tree level $ZW^{\pm}H^{\mp}$ vertex.
Finally, we note that in the supersymmetric limit where the soft parameters become zero one has
$$\begin{aligned}
V=\left| \mu\right| ^{2}(\left| H_{u}\right| ^{2}+\left| H_{d}\right|
^{2})+\frac{g_{1}^{2}+g_{2}^{2}}{2}(\left| H_{u}\right| ^{2}-\left|
H_{d}\right| ^{2})\end{aligned}$$
so the minimum is at $\mu=0,$ $H_{u}=H_{d};$ the latter implies $\tan\beta$ =1.
Yukawa couplings, $\tan\beta$ , and theoretical and experimental constraints on $\tan\beta$
===========================================================================================
It’s important to understand how $\tan\beta$ originates, and what is known about it. At high scales the Higgs fields do not have vevs, so $\tan\beta$ does not exist. The superpotential contains information about the quark and lepton masses through the Yukawa couplings. As the universe cools, at the EW phase transition vevs become non-zero and one can define $\tan\beta=$v$_{u}/$v$_{d}$. Then quark and lepton masses become non-zero, $m_{q,l}=Y_{q,l}$v$_{u,d}.$
There are two values for $\tan\beta$ that are in a sense natural. As pointed out just above, the supersymmetric limit corresponds to $\tan\beta$ =1. Typically in string theories some Yukawa couplings are of order gauge couplings, and others of order zero. The large couplings for each family are interpreted as the top, bottom, and tau couplings. If $Y_{t}\approx Y_{b}$ then $\tan\beta$ $\sim
m_{t}/m_{b}.$ Numerically this is of order 35, but a number of effects could make it rather larger or smaller, e.g. the values of $m_{t}$ and $m_{b}$ change considerably with scale, and with RGE running so $m_{t}(M_{Z})/m_{b}(M_{Z})\sim50$. Finally $\tan\beta$ is determined at the minimum of the Higgs potential, and can be driven smaller.
There are theoretical limits on $\tan\beta$ arising from the requirement that the theory stay perturbative at high scales (remember, the evidence that the entire theory stays perturbative is both the gauge coupling unification and the radiative EWSB). Requiring that $Y_{t}=g_{2}m_{t} /\sqrt{2}M_{W}\sin\beta$ not diverge puts a lower limit on $\sin\beta$ which corresponds to $\tan\beta$ $\gtrsim 1.2$ when done in the complete theory, and similarly $Y_{b}=g_{2}m_{b}/\sqrt{2}M_{W}\cos\beta$ leads to $\tan\beta$ $\lesssim 60.$ This upper limit is probably reduced by REWSB.
There are no measurements of $\tan\beta$, and as I emphasize below it is not possible to measure $\tan\beta$ at a hadron collider in general. Perhaps we will be lucky and find ourselves in a part of parameter space where such a measurement is possible, or more likely, a combination of information from (say) $g_{\mu}-2$ and superpartner masses will lead to at least useful constraints on $\tan\beta$. LEP experimental groups have claimed lower limits on $\tan\beta$ from the absence of superpartner signals, but those are quite model dependent and do not hold if phases are taken into account. Similarly, there is a real lower limit on $\tan\beta$ from the absence of a Higgs boson below 115 GeV, as explained above and in Section 22. That limit is about 4 if phases are not included, but lower when they are.
In what sense does supersymmetry explain EWSB?
==============================================
Understanding the mechanism of EWSB, and its implications, is still the central problem of particle physics. Does supersymmetry indeed explain it? If so, the explanation depends on broken supersymmetry, and we have seen that in the absence of supersymmetry breaking the EW symmetry is not broken. That’s OK. An explanation in terms of supersymmetry moves us a step closer to the primary theory. Historically we have learned to go a step at a time, steadily moving toward more basic understanding. If we think of supersymmetry as an effective theory at the weak scale only, then we would expect the sense in which it explains EWSB to be different from that we would find if we think of low energy supersymmetry as the low energy formulation of a high scale theory. That is, top-motivated bottom-up is different from bottom-up. It should be emphasized that one could have supersymmetry breaking without EWSB, but not EWSB without supersymmetry breaking.
It may clarify the issues to first ask what needs explanation. We can explicitly list
\(1) Why are there Higgs scalar fields, i.e. scalars that carry SU(2)$\times$U(1) quantum numbers, at all?
\(2) Why does the Higgs field get a non-zero vev?
\(3) Why is the vev of order the EW scale instead of a high scale?
\(4) Why does the Higgs interact differently with different particles, in particularly different fermions?
Let us consider these questions.
At least scalars are naturally present in supersymmetric theories, and generally carry EW quantum numbers, whereas in the SM scalars do not otherwise occur. If we connect to a high scale theory, some (most) explicitly have SM-like Higgs fields, e.g. in the E$_{6}$ representation of heterotic string theories. Basically as long as we view supersymmetry as embedded in a high scale theory we will typically have Higgs scalars present, though not in all possible cases. That in turn can point to the correct high scale theory.
We have seen that the RGE running naturally does explain the origin of the Higgs vev if the soft-breaking terms and $\mu_{eff}$ are of order the weak scale, and if one Yukawa coupling is of order the gauge couplings. If we view the theory as a low energy effective theory we have seen that we do not know why $\mu$ in the superpotential is zero, but if we view the theory as embedded in a string theory then it is natural to have $\mu=0$ in the superpotential. We referred to this as string boundary conditions. Then how $\mu_{eff}$ is generated points toward the correct high scale theory. If $\mu_{eff}$ is of order the weak scale then it is appropriate to explain the Higgs mechanism [*and*]{} gauge coupling unification. Similarly, the mechanism of supersymmetry breaking has to give soft masses of order the weak scale if supersymmetry explains (or, as some prefer to say, predicts) ** gauge coupling unification.
In a string theory, for example, we expect some Yukawa couplings to be of order the gauge couplings. We identify one of those with the top quark. Then the running of $M_{H_{u}}^{2}$ is fast and it is driven negative, or decreases sufficiently, to imply the non-zero Higgs vev. The relevant soft-breaking terms, particularly $M_{H_{u}}^{2}$ and $M_{H_{d}}^{2} $ must be of order the weak scale. The theory accommodates different couplings for all the fermions. It does not explain the numerical values of the masses, but allows them to be different — that is non-trivial.
So a complete explanation requires thinking of supersymmetry as embedded in a deeper theory such as string theory $($so scalar fields exist in the theory, and $\mu \approx 0,$ and the top Yukawa is of order 1$),$ and requires that the soft terms are of order the weak scale after supersymmetry is broken. If we only think of supersymmetry as a low energy effective theory not all of these elements are present, so the explanation is possible but incomplete. It is not circular to impose soft-breaking parameters of order the weak scale to explain the EWSB since one is using supersymmetry breaking to explain EW breaking, which is important progress — that is how physics has increased understanding for centuries.
It is also very important to note that the conditions on the existence of Higgs and on $\mu$ and on the soft parameters are equally required for the gauge coupling unification — if they do not hold in a theory then it will not exhibit gauge coupling unification. The explanation of EWSB requires in addition to the conditions for gauge coupling unification only that there is a Yukawa coupling of order the gauge couplings, i.e. a heavy top quark, which is a fact.
Perhaps it is amusing to note that two families are needed to have both a heavy fermion so the EW symmetry is broken, and light fermions that make up the actual world we are part of. No reasons are yet known why a third family is needed — it is clear that CP violation could have arisen from soft phases with two families, and does not require the three family SM.
Now that we have developed some foundations we turn to applications in several areas.
Current and forthcoming Higgs physics
=====================================
There are two important pieces of information about Higgs physics that both independently suggest it will not be too long before a confirmed discovery. But of course it is such an important question that solid data is needed.
The first is the upper limit on $m_{h}$ from the global analysis of precision LEP (or LEP + SLC +Tevatron) data [@14]. Basically the result is that there are a number of independent measurements of SM observables, and every parameter needed to calculate at the observed level of precision is measured except $m_{h}.$ So one can do a global fit to the data and determine the range of values of $m_{h}$ for which the fit is acceptable. The result is that at 95% C.L. $m_{h}$ should be below about 200 GeV. The precise value does not matter for us, and because the data really determines $\ln m_{h}$ the sensitivity is exponential so it moves around with small changes in input. What is important is that there is an upper limit. The best fit is for a central value of order 100 GeV, but the minimum is fairly broad. The analysis is done for a SM Higgs but is very similar for a supersymmetric Higgs over most of the parameter space.
In physics an upper limit does not always imply there is something below the upper limit. Here the true limit is on a contribution to the amplitude, and maybe it can be faked by other kinds of contributions that mimic it. But such contributions behave differently in other settings, so they can be separated. If one analyzes the possibilities [@15] one finds that there is a real upper limit of order 450 GeV on the Higgs mass, if (and only if) additional new physics is present in the TeV region. That new physics or its effects could be detected at LHC and/or a 500 GeV linear electron collider, and/or a higher intensity Z factory (“giga-Z”) that accompanies a linear collider. So the upper limit gives us very powerful new information. If no other new physics (besides supersymmetry) occurs and conspires in just the required way with the heavier Higgs state, the upper limit really is about 200 GeV.
The second new information is a possible signal from LEP [@16] in its closing weeks for a Higgs boson with $m_{h}$=115 GeV. The ALEPH detector was the only group to do a blind analysis, and it is technically a very strong detector, so its observation of about a 3$\sigma$ signal is important information. It was not possible to run LEP to get enough more data to confirm this signal. Fortunately, its properties are nearly optimal for early confirmation at the Tevatron, since its mass is predicted, and cross section and branching ratio to $b\bar{b}$ are large. Less is required to confirm a signal in a predicted mass bin than to find a signal of unknown mass, so less than 10 $fb^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity will be required if the LEP signal is indeed correct. If funding and the collider and the detectors all work as planned confirming evidence for $h$ could come in 2004.
Suppose the LEP $h$ is indeed real. What have we learned [@17]? Most importantly, of course, that a point-like, fundamental Higgs boson exists. It is point-like because its production cross section is not suppressed by structure effects. It is a new kind of matter, different from the century old matter particles and gauge bosons. It completes the SM, and points to how to extend the SM. It confirms the Higgs mechanism, since it is produced with the non-gauge-invariant $ZZh$ vertex, which must originate in the gauge-invariant $ZZhh$ vertex with one $h$ having a vev.
The mass of $115$ GeV also tells us important information. First, the Higgs boson is not a purely SM one, since the potential energy would be unbounded from below at that mass. Basically the argument is that one has to write the potential with quantum corrections, and the corrections from fermion loops dominate because of the heavy top and can be negative if $m_{h} $ is too small. The SM potential is
$$\begin{aligned}
V(h)=-\mu^{2}h^{2}+\left\{ \lambda+\frac{3M_{Z}^{4}+6M_{W}^{4}+m_{h}
^{4}-12m_{t}^{4}}{64\pi^{2}\rm{v}^{4}}\ln(\textit{ \ })\right\}
h^{4},\end{aligned}$$
where the argument of the $\ln$ is some function of the masses larger than one. In the usual way $\lambda=m_{h}^{2}/2$v$^{2}.$ The second term in the brackets is negative, so $\lambda$ and therefore $m_{h}$ has to be large enough. The full argument has to include higher loops, thermal corrections, a metastable universe rather than a totally stable one, etc., and requires $m_{h}$ to be larger than about 125 GeV if $h$ can be a purely SM Higgs boson.
Second, 115 GeV is an entirely reasonable value of $m_{h}$ for supersymmetry, but only if $\tan\beta$ is constrained to be larger than about 4. That is because as described above, the tree level contribution is proportional to $\left| \cos2\beta\right| $ and to get a result as large as 115 it is necessary that $\left| \cos2\beta\right| $ be essentially unity, giving a lower limit on $\tan\beta$ of about 4 . Even then the tree level can only contribute a maximum of $M_{Z}$ to $m_{h}.$ The rest comes from the radiative corrections, mainly the top loop. Numerically one gets
$$\begin{aligned}
m_{h}^{2}\approx(91)^{2}+(40)^{2}\left\{\ln\frac{m_{\tilde{t}}^{2}}
{m_{t}^{2}}+...\right\}\end{aligned}$$
where $m_{\tilde{t}}^{2}$ is an appropriate average of the two stop mass eigenstates. The second term must supply about 25 GeV, which is quite reasonable.
The LEP signal, assuming it is correct, can only provide us a limited amount of information since it only supplies two numbers, $m_{h}$ and $\sigma\times BR.$ The full Higgs potential depends on at least 7 parameters [@18], so none of them can be explicitly measured. Because the potential depends on the stop loops, it depends on the hermitean stop mass matrix (equation 69 below).
Since the elements are complex, in general the loop contributions to the Higgs potential will be complex, so the potential will have to be re-minimized taking into account the possibility of a relative phase between the Higgs vevs. One can write
$$\begin{aligned}
H_{d}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{c}
\rm{v}_{d}+h_{d}+ia_{d}\\
h_{d}^{-}
\end{array}
\right) ,\textit{ \ \ \ \ \ \ }H_{u}=\frac{e^{i\theta}}{\sqrt{2}}\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{c}
h_{u}^{+}\\
\rm{v}_{u}+h_{u}+ia_{u}
\end{array}
\right).\end{aligned}$$
At the minimum of the potential it turns out that $\theta$ cannot be set to zero or absorbed by redefinitions. The resulting $\theta$ is a function of the phase of $\mu,$ $\phi_{\mu},$ and of the phase(s) in $a_{t}$ (and of course of other parameters). Thus $m_{h}$ and $\sigma_{h}\times BR(b\bar {b})$ are functions of the magnitudes of $\mu$ and $a_{t},$ $m_{Q}^{2},$ $m_{u}^{2},$ $b,$ $\tan\beta$ , and the physical phase(s) $\phi_{\mu} +\phi_{a_{t}}$ at least. Since some of these are matrices they can involve more than one parameter. Also, if $\tan\beta$ is large there will be important sbottom loops, and chargino and neutralino loops can contribute. So only in special cases can data about the Higgs sector be inverted to measure $\tan\beta$ and the soft parameters, and only then if there are at least 7 observables.
If $\theta$ is significant then even and odd CP states mix and there are 3 mixed neutral states which could all show up in the $b\bar{b}$ or $\gamma\gamma$ spectrum, and those spectra could show different amounts of the three mass eigenstates. Both cross section and BR for the lightest state can be different from the SM and from the CP conserving supersymmetry case.
One can check that the phase can be very important. For example, if a Higgs is observed at LEP and the Tevatron one can ask what region of parameter space is consistent with a given mass and $\sigma_{h}\times
BR(b\bar{b}).$ The answer is significantly different, for example for $\tan\beta$ , if the phase is included. Or if no Higgs is observed one can ask what region of parameters is excluded. If the phase is included the actual limit on $m_{h}$ is about 10% lower than the published limits from LEP, below 100 GeV. Similarly, lower values of $\tan\beta$ are allowed if phases are included than those reported by LEP experimenters.
The stop mass matrix
====================
Arranging the stop mass terms from the Lagrangian in the form
$$\begin{aligned}
\left( \tilde{t}_{L}^{\ast}\textit{ \ }\tilde{t}_{R}^{\ast}\right)
m_{\tilde{t}}^{2}\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{c}
\tilde{t}_{L}\\
\tilde{t}_{R}
\end{array}
\right) ,\end{aligned}$$
the resulting Hermitean stop mass matrix is
$$\begin{aligned}
m_{\tilde{t}}^{2}=\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{cc}
m_{Q_{3}}^{2}+m_{t}^{2}+\Delta_{u} & \;\; {\rm v}(a_{t}\sin\beta-\mu Y_{t}
\cos\beta)\\
& m_{\bar{u}_{3}}^{2}+m_{t}^{2}+\Delta_{\bar{u}}
\end{array}
\right) .\end{aligned}$$
The $\Delta^{\prime}s$ are D-terms, from the $(\phi^{\ast}T\phi)^{2}$ piece of the Lagrangian — $\Delta_{u}=(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{2}{3}\sin^{2}\theta_{W} )\cos2\beta
M_{Z}^{2},$ $\Delta_{\bar{u}}=\frac{2}{3}\sin^{2}\theta_{W} \cos2\beta
M_{Z}^{2}.$ These EW D-terms are proportional to the T$_{3}$ and hypercharge charges. The pieces proportional to $\sin^{2}\theta_{W}$ come from the breaking of the U(1) symmetry and vanish if $\sin^{2}\theta _{W}\rightarrow0.$ The $m_{t}^{2}$ comes from the F-terms in the scalar potential, $Y_{t}^{2}H_{u}^{0\ast}H_{u}^{0}\tilde{t}_{L}^{\ast}\tilde{t}_{L}$ and a similar term for $\tilde{t}_{R},$ when the Higgs get vevs. F-terms in $V$ also give the term -$\mu
Y_{t}\tilde{t}^{\ast}\tilde{t}H_{d}^{0\ast}$ which gives the second term in the 12 position when $H_{d}^{0}$ gets a vev. The soft term $a_{u}\tilde{t}^{\ast}\tilde{Q}_{3}H_{u}^{0}$ gives the first 12 term when the Higgs gets a vev. Similar mass matrices are written for all the squarks and sleptons. For the lighter ones the Yukawas and possibly the trilinears are small, and the fermion masses are small, so only the diagonal elements are probably large. Each of the elements above is a 3$\times$3 matrix, so $m_{\tilde{t}}^{2}$ is a 6$\times$6 matrix. $\rm{a}_t$ and $\mu$ and even $\rm{v}$ are in general complex.
What can be measured in the Higgs sector?
=========================================
Assuming the LEP signal is indeed valid, as suggested particularly by the ALEPH blind experiment, and it is confirmed at the Tevatron, what can we eventually learn? I will focus on the Tevatron and LHC since they will be our only direct sources of Higgs information in the next decade. The Tevatron can use the $WWh,$ $ZZH$ channels. In addition once $m_{h}$ is known the inclusive channel, with about a $pb$ cross section, can be used. If the total cross section at the Tevatron for Higgs production is 1.5 $pb$, and each detector gets 15 $fb^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity, the total number of Higgs bosons produced is about 45,000 in a known mass bin. At some level it will be possible to measure $g_{WWh}g_{b\bar{b}h}$ and g$_{ZZh}g_{b\bar{b}h}$ from $\sigma
\rm{xBR}$ for the WWh and ZZh channels, so their ratio tests whether $h$ couples to gauge bosons proportional to mass. Once $m_{h}$ is known it will be possible to see $h\rightarrow\tau\bar{\tau}$ in both inclusive production and associated production with a $W$, and test if the coupling to fermions is proportional to mass. A similar test comes from not seeing $h\rightarrow\mu\bar{\mu}$ $($or seeing a few events of this mode since it should occur a bit below the 10$^{-3}$ level$).$ The inclusive production is dominantly via a top loop so it measures g$_{tth}$ indirectly, and this is complicated since superpartner loops contribute as well as SM ones. It may be possible to see the $t\bar
{t}h$ final state directly [@19]. Since $BR(\gamma\gamma)$ is at the 10$^{-3}$ level an observation or useful limit will be possible here if the resolution is good enough. All of these can give very important tests of what the Higgs sector is telling us.
It is also interesting to ask if data can distinguish a SM Higgs from a supersymmetric one, though most likely there will be signals of superpartners as well as a Higgs signal so there will not be any doubt. If $\tan\beta$ is large the ratio of $b\bar{b}$ to $\tau\bar{\tau}$ is sensitive to supersymmetric-QCD effects and can vary considerably from its tree level value [@20]. The ratio of top to bottom couplings is sensitive to ways in which the supersymmetric Higgs sector varies from the SM one. If $\tan\beta$ is large and $m_{A}$ is less than about 150 GeV it is possible $A$ can be observed at the Tevatron. Altogether, the Tevatron may be a powerful Higgs factory if it takes full advantage of its opportunities. It is still unlikely that there will be enough independent measurements at the Tevatron to invert the equations relating the soft parameters and $\tan\beta$ to observables. The lighter stop mass eigenstate $\tilde{t}_{1}$ may be observable at the Tevatron, and provide another observable for the Higgs sector.
At LHC it is very hard to learn much about the lightest Higgs $h$ if its mass is of order 115 GeV. It will most likely be observed in the inclusive production and decay to $\gamma\gamma,$ but observation in the $\gamma\gamma$ mode does not tell us much about the Higgs physics once the Higgs boson has been discovered, which will have occurred if indeed $m_{h}\approx115$ GeV. The $\gamma\gamma$ mode does not demonstrate the Higgs mechanism is operating since it occurs for any scalar boson. The SM does have a definite prediction for BR($\gamma\gamma)$ from the top and $W$ loops, and superpartner loops can be comparable, so a measurement would be very interesting. Note that one cannot assume the $\gamma\gamma$ BR is known.
Maybe it will be possible to detect the $\tau\bar{\tau}$ mode at LHC using WW fusion to produce h and tagging the quarks [@21]. This mode also confirms the non-gauge-invariant $WWh$ vertex. Considerable additional information about the Higgs sector may come from observing the heavier Higgs masses and $\sigma\times BR,$ and the heavier stop. Since $A\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$ but not to $ZZ,WW$ it may be possible to see $A$ if it is not above the $t\bar{t}$ threshold. Decays of the heavy Higgs to $\tau^{\prime}s$ are enhanced if $\tan\beta$ is large. Note that one cannot assume only SM decays of h in analysis since channels such as h$\rightarrow LSP+LSP$ are potentially open and can have large BR since they are not suppressed by factors such as $m_{b}^{2}/M_{W}^{2}.$ The combined data from the Tevatron and LHC may provide enough observables to invert the Higgs sector, at least under certain reasonable and checkable assumptions.
Charginos
=========
The lightest superpartners are likely to be the neutralinos and charginos, possibly the lighter stop, and the gluino. Their mass matrices have entries from the higgsino-gaugino mixing once the SU(2)$\times$U(1) symmetry is broken, so the mass eigenstates are mixtures of the symmetry eigenstates. When phases are neglected these matrices are described in detail in many places so I will not repeat that here. However, it is worth looking at the most general case including phases for several instructive reasons. The chargino mass matrix follows from the $L_{soft},$ in the wino-higgsino basis:
$$\begin{aligned}
M_{\widetilde{C}}=\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{cc}
M_{2}e^{i\phi_{2}} & \sqrt{2}M_{W}\sin\beta\\
\sqrt{2}M_{W}\cos\beta & \mu e^{i\phi_{\mu}}
\end{array}
\right) .\end{aligned}$$
The situation is actually more subtle — this is a submatrix of the actual chargino mass matrix, but this contains all the information — and the reader should see Martin or earlier reviews for details. Also, the off-diagonal element can be complex too since it arises from the last term in eq.14 when the Higgs gets a vev, and the vev can be complex as explained above; I will just keep the phases of $M_{2}$ and $\mu$ here. The masses of the mass eigenstates are the eigenvalues of this matrix. To diagonalize it one forms the hermitean matrix $M^{\dag}M.$ The easiest way to see the main points are to write the sums and products of the mass eigenstates,
$$\begin{aligned}
M_{\widetilde{C_{1}}}^{2}+M_{\widetilde{C}_{2}}^{2} = TrM_{\widetilde{C}
}^{\dag}M_{\widetilde{C}}=M_{2}^{2}+\mu^{2}+2M_{W}^{2},\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-2.5in}M_{\widetilde{C}_{1}}^{2}M_{\widetilde{C}_{2}}^{2} = \det M_{\widetilde{C}
}^{\dag}M_{\widetilde{C}}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{.66in}= M_{2}^{2}\mu^{2}+2M_{W}^{4}\sin^{2}2\beta-2M_{W}
^{2}M_{2}\mu\sin2\beta\cos(\phi_{2}+\phi_{\mu})\end{aligned}$$
Experiments measure the masses of the mass eigenstates. One thing to note is that the masses depend on the phases $\phi_{2}$ and $\phi_{\mu},$ even though there is no CP violation associated with the masses. Often it is implicitly assumed that phases can only be measured by observing CP-violating effects, but we see that is not so. The combination $\phi_{2}+\phi_{\mu}$ is a physical phase, invariant under any reparameterization of phases, as much a basic parameter as $\tan\beta$ or any soft mass.
If one wants to measure the soft masses, $\mu,$ $\tan\beta$ , $\phi
_{2}+\phi_{\mu}$ it is necessary to invert such equations. Since there are fewer observables than parameters to measure, additional observables are needed. One can measure the production cross sections of the mass eigenstates. But then additional parameters enter since exchanges of sneutrinos (at an electron collider) or squarks (at a hadron collider) contribute. One can decide to neglect the additional contributions, but then one is not really doing a measurement. If one “measures” $\tan\beta$ from the above equations by setting the phase to zero, as is usually done, the result is different from that which would be obtained if the phase were not zero. When the phases are present the phenomenology, and any deduced results, can be quite different. We saw that for the Higgs sector above. It is studied for the chargino sector in ref. [@22]. Similar arguments apply for the neutralino mass matrix.
One implication of this analysis is that $\tan\beta$ is not in general measurable at a hadron collider — there are simply not enough observables [@23]. One can count them, and the equations never converge. Depending on what can be measured, by combining observables from the chargino and neutralino sectors, and the Higgs sector, it may be possible to invert the equations. This is a very strong argument[@23] for a lepton collider with a polarized beam, where enough observables do exist if one is above the threshold for lighter charginos and neutralinos, because measurements with different beam polarizations (not possible at a hadron collider) double the number of observables, and measurements with different beam energies (not possible at a hadron collider) double them again. The precise counting has to be done carefully, and quadratic (and other) ambiguities and experimental errors mean that one must do a thorough simulation[@23A] to be sure of what is needed, but there appear to be sufficient observables to measure the relevant parameters. The issue of observing the fundamental parameters of $L_{soft}$ is of course broader, as discussed in Section 17. There are 33 masses in the MSSM including the gravitino, but 107 new parameters in $L_{soft}$ (including the gravitino). The rest are flavor rotation angles and phases. Many can be measured by combining data from a linear electron collider above the threshold for a few superpartners and hadron colliders. It is also necessary to include flavor changing rare decays to measure the off-diagonal elements of the sfermion mass matrices and the trilinear couplings.
Neutralinos
===========
In a basis $\Psi^{0}=(\widetilde{B},\widetilde{W}_{3},\widetilde{H}
_{d},\widetilde{H}_{u})$ terms in the Lagrangian can be rearranged into -$\frac{1}{2}(\Psi^{0})^{T}M_{\tilde{N}}\Psi^{0}$ with the symmetric
$$\begin{aligned}
M_{\tilde{N}}=\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{cccc}
M_{1}e^{i\phi_{1}} & 0 & -\frac{g_{1}}{\sqrt{2}}H_{d}^{0\ast} & \frac{g_{1}
}{\sqrt{2}}H_{u}^{0\ast}\\
0 & M_{2}e^{i\phi_{2}} & \frac{g_{2}}{\sqrt{2}}H_{d}^{0\ast} & -\frac{g_{2}
}{\sqrt{2}}H_{u}^{0\ast}\\
& & 0 & -\mu e^{i\phi_{\mu}}\\
& & & 0
\end{array}
\right) .\end{aligned}$$
Although the elements are complex, this matrix can still be diagonalized by a unitary transformation. Its form in a basis $\Psi^{\prime}=(\tilde{\gamma
},\widetilde{Z},\tilde{h}_{s},\tilde{h}_{a})$ is sometimes useful:
$$M_{\tilde{N}}=\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{cccc}
M_{1}s_{W}^{2}+M_{2}c_{W}^{2} & \hspace{.2in}(M_{1}-M_{2})s_{W}c_{W} & 0 & 0\\
& M_{1}s_{W}^{2}+M_{2}c_{W}^{2} & M_{Z} & 0\\
& & \mu\sin2\beta & -\mu\cos2\beta\\
& & & -\mu\sin2\beta
\end{array}
\right) .$$
If $M_{1}\approx M_{2}$ and/or if $\tan\beta$ is large (so $\sin2\beta \approx0)$ this takes a simple form.
The lightest neutralino is the lightest eigenvalue of this, and may be the LSP. Its properties then determine the relic density of cold dark matter (if the LSP is indeed the lightest neutralino). It also largely determines the collider signatures for supersymmetry. It will be a linear combination of the basis states,
$$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{N}_{1}=\alpha\widetilde{B}+\beta\widetilde{W}_{3}+\gamma
\widetilde{H}_{d}+\delta\widetilde{H}_{u}\end{aligned}$$
with $\left| \alpha\right| ^{2}+\left| \beta\right| ^{2}+\left|
\gamma\right| ^{2}+\left| \delta\right| ^{2}=1.$
An interesting limit that is at least pedagogically instructive arises if we take $M_{1}\approx M_{2}$ (at the EW scale) and $\tan\beta$ $\approx1,$ and $\mu<M_{Z}.$ Then $\widetilde{N}_{1}\approx\tilde{h},$ where $\tilde
{h}=\tilde{h}_{d}\sin\beta+\tilde{h}_{u}\cos\beta,$ and $M_{\tilde{N}_{1} }\approx\mu.$ $\widetilde{N}_{2}\approx\tilde{\gamma},$ with $M_{\widetilde
{N}_{2}}\approx M_{2},$ $\alpha\approx-\beta\approx-45^{\circ} $ so $\cos(\alpha-\beta)$ and $\cos2\beta\rightarrow0.$ At tree level the $Z\tilde{\gamma}\tilde{h},$ $h\tilde{\gamma}\tilde{h},$ and $Z\tilde{h} \tilde{h}$ vertices vanish, and the dominant decay of the second neutralino is $\widetilde{N}_{2}\rightarrow\widetilde{N}_{1}+\gamma.$ $M_{\tilde{C}_{1} } \gtrsim M_{\widetilde{N}_{2}}.$
Effects of phases
=================
The effects of phases have been considered much less than the masses. As we saw above for charginos and the Higgs sector they affect not only CP-violating observables but essentially all observables. They can have significant impacts in a variety of places, including $g_{\mu}-2$ , electric dipole moments (EDMs), CP violation in the K and B systems, the baryon asymmetry of the universe, cold dark matter, superpartner production cross sections and branching ratios, and rare decays. We do not have space to give a complete treatment, but only to make some points about the importance of the observations and what they might teach us about physics beyond the SM in general; while we focus to some extent on the phases because they are usually not discussed, our concern is relating them to the entire $L_{soft}.$
There are some experiments that suggest some of the phases are small, mainly the neutron and electron EDMs. On the other hand, we know that the baryon asymmetry cannot be explained by the quark CKM phase, so some other phase(s) are large, and the soft phases are good candidates. Recently it has been argued that very large phases are needed if baryogenesis occurs at the EW phase transition [@24]; see also [@25]. Further, there is no known symmetry or basic argument that the soft phases in general should be small. If the outcome of studying how to measure them was to demonstrate that some were large that could be very important because both compactification and supersymmetry breaking would have to give such large phases. The phase structure of the effective soft Lagrangian at the weak scale and at the unification scale are rather closely related, so it may be easier to deduce information about the high scale phases from data than about high scale parameters in general. If the outcome of studying how to measure the phases was to demonstrate that the phases were small that would tell us different but very important results about the high scale theory. It would also greatly simplify analyzing weak scale physics, but that is not sufficient reason to assume the phases are small.
$g_{\mu}-2$
===========
In early 2001 it was reported that the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon was larger than the SM prediction by a significant amount. The experiment is now analyzing several times more data than the original report was based on, and the SM theory is being reexamined.
Even if the effect disappears, it is worth considering $g - 2$ experiments, because in a supersymmetric world the entire anomalous moment of any fermion vanishes if the supersymmetry is unbroken, so magnetic moments are expected to be very sensitive to the presence of low energy supersymmetry, and particularly of broken supersymmetry. The analysis can be done in a very general and model independent manner [@26], and illustrates nicely how one can say a great deal with supersymmetry even though it seems to have a number of parameters. So it is also pedagogically interesting. There are only two supersymmetric contributions, a chargino-sneutrino loop and a smuon-neutralino loop. One can see that starting from the complete theory, with no assumptions beyond working in the MSSM, there are only 11 parameters that can play a role out of the original set of over 100,
$$\begin{aligned}
\left| M_{2}\right| ,\left| M_{1}\right| ,\left| \mu\right| ,\left|
A_{\mu}\right| ,m_{\tilde{\mu}_{L}},m_{\tilde{\mu}_{R}},m_{\tilde{\nu}}
,\tan\beta,\phi_{2}+\phi_{\mu},\phi_{1}+\phi_{\mu},\phi_{A}+\phi_{\mu
}.\end{aligned}$$
In the general case all 11 of them can be important, and the experimental result will give a complicated constraint among them. But if we ask about putting an upper limit on superpartner masses, which would be of great interest, we can say more. For larger masses one can see that the chargino-sneutrino diagram dominates, and in addition that it is proportional to $\tan\beta$; The $\tan\beta$ factor arises from the needed chirality flip on a chargino line. Thus only the magnitudes of $M_2$, and $\mu$, $\tan\beta$, $m_{\tilde{v}}$ and the phase enter in this limit. If we illustrate the result by assuming a common superpartner mass $\tilde{m}$ (just for pedagogical reasons, not in the actual calculations), we find that
$$\begin{aligned}
a_{\mu}^{susy}/a_{\mu}^{SM}\approx\left( \frac{100\textit{ GeV}}{\tilde{m}
}\right) ^{2}\tan\beta\cos(\phi_{2}+\phi_{\mu}).\end{aligned}$$
Further, to put upper limits on the masses we can take the phase to be zero since it turns out to enter only in the above form under these assumptions (for the general case see [@27]). And if we express results in terms of the lighter chargino mass rather than $M_{2}$ and $\mu$ we can eliminate one parameter; for a given chargino mass there will be ranges of $M_{2}$ and $\mu.$ So we are down to three parameters, with no uncontrolled approximations or assumptions. We will not focus on details of the data here since the new data in 2002 will in any case require a new analysis. If the effect persists there will be significant upper limits on the superpartner masses. Note the relevant physical phase here is $\phi_{2}+\phi_{\mu}.$
It is interesting to consider the supersymmetry limit so the supersymmetric SM contribution vanishes. In that limit the two lighter neutralino masses vanish, and their contribution cancels the photon contribution, the two heavier neutralino masses become $M_{Z}$ and their contribution cancels that of the $Z,$ and the two charginos have $M_{W}$ and cancel the $W$ contribution. Since the chargino has a sign opposite to that of the $W$ in the supersymmetric limit but the same sign for the broken supersymmetry physical situation it is important to check that indeed the piece proportional to $\tan\beta$ does change sign as needed.
Electric dipole moments
=======================
In the SM electric dipole moments are unobservably small, of order 10$^{-33}e$ cm. That is basically because they are intrinsically CP-violating quantities, and for CP violation to occur in the SM it is necessary for all three families to affect the quantity in question. Otherwise one could rotate the CKM matrix in such a way that the phase did not occur in the elements that contributed. So it must be at least a two-loop suppression. There must also be a factor of the electron or quark mass because of a chirality flip, with the scale being of order $M_{W}.$ In addition there is a GIM suppression. Interpreting results will be complicated because the neutron, and any nuclear EDM, can have a contribution from strong CP violation, while the electron can only feel effects from EW interactions.
Naively, the EDM is the imaginary part of a magnetic moment operator, and the real part is the magnetic moment. So EDMs can arise from the same diagrams as $g_{\mu}-2$ , but for the electron and for quarks (in neutrons). It is more complicated in reality because the part of the amplitude that has an imaginary part may not give the dominant contribution to the magnetic moment. It has been known for a long time that if the soft phases were of order unity and if all contributions were independent, then the supersymmetry contributions to EDMs are too large by a factor of order 50. However, over a significant part of parameter space various contributions can cancel. Some of that cancellation is generic, e.g. between chargino and neutralino in the electron EDM because of the relative minus sign in eq.32. The smallness of EDMs may be telling us that the soft phases are small. Then we need to find out why they are small. Or it may be telling us that cancellations do occur. Cancellations look fine tuned from the point of view of the low energy theory, but small phases look fine tuned too. Relations among soft parameters in the high scale theory will look fine-tuned in the low scale theory if we do not know the origin of those relations. If $\tan\beta$ is very large cancellations become unlikely since the chargino contribution will dominate the eEDM just as it does for $g_{\mu}-2$ , but if $\tan\beta$ is of order 4-5 the situation has to be studied carefully.
Measuring phases at hadron colliders
====================================
Phases, as well as soft masses, can affect distributions at colliders. We briefly illustrate that here for an oversimplified model [@28]. Consider gluino production at a hadron collider. The Lagrangian contains a term
$$\begin{aligned}
M_{3}e^{i\phi_{3}}\lambda_{\tilde{g}}\lambda_{\tilde{g}}+c.c.\end{aligned}$$
It is convenient to redefine the fields so the phase is shifted from the masses to the vertex, so one can write $\psi_{\tilde{g}}=e^{i\phi_{3} /2}\lambda_{\tilde{g}}.$ Then writing the Lagrangian in terms of $\psi$ the vertices $q\tilde{q}\tilde{g}$ get factors $e^{\pm i\phi_{3}/2}.$ The production cross sections for gluinos, for example from $q+\bar{q} \rightarrow\tilde{g}+\tilde{g}$ by squark exchange, have factors $e^{+i\phi_{3}/2}$ at one vertex and $e^{-i\phi_{3}/2}$ at the other, so they do not depend on the phase. That is clear from general principles since $\phi_{3} $ is not by itself a physical, reparameterization-invariant phase. But gluinos always decay, and for example in the decay $\tilde{g}\rightarrow
q+\bar{q}+\tilde{B}$ mediated by squarks there is a factor of $e^{i\phi_{3}/2} $ at the $q\tilde{q}\tilde{g}$ vertex and a factor $e^{i\phi_{1}/2}$ at the $q\tilde{q}\tilde{B}$ vertex, so the rate depends on the physical relative phase $\phi_{3}-\phi_{1}.$ In general it is more complicated with all the relative phases of the neutralino mass matrix entering. In this simple example the experimental distribution in Bino energy is
$$\begin{aligned}
d\sigma/dx\sim m_{\tilde{g}}^{4}\left( \frac{1}{\tilde{m}_{L}^{4}}+\frac
{1}{\tilde{m}_{R}^{4}}\right)\times \end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
[x-4x^{2}/3-2y^{2}/3+y(1-2x+y^{2})\cos(\phi_{3}-\phi_{1})]\end{aligned}$$
where $x=E_{\tilde{B}}m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $y=m_{\tilde{B}}m_{\tilde{g}}.$ Other distributions are also affected. If one tries to obtain information from gluino decay distributions without taking phases into account the answers will be misleading if the phases are not small. The same result is of course true for many superpartner decays. It is important to realize that the same phases are appearing here as appear for example in studying $\varepsilon$ and $\varepsilon^{\prime}$ in the kaon system or in $b\rightarrow
s+\gamma.$
LSP cold dark matter
====================
If it is stable, the LSP is a good candidate for the cold dark matter of the universe. Historically, it is worth noting that this was noticed before we knew that non-baryonic dark matter was needed to understand large scale structure. It is a prediction of supersymmetry. We discussed above why we expected R-parity or a similar symmetry to hold, with the stability of the LSP as one of its consequences. Then the basic argument is simple. As the universe cools, soon after the EW phase transition all particles have decayed except photons, $e^{\pm},u^{\pm},d^{\pm},$ neutrinos, and LSPs. The quarks form baryons, which join with electrons to make atoms. The relic density of all but LSPs is known to be $\Omega_{SM}<0.05,$ while $\Omega_{matter}\approx1/3.$ The LSPs annihilate as the universe cools, with a typical annihilation cross section $\sigma_{ann}\sim\rho_{LSP}G_{F}^{2} E^{2},$ and in the early universe $E\sim T.$ The expansion rate is governed by the Hubble parameter $H\sim T^{2}/M_{Pl}.$ The LSPs freeze out and stop annihilating when their mean free collision path is of order the horizon, so $\sigma_{ann}\sim H.$ This gives a density $\rho_{LSP}\sim1/M_{Pl}G_{F} ^{2}\sim10^{-9}$ GeV$^{3}.$ At freeze-out $T \sim 1$ GeV, and $\rho _{\gamma}$ is of order the entropy $S\sim
T^{3}\sim1$ GeV$^{3},$ so $\rho_{LSP}/\rho_{\gamma}\sim10^{-9},$ similar to the density of baryons. Thus $\Omega_{LSP}\sim(M_{LSP}/M_{proton})\Omega_{baryon}.$ Quantitative calculations in many models confirm this.
But the actual calculations of the relic density depend on several soft parameters such as masses of sleptons and gauginos, and also on $\tan\beta$ and on soft phases. In the absence of measurements or a theory that can convincingly determine all of these, we cannot in fact say more than that qualitatively the LSP is a good candidate, even if WIMPs are apparently discovered. Since we have argued above that in practice it is unlikely that $\tan\beta$ will be measured accurately at hadron colliders (though we may be lucky with $g_{\mu}-2$ plus hadron colliders), it may be difficult to compute $\Omega_{matter}$ accurately even after LSPs are detected. It should be emphasized that detection of LSPs is not sufficient to argue they are actually providing the cold dark matter [@29] — LSPs could be detected in direct experiments scattering off nuclei, and in space based searches, and at colliders even if $\Omega_{LSP}\lesssim 0.05$. Alternatively, they could make up the CDM even though they were not detected in direct and space based experiments.
Further, in recent years it has come to be understood that LSPs may be produced dominantly by processes that are not in thermal equilibrium rather than the equilibrium process described above. In that case the relic density is not so simply connected to the LSP nature.
Comments on relating CP violation and string theory; could the CKM phase be small?
==================================================================================
Where does CP violation originate? Can the pattern of CP phenomena give us important clues to formulating and testing string theory? Very little work has been done about the fundamental origins of CP violation. In 1985 Strominger and Witten discussed how to define CP transformations in string theory, and in 1993 Dine, Leigh, and McIntyre argued that CP was a gauge symmetry in string theory, for both strong and EW CP violation. As a gauge symmetry it could not be broken explicitly, perturbatively. or non-perturbatively. More recently Bailin et al, Dent, Geidt, and Lebedev have discussed aspects of this question. Little thought has been given to CP violation in D-brane worlds, Type IIB theories with SM particles as Type I open strings, and so on.
From the point of view of connecting to the observable world, however the CP violation originates it will appear as phases in either the Yukawa couplings in the superpotential, or as phases in $L_{soft}.$ Any theory for CP violation will produce characteristic patterns of such phases. So if we could measure those phases perhaps we would have rather direct information about such questions as moduli dependence of Yukawas, supersymmetry breaking and transmission, vevs of moduli and the dilaton, and the compactification manifold.
If one begins with a string theory including proposed solutions to how to compactify, and to break supersymmetry, the connection to the observable world is first made by writing down the Kahler potential, gauge kinetic function, and superpotential, $W=Y_{\alpha\beta\gamma}\phi_{\alpha}\phi _{\beta}\phi_{\gamma}.$ Then $L_{soft}$ is calculated for the assumed approach to supersymmetry breaking, etc. The trilinear terms, for example, are linear combinations of the Yukawas and derivatives of the Yukawas with respect to moduli fields. So if the Yukawas have large phases it seems likely the trilinear terms will also have large phases. On the other hand, phases could enter the trilinears through the Kahler potential even if they were not present in the Yukawas. Recalling that the quark CKM phase is unable to provide the CP violation needed for the baryon asymmetry, it is interesting to consider the possibility that all CP violation originates in the soft phases. It is possible to describe CP violation in the kaon and B systems with only soft phases [@30].
Phenomenologically there are a number of ways that soft phases could be shown to be large. One is observing an eEDM. The nEDM is not so simple to interpret since it could arise from strong CP violation, but perhaps the relative size of the nEDM and HgEDM could show the effect of soft phases. The Higgs sector could show phase effects, as could superpartner masses, production cross sections, and decay BR. The size of $K_{L}\rightarrow \pi^{0}\nu\bar{\nu}$ could deviate from the SM prediction. It is much harder to demonstrate that $\delta_{CKM}\neq0.$
Phases (and flavor structure) of $L_{soft}$
===========================================
The soft-breaking Lagrangian has, as we have seen, many phases, and interesting and potentially important flavor structure. Few top-down models, e.g. string based models, have studied or even looked at the phase and flavor structure. There is and will be much more data on these topics, and there should be much more theoretical analysis of them. We have looked a little at string motivated models that give interesting phase structure. There is some work on this by Bailin et al for the heterotic string. Following the framework of Ibanez, Munoz, and Rigolin[@37], we have looked at how the phases emerge in some D-brane models [@32].
If one embeds the MSSM on one brane, usually the gaugino masses $M_{i}$ all have the same phase, and using the freedom from a U(1) symmetry as one can rotate that phase away. An interesting structure emerges if one embeds the SM gauge groups on two intersecting branes. We studied the simplest case with SU(2) on one brane, and SU(3)$\times$U(1) on the other. While we did not try to derive such a structure from an actual compactification, it is known that explicit compactifications of intersecting branes exist, and that open strings connecting D-branes intersecting at non-vanishing angles lead to theories with chiral fermions, so it is plausible that such a model can exist. We follow Ibanez et al in assuming the supersymmetry breaking occurs in a hidden sector, and is transmitted by complex F-term moduli vevs to the superpartners. Then this model gives for soft terms
$$\begin{aligned}
M_{1}=M_{3}=-A_{t}\sim e^{i\alpha_{1}},\textit{ \ \ \ \ \ \ }M_{2}\sim
e^{-i\alpha_{2}},\end{aligned}$$
and all the other soft terms are real. One important lesson is that such a theory has only 9 parameters — the many parameters of $L_{soft}$ have been reduced by the theory down to this number. They are
$$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{2}-\alpha_{1},m_{3/2},\tan\beta,\left| \mu\right| ,\left|
A_{t}\right| ,\phi_{\mu},X_{1},X_{2},X_{3}.\end{aligned}$$
Here only the relative phase of the moduli vevs enters, $m_{3/2}$ is the gravitino mass and sets the overall mass scale, and the $X_{i}$ are measures of the relative importance of different moduli. The $X_{i}$ could be measured, in which case they would tell us about the structure of the theory, and/or they could be computed in a good theory. Measuring the string-based parameters here would teach us about formulating and testing string theory. Any theory will have relations among the soft parameters so the actual number of parameters is far smaller than the full number of $L_{soft}.$ This number could be reduced further by some assumptions. Also, not all of them will contribute in any given process, as we have seen. The resulting theory can be used to simultaneously study collider physics and LSP cold dark matter as is usual, and also CP violation. An extended version of the model [@32B] can also address flavor issues.
In this model one can illustrate how results of the low energy theory can appear fine-tuned and somewhat arbitrary because they are not apparently due to a symmetry when they originate in dynamics that occur at the high scale and are hidden at the low energy scale. If the gluino-gluon box diagram indeed explains direct CP violation in the kaon system, then one needs a certain phase relation to hold,
$$\begin{aligned}
\arg\left( \phi_{A_{sd}}M_{3}^{\ast}\right) \approx10^{-2},\end{aligned}$$
which seems fine-tuned. But as we saw in eq.76, $M_{3}$ and the elements of $A$ have the same phase in this D-brane based theory, and so the quantity in eq.78 is zero at the high scale. Since the phases of $M_{3}$ and of $A$ run differently, a small phase is generated at the low scale. While we are not arguing this is the actual explanation for $\varepsilon_{K}^{\prime},$ it does nicely illustrate how such phases could be related by an underlying theory yet not follow from any low energy symmetry.
Direct evidence for superpartners? — at the tevatron?
=====================================================
So far all the evidence for low energy supersymmetry is indirect. Although the evidence is strong, it could in principle be a series of coincidences. More indirect evidence could come soon from improved $g_{\mu }-2$ , other rare decays, b-factories, proton decay, CDM detection. But finally it will be necessary to directly observe superpartners, and to show they are indeed superpartners. That could first happen at the Tevatron collider.
Indeed, as we discussed earlier, if supersymmetry is really the explanation for EWSB then the soft masses should be of order $M_{Z},$ and the cross sections for their production are typical EW ones, or larger for gluinos, so superpartners should be produced in significant quantities at the Tevatron collider that has just begun to take data after a six year upgrade in luminosity. Assuming the luminosity and the detectors are good enough to separate signals from backgrounds, if direct evidence for superpartners does not emerge at the Tevatron then either nature does not have low energy supersymmetry or there is something completely missing from our understanding of low energy supersymmetry. There is no other hint of such a gap in our understanding. Thus if superpartners do not appear at the Tevatron many people will wait until LHC has taken data to be convinced nature is not supersymmetric, but it is unlikely that superpartners could be found at the LHC if they are not first found at the Tevatron. So let us examine how they are likely to appear at the Tevatron.
Accepting that supersymmetry explains EWSB, we expect the gluinos, neutralinos, and charginos to be rather light. The lighter stop may be light as well. Sleptons may also be light though there is somewhat less motivation for that. We can list a number of channels and look at the signatures for each of them. Almost all cases require a very good understanding of the SM events that resemble the possible signals, both in magnitude (given the detector efficiencies) and the distributions. Missing transverse energy will be denoted by ${\hbox{E\kern-.6em\hbox{/}\kern.3em}}_T$. It is reasonable to expect the Tevatron to have an integrated luminosity of 2 $fb^{-1}$ per detector by sometime in 2004, and 15 $fb^{-1}$ by sometime in 2007. Until we know the ordering of the superpartner masses we have to consider a number of alternative decays of $\widetilde{N}_{2},$ $\widetilde{C}_{1},$ $\tilde{t} _{1},$ $\tilde{g},$ etc. [@33].
$\bullet$ $\widetilde{N}_{1}+\widetilde{N}_{1}$
This channel is very hard to tag at a hadron collider.
$\bullet$ $\widetilde{N}_{1}+\widetilde{N}_{2,3}$
These channels can be produced through an s-channel $Z$ or a t-channel squark exchange. The signatures depend considerably on the character of $\widetilde{N}_{2},$ $\widetilde{N}_{3}.$ $\widetilde{N}_{1}$ escapes. If $\widetilde{N}_{2}$ has a large coupling to $\widetilde{N}_{1}+Z$ (for real or virtual $Z$) then the $\widetilde{N}_{1}$ will escape and the $Z$ will decay to $e$ or $\mu$ pairs each 3$\%$ of the time, so the event will have missing energy and a prompt lepton pair. There will also be tau pairs and jet pairs, but those are somewhat harder to identify. Or, perhaps $\widetilde{N}_{2}$ is mainly photino and $\widetilde{N}_{1}$ mainly higgsino, in which case there is a large BR for $\widetilde{N}_{2}\rightarrow\widetilde{N}_{1}+\gamma$ and the signature of $\widetilde{N}_{2}$ is one prompt $\gamma$ and missing energy. The production cross section can depend significantly on the wave functions of $\widetilde{N}_{1},\widetilde{N}_{2}.$ If the cross section is small for $\widetilde{N}_{1}+\widetilde{N}_{2}$ it is likely to be larger for $\widetilde{N}_{1}+\widetilde{N}_{3}.$ Most cross sections for lighter channels will be larger than about 50 $fb$, which corresponds to 200 events (not including BR) for an integrated luminosity of 2 $fb^{-1}$ per detector.
$\bullet$ $\widetilde{N}_{1}+\widetilde{C}_{1}$
These states are produced through s-channel $W^{\pm}$ or t-channel squarks. The $\widetilde{N}_{1}$ escapes, so the signature comes from the $\widetilde{C}_{1}$ decay, which depends on the relative sizes of masses, but is most often $\widetilde{C}_{1}\rightarrow l^{\pm}+$${\hbox{E\kern-.6em\hbox{/}\kern.3em}}_T$. This is the signature if sleptons are lighter than charginos ($\widetilde{C} _{1}\rightarrow\tilde{l}^{\pm}+\nu,$ followed by $\tilde{l}^{\pm}\rightarrow l^{\pm}+\widetilde{N}_{1}),$ or if sneutrinos are lighter than charginos by a similar chain, or by a three-body decay ($\widetilde{C}_{1}\rightarrow
\widetilde{N}_{1}+virtual$ $W,$ $W\rightarrow l^{\pm}+\nu).$ But it is not guaranteed — for example if stops are lighter than charginos the dominant decay could be $\widetilde{C}_{1}\rightarrow\tilde{t}+b.$ In the case where the lepton dominates the event signature is then $l^{\pm}+$${\hbox{E\kern-.6em\hbox{/}\kern.3em}}_T$ , so it is necessary to find an excess in this channel. Compared to the SM sources of such events the supersymmetry ones will have no prompt hadronic jets, and different distributions for the lepton energy and for the missing transverse energy.
$\bullet$ $\widetilde{N}_{2}+\widetilde{C}_{1}$
If $\widetilde{N}_{2}$ decays via a Z to $\widetilde{N}_{1}+l^{+}
+l^{-}$ and $\widetilde{C}_{1}$ decays to $\widetilde{N}_{1}+l^{\pm},$ this channel gives the well-known “tri-lepton” signature, three charged leptons, ${\hbox{E\kern-.6em\hbox{/}\kern.3em}}_T$ , and no prompt jets, which may be relatively easy to separate from SM background. But it may be that $\widetilde{N}_{2}\rightarrow\widetilde{N}_{1}+\gamma,$ so the signature may be $l^{\pm}+\gamma+$${\hbox{E\kern-.6em\hbox{/}\kern.3em}}_T$.
$\bullet$ $\tilde{l}^{+}+\tilde{l}^{-}$
Sleptons may be light enough to be produced in pairs. Depending on masses, they could decay via $\tilde{l}^{\pm}\rightarrow
l^{\pm}+\widetilde {N}_{1},$ $\widetilde{C}_{1}+\nu,$ $W+\tilde{\nu}.$ If $\widetilde{N}_{1}$ is mainly higgsino decays to it are suppressed by lepton mass factors, so $\tilde{l}^{\pm}\rightarrow
l^{\pm}+\widetilde{N}_{2}$ may dominate, followed by $\widetilde{N}_{2}\rightarrow\widetilde{N}_{1}+\gamma$ [@34].
For a complete treatment one should list all the related channels, and combine those that can lead to similar signatures. The total sample may be dominated by one channel but have significant contributions from others, etc. It should also be emphasized that the so-called “backgrounds” are not junk backgrounds that cannot be calculated, but from SM events whose rates and distributions can be completely understood. Determining these background rates is essential to identifying a signal and to identifying new physics, and requires powerful tools in the form of simulation programs, which in turn require considerable expertise to use correctly. The total production cross section for all neutralino and chargino channels at the Tevatron collider is expected to be between 0.1 and 10 $pb$, depending on how light the superpartners are, so even in the worst case there should be several hundred events in the two detectors. If the cross sections are on the low side it will require combining inclusive signatures to demonstrate new physics has been observed.
$\bullet$ gluinos can be produced via several channels, $\tilde{g}+\tilde{g},$ $\tilde{g}+\widetilde{C}_{1},\tilde{g}+\widetilde{N_{1}},$ etc.
If supersymmetry indeed explains EWSB it would be surprising if the gluino were heavier than about 500 GeV, as argued above. Then the total cross section for its production should be large enough to observe it at the Tevatron. If all its decays are three-body, e.g. $\tilde{g}\rightarrow \tilde{q}+\bar{q}$ followed by $\tilde{q}\rightarrow q+\widetilde{C}_{1},$ etc, then the signature has energetic jets, ${\hbox{E\kern-.6em\hbox{/}\kern.3em}}_T$, and sometimes charged leptons. There are two channels that are particularly interesting and not unlikely to occur — if $t+\tilde{t}$ or $b+\tilde{b}$ are lighter than $\tilde{g}$ then they will dominate because they are two-body. The signatures can then be quite different, with mostly b and c jets, and smaller multiplicity.
Gluinos and neutralinos are normally Majorana particles. Therefore they can decay either as particle or antiparticle. If, for example, a decay path $\tilde {g}\rightarrow\bar{t}(\rightarrow W^{-}\bar{b})+\tilde{t}$ occurs, with $W^{-}\rightarrow e^{-}\nu,$ there is an equal probability for $\tilde {g}\rightarrow e^{+}+....$ Then a pair of gluinos can with equal probability give same-sign or opposite sign dileptons! The same result holds for any way of tagging the electric charge — we just focus on leptons since their charge is easiest to identify. The same result holds for neutralinos. The SM allows no way to get prompt isolated same-sign leptons, so any observation of such events is a signal beyond the SM, and very likely a strong indication of supersymmetry.
$\bullet$ Stops can be rather light, so they should be looked for very seriously. They can be pair-produced via gluons, with a cross section that is about 1/8 of the top pair cross section. It is smaller because of a p-wave threshold suppression for scalars, and a factor of 4 suppression for the number of spin states. They could also be produced in top decays if they were lighter than $m_{t}-M_{\tilde{N}_{1}},$ and in gluino decays if they are lighter than $m_{\tilde{g}}-m_{t},$ which is not at all unlikely. Their obvious decay is $\tilde{t}\rightarrow\widetilde{C}+b,$ which will indeed dominate if $m_{\tilde{t}}>m_{\widetilde{C}}.$ If this relation does not hold, it may still dominate as a virtual decay, followed by $\widetilde{C}$ real or virtual decay (say to $W+\widetilde{N}_{1}),$ in which case the final state is 4-body after $W$ decays, and suppressed by 4-body phase space. That may allow the one-loop decay $\tilde{t}\rightarrow c+\widetilde{N}_{1}$ to dominate stop decay. As an example of how various signatures may arise, if the mass ordering is $t>\widetilde{C}_{1}>\tilde{t}>\widetilde{N}_{1}$ and $t>\tilde{t}+\widetilde{N}_{1},$ then a produced $t\bar{t}$ pair will sometimes (depending on the relative branching ratio, which depends on the mass values) have one top decay to $W+b $ and the other to $c+\widetilde {N}_{1},$ giving a $W+2$ jets signature, with the jets detectable by $b$ or charm tagging, and thus an excess of such events.
$\bullet$ An event was reported by the CDF collaboration from Tevatron Run 1, $p\bar{p}\rightarrow ee\gamma\gamma$${\hbox{E\kern-.6em\hbox{/}\kern.3em}}_T$ , that is interesting for several reasons, both as a possible signal and to illustrate some pedagogical issues. That such an event might be an early signal of supersymmetry was suggested in 1986. It can arise [@34; @35] if a selectron pair is produced, and if the LSP is higgsino-like, in which case the decay of the selectron to $e+\widetilde{N}_{1}$ is suppressed by a factor of $m_{e}.$ Then $\tilde
{e}\rightarrow e+\widetilde{N}_{2}$ dominates, followed by $\widetilde{N} _{2}\rightarrow\widetilde{N}_{1}+\gamma.$ The only way to get such an event in the SM is production of $WW\gamma\gamma$ with both $W\rightarrow e+\nu,$ with an overall probability of order 10$^{-6}$ for such an event in Run 1. Other checks on kinematics, cross section for selectrons, etc., allow a supersymmetry interpretation, and the resulting values of masses do not imply any that must have been found at LEP or as other observable channels at the Tevatron, though over some of the parameter space some associated signal could have been seen. There are many consistency conditions that must be checked if such an interpretation is allowed, and a number of them could have failed but did not. Indeed, a related interpretation that had the decay of the selectron to electron plus very light gravitino is excluded by the absence of a signal at LEP for events with two photons and large missing energy. If this event were a signal additional ones would soon occur in Run 2. Because of the needed branching ratios there would be no trilepton signal at the Tevatron, since $\widetilde{N}_{2}$ decays mainly into a photon instead of $l^{+}l^{-},$ and the decay of $\widetilde{N}_{3}$ would be dominated by $\tilde{\nu}\nu.$
Although it might look easy to interpret any non-standard signal or excess as supersymmetry, in fact a little thought shows it is very difficult. As illustrated in the above examples, a given signature implies an ordering of superpartner masses, which implies a number of cross section and decay branching ratios. All must be right. All the couplings in the Lagrangian are determined, so there is little freedom once the masses are fixed by the kinematics of the candidate events. To prove a possible signal is indeed consistent with supersymmetry one has also to check that relations among couplings are indeed satisfied. Such checks will be easy at lepton colliders, but difficult at hadron colliders, so we do not focus on them here. There can of course be alternative interpretations of any new physics, but in all cases it will be possible to show the supersymmetry one is preferred (if it is indeed correct) — that is a challenge we would love to have.
After the first celebration
===========================
Once a signal is found, presumably at the Tevatron, there will of course be a lot of checking required to confirm it because it will not be dramatic, as discussed above, but rather excesses in a few channels that slowly increase with integrated luminosity. Deducing even the masses of mass eigenstates may be difficult if more than one channel contributes significantly to a topological excess. Nevertheless, it will be possible to very quickly deduce some general results about supersymmetry breaking and how it is transmitted.
For example, one of the key questions is the nature of the LSP [@36]. That can immediately exclude some ways to transmit supersymmetry breaking and favor others, and constrain ideas about how supersymmetry breaking occurs. From the discussion above we can make a table whose columns are various forms the LSP can take and whose rows are qualitative signatures that do not require complete studies, though they still require an understanding of the backgrounds:
\[c\][ccccc]{} & $\widetilde{B}$ & h & $\widetilde{G}$ & unstable\
prompt $\gamma^{\prime}s$ & no & some & yes & no\
trileptons & yes & no & no & no\
large ${\hbox{E\kern-.6em\hbox{/}\kern.3em}}_T$ & yes & yes & yes & no
The table can be extended to other and more detailed LSP descriptions such as wino LSP, degenerate LSP and NLSP, etc. It can be extended to a number of additional signatures and made more quantitative. There are some caveats that can be added — e.g. for the gravitino case it can happen that long lifetimes for the lightest neutralino change the signature. But the basic point that qualitative features of the excess events will tell us a considerable amount remains. An unstable LSP implies that R-parity (or matter parity) is not conserved, a gravitino LSP implies gauge mediation for the way the supersymmetry breaking is transmitted, and the bino and higgsino LSP’s suggest gravity mediation, with different consequences for cold dark matter.
Extensions of the MSSM
======================
I want to emphasize that it may be very important to not restrict analysis of data by over constraining the MSSM with additional assumptions. Also I have focused on the MSSM for pedagogical simplicity, but nature could define simplicity differently. Surely the neutrino sector must be added, and that affects RGE’s for the sectors we have examined. There is good motivation for extra U(1) symmetries, which may lead to extra D-terms and to extra neutralinos that mix to affect the neutralino mass eigenstates behavior and the CDM physics. There will be Planck-scale suppressed operators that may be crucial for flavor physics and for understanding the fermion masses and for precise calculations of gauge coupling unification. There may be extra scalars related to inflation, and axions, which affect cosmology and CDM physics. By using the MSSM without assuming relations among parameters many of these affects can be allowed for, while if parameters are related by ad hoc assumptions the extensions could only appear if inconsistencies appeared in the analysis — that is hard to see because of the initially large experimental uncertainties. For example, extra D-terms shift various scalar masses and separate $M_{H_{u}}^{2}$ and $M_{H_{d}}^{2},$ so assuming all the scalars masses are degenerate does not allow the D-term contributions to appear.
Concluding remarks
==================
These lectures have emphasized how to construct a supersymmetric description of nature at the weak scale based on forthcoming data from colliders, rare decays, static properties, cold dark matter studies, and more, and how to connect that to a unification scale description, so that we can eventually learn a complete effective Lagrangian near the Planck scale. That is the most that can be achieved by the traditional approach of science. If we also understand string theory (and we do not distinguish here between string theory and M-theory) well enough, possibly we will be able to bridge the gap to the Planck scale in 10 dimensions and formulate a fundamental theory. If so a number of features of the effective theory will be able to test ideas about the fundamental theory. The most important features of the experimental discovery of supersymmetry will be threefold: we will understand the natural world better; we will know we are on the right track to make more progress; and we will be opening a window to see physics at the Planck scale, which makes immensely more likely that we will be able to formulate and test a fundamental theory at the Planck scale.
Sometimes I am asked “what is left to compute” by students or postdocs looking for interesting projects, and interested workers in related areas. Much is indeed already known about supersymmetry from over two decades of work by a number of good people. But in fact we have just gotten to the stage where the most important problems can be addressed$!.$ Little is known about how to relate data to the parameters of $L_{soft}$ in practice, little is known about the flavor properties of $L_{soft}$ and how to compute them theoretically or extract them from data uniquely, and little is known about how to relate data at the weak scale to an effective Lagrangian at the string scale. There is much to understand and to compute. The third of those issues will be the main focus of supersymmetry research once superpartners are being directly studied.
There are several practical features that should be emphasized. Unless we are missing important basic ideas, a Higgs boson and superpartners will be produced at the Tevatron collider. Supersymmetry signals have two escaping LSP’s, so they are never dramatic or obvious or easy to interpret. They will appear as excesses in several channels, where channels are labeled by numbers of leptons and jets, and missing transverse energy. Once superpartners are found, the entire challenge to experimenters is to measure the parameters of $L_{soft},$ which has been the main subject of these lectures. The relations of the parameters of $L_{soft}$ to data is complicated, and it is easy to get the wrong answers if care is not taken. Although there seem to be a large number of parameters, any given measurement depends only on a few, and most parameters enter in a number of places, so using information from one place in other analysis will greatly facilitate progress. Interpreting the data and learning its implications will be challenging, and it is a challenge we are eager to have.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
These lectures have benefited greatly from my collaborations and discussions with Mike Brhlik, Dan Chung, Lisa Everett, Steve King, and Lian-Tao Wang.
[99]{} A Supersymmetry Primer, S.P.Martin, hep-ph/9709356
$\mathit{Perspectives}$ *on Supersymmetry*, G.L.Kane (ed.), Singapore, World Scientific (1998)
I.S.Towner and J.C.Hardy, nucl-th/9809087
O.Lebedev and W.Loinaz, hep-ph/0106056; G.Altarelli, F.Caravaglios, G.F.Giudice, P.Gambino, and G.Ridolfi, hep-ph/0106029; G.-C.Cho and K.Hagiwara, hep-ph/0105037
L.Everett, G.L.Kane, and L.-T. Wang, in preparation
S.P.Martin and P.Ramond, Phys.Rev. D51(1995)6515; hep-ph/9501244; G.Kribs, Nucl. Phys. B535(1998)41; hep-ph/9803259; K.Dienes, Physics Reports 287 (1997) 447
The Supersymmetric Soft-Breaking Lagrangian: Theory and Applications, D.J.H.Chung, L.Everett, G.L.Kane, S.F.King, J. Lykken, and L.-T.Wang, in preparation.
S.Dimopoulos and H.Georgi, Nucl. Phys. B193(1981)150; L.Girardello and M.Grisaru, Nucl. Phys. B194(1982)65
The literature can be traced from I.Jack and D.R.T.Jones, Phys. Lett. B457(1999)101; hep-ph/9903365; J.L.Diaz-Cruz, Proceedings Merida 1999 “Particles and Fields”, 299.
L.Ibanez and G.G.Ross, Nucl. Phys. B368(1992)3; S.P.Martin, Phys. Rev. D54(1996)2340; hep-ph/9602349
L.Ibanez and G.G.Ross, Phys. Lett. B110(1982)215; L. Alvarez-Gaume, M.Claudsen, and M.Wise, Nucl. Phys. B221(1983)495; K.Inoue, A.Kakuto, H.Komatsu, and S.Takeshita, Prog. Theor. Phys. 68(1982)927
See H.Haber in *Perspectives on Supersymmetry,* G.L.Kane (ed.), Singapore, World Scientific (1993)
For some review and references see Martin, \[1\].
LEP Electroweak Working Group, LEPEWWG/2001-01
G.L.Kane and J.Wells, hep-ph/0003249; see also the elaboration by M. Peskin and J. Wells, hep-ph/0101342
LEP Higgs Working Group for Higgs boson searches hep-ex/0107029; ALEPH-2001-066; ALEPH Collaboration hep-ph/0201014
G.L.Kane, S.F.King, and L.-T. Wang, Phys. Rev. D64(2001)095013; hep-ph/0010312
G.L.Kane and L.-T. Wang, Phys. Lett. B488(2000)383, hep-ph/0003198; M.Carena, J.Ellis, A.Pilaftsis, and C.Wagner, Phys. Lett. B495(2000)155, hep-ph/0009212; T.Ibrahim and P.Nath, Phys. Rev. D63(2001)035009, hep-ph/0008237
J.Goldstein, C.Hill, J.Incandela, S.Parke, D.Rainwater, D.Stuart, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86(2001)1694; L.Reina, S.Dawson, and D.Wackeroth, hep-ph/0109066; W.Beenakker,S.Dittmaier, M.Kramer, B.Plumper, M.Spira, P.Zerwas, hep-ph/0107081
The literature can be traced from M.Carena, H.Haber, H.Logan, S.Mrenna, hep-ph/0106116
D.Rainwater, D.Zeppenfeld, K.Hagiwara, Phys. Rev. D59(1999)014037; hep-ph/9808468
N.Ghodbane, S.Katsanevas, I.Laktineh, and J.Rosiek, hep-ph/0012031
M.Brhlik and G.L.Kane, Phys. Lett. B437(1998)331; hep-ph/9803391
S.Y.Choi, J.Kalinowski, G.Moortgat-Pick, P.M.Zerwas, hep-ph/0202039
J.Cline, M.Joyce, and K.Kainulainen, hep-ph/0110031
M.Carena, J.M.Morena, M.Quiros, M.Seco, and C.Wagner, Nucl. Phys. B599$\left( 2001\right) 158;$ hep-ph/0011055
Lisa L.Everett, G.L.Kane, S.Rigolin, and L.-T. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett 86(2001)3484; hep-ph/0102145
T.Ibrahim and P.Nath, hep-ph/9908443
S.Mrenna, G.L.Kane, and L.-T.Wang, Phys. Lett. B483(2000)175; hep-ph/9910477
M.Brhlik, D.Chung, and G.L.Kane, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D10(2001)367; hep-ph/0005158
M.Brhlik, L.Everett, G.L.Kane, S.F.King, and O.Lebedev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84(3041)2000; hep-ph/9909480
A.Nelson and L.Randall, Phys. Lett. B316 (1993) 516; hep-ph/9308277
M.Brhlik, L.Everett, G.L.Kane, and J.Lykken, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83(1999)2124, hep-ph/9905215; Phys. Rev. D62(2000)035005, hep-ph/9908326
L.Everett, G.L.Kane, S.King, S.Rigolin, and L.-T.Wang, hep-ph/0202100; See also S.Abel, S.Khalil, and O.Lebedev, hep-ph/0103031 and references therein
See chapters by J.-F.Grivaz; M.Carena, R.L.Culbertson, S.Eno, H.J.Frisch, and S.Mrenna; J.F.Gunion and H.Haber in ref.2.
See chapter by G.L.Kane in ref.2.
S.Ambrosanio, G.L.Kane, G.Kribs, S.Martin, and S.Mrenna, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76(1996)3498
G.L.Kane, Proceedings of Supersymmetry 1997, ed. M.Cvetic and P.Langacker.
L.Ibanez, C.Munoz, and S.Rigolin, hep-ph/9812397; Nucl. Phys. B553(1999)43.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Factorization of statistical language models is the task that we resolve the most discriminative model into factored models and determine a new model by combining them so as to provide better estimate. Most of previous works mainly focus on factorizing models of [*sequential*]{} events, each of which allows only one factorization manner. To enable [*parallel*]{} factorization, which allows a model event to be resolved in more than one ways at the same time, we propose a general framework, where we adopt a backing-off lattice to reflect parallel factorizations and to define the paths along which a model is resolved into factored models, we use a mixture model to combine parallel paths in the lattice, and generalize Katz’s backing-off method to integrate all the mixture models got by traversing the entire lattice. Based on this framework, we formulate two types of model factorizations that are used in natural language modeling.'
author:
- |
Wei Wang\
Department of Computer Science\
New York University\
[{wei}@cs.nyu.edu]{}
title: 'Factorization of Language Models through Backing-Off Lattices'
---
Introduction
============
Factorization of statistical language models is the task that we resolve the most discriminative model into factored models and determine a new model by combining them so as to provide better estimate to the most discriminative model event. For instance, a new model for trigram can be obtained by combining the factored models: a unigram model, a bigram model and a trigram model; a model for PP-attachment [@collins-brooks-backoff] can be obtained by considering both more discriminative models like $\Pr(1|is, revenue, from, research)$ [^1] and less discriminative ones like $\Pr(1|is, from, research)$; a lexicalized parsing model can be approximated by combining a lexical dependency model and a syntactic structure model [@klein-manning-factor]. The former two examples are usually called backing-off.
Therefore, factorization of language models should answer two questions: how to factorize, and how to combine. Most of previous works on language modeling [@chen-goodman] [@goodman] focus on sequential model event (such as n-gram), and thus need not to answer the first question because the sequential model event like n-gram gives a natural factorization order: an n-gram has exactly one type of (n-1)-gram to backoff. However, for nonsequential model event, we need to specify them both.
In this paper, we formulated a framework for language model factorization. We adopt a backing-off lattice to reflect parallel factorization and to define the paths along which a model is resolved into factored models; we use a mixture model to combine parallel paths in the lattice; and generalize Katz’s backing-off method to integrate all the mixture models got by traversing the entire lattice.
Based on this framework, we formulate two types of model factorizations that are used in natural language modeling.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows, we first introduce the backing-off lattice, then explain the mixture model, next formulate the backing-off formula, next describe two types of model factorizations, and finally draw the conclusions.
Backing-Off Lattice {#sec:lattice}
===================
The backing-off lattice specifies the ways how an event can be “factorized” into sub-events. Each lattice node represents a [*set*]{} of factored events[^2]. Each lattice edge connects a parent node to a child node, and represents a factorization manner that factorizes an event in the parent event set into a set of factorized events represented by its child node. Different lattice nodes may have common child.
In most of previous works, the backing-off lattice is only a list, in which no node has more than one edges (backing-off paths). Our backing-off lattice is, however, an directed acyclic graph (DAG), which means a model event represented by a lattice node might have several factorization manners.
Figure \[backoff-lattice\] shows a backing-off lattice that illustrates how to factorize a dependency event in a bilexical context-free grammar [@es99]. Each lattice node is denoted by a solid oval and represents a set of events, each of which is represented by a dotted oval (if there is only one element in the set, we omit the dotted oval). Each lattice edge represents a factorization manner that resolves an event in the parent node (e.g., the left dotted oval in node (3)) into a set of factored events (e.g., the set of events in node (4)).
The backing-off lattice should be tailored in accordance with the requirement of the task that it is applied to. If it is used for smoothing purpose, we may want to use each slice of the lattice to represent model events with the same specificity, which is less than its previous slice. To combine different resources, we may want to factorize a complex model whose statistics are unavailable to factored models whose statistics are available.
Mixture Model {#sec:mixture}
=============
Through the backing-off lattice, a model is factorized recursively into sub-models. Each node can be applied with more than one factorization manners. We therefore are concerned with the problem of how to approximate the model represented by a lattice node through the models represented by all its children nodes. For instance, how to approximate the distribution of events in node 1 of Figure \[backoff-lattice\] with factored models represented by nodes 2 and 3. We use a mixture model to interpolates all the factored models. We formulate the mixture model in the following.
Let $\mathcal{E}$ denote a backed-off event (e.g., the Dependency event in the lattice root in figure \[backoff-lattice\]). To get its factored events, we introduce a series of [*factorization function*]{}s: $\Phi_{i}, 0 \le i \le I$, each of which corresponds to a lattice edge from $\mathcal{E}$, and factorize $\mathcal{E}$ into a set of sub model events $\mathcal{S}_{i}$, that is, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{E}
\begin{array}{c}
\Phi_{i} \\
\longrightarrow \\
\\
\end{array}
\mathcal{S}_{i} = \{e_{ij} | 0 \le j \le I_{i}\}
\label{project-function}\end{aligned}$$
where, $e_{ij}$ is the $j$’th sub-event among the set of events obtained by factorizing $\mathcal{E}$ using factorization function $\Phi_{i}$.
We can view $\Phi_{i}$ as a hidden random variable, corresponding to different a factorization manner. It has a prior distribution: $\Pr(\Phi_{i})$, specifying the confidence of selecting the $i$’th path to backoff. We can get, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2}
\Pr(\mathcal{S}_{i}) = \Pr(\mathcal{E}| \Phi_{i})\end{aligned}$$ The distribution of $\mathcal{E}$ can be derived in the following way, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mixture-formula}
\Pr(\mathcal{E})& = & \sum_{\Phi_{i}, 0 \le i \le I}\Pr(\mathcal{E}, \Phi_{i})
\nonumber \\
& =& \sum_{\Phi_{i}, 0 \le i \le I}\Pr(\Phi_{i})
\Pr(\mathcal{E}|\Phi_{i})\end{aligned}$$ From Formula \[2\] and \[mixture-formula\], we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mixture-of-factored-model}
\Pr(\mathcal{E}) = \sum_{\Phi_{i}, 0 \le i \le I}\Pr(\Phi_{i})\Pr(\mathcal{S}_{i})\end{aligned}$$
Formula \[mixture-of-factored-model\] shows that the probabilistic model governing event $\mathcal{E}$ is approximated by a mixture of its factored models $\Pr(\mathcal{S}_{i})$ using normalized coefficients ($\Pr(\Phi_{i})$). Each coefficient reflects the confidence of selecting a factorization manner.
The sum of $\Phi_{i}$ should be equal to 1. Their values can be handcrafted just for simplicity or trained from held-out data using EM algorithm [@em] or other numerical methods such as Powell’s method [@powell].
If we assume that the factored events $s_{ij}$ in the value set of a factorization function are independent of each other, we arrive $$\begin{aligned}
\label{independent}
\Pr(\mathcal{E}) = \sum_{\Phi_{i}, 0 \le i \le I}\Pr(\Phi_{i})
\prod_{j}^{|\mathcal{S}_{i}|}\Pr(e_{ij})\end{aligned}$$
Formula \[independent\] shows that if we assume the events in the value set of each projection function are independent of each other, the probability of the value set given factorization function is equal to the multiplication of the probability of each event in the set.
We can derive the mixture model for conditional distributions similarly.
Let us give an example to illustrates the above idea. In the backing-off lattice shown in Figure \[backoff-lattice\], for the event in node 1 to be factored into event sets in node 2 and 3, respectively, we need to introduce the following factorization functions,
1. $\Phi_{0}$= [*factorize $\mathcal{E}$ into a lexical dependency and a syntactic dependency.*]{}
2. $\Phi_{1}$= [*factorize $\mathcal{E}$ into sub-events, each of which describes the dependency between (parent or dependent) lexical head and (dependent or parent) nonterminal label.*]{}
These functions will project the event into $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{S}_{0} = \{in\rightarrow June, IN \rightarrow NN\}. \\
\mathcal{S}_{1} = \{in\rightarrow NN, IN \rightarrow June\}.\end{aligned}$$ where each of the two sets contains two factored dependency events.
Then based on Formula \[mixture-of-factored-model\] we get $$\begin{aligned}
\Pr(IN[in]\rightarrow NN[June]) \hspace{2cm} \nonumber \\
= \Pr(\Phi_{0})\Pr(in \rightarrow June, IN \rightarrow NN) \nonumber\\
+ \Pr(\Phi_{1})\Pr(in \rightarrow NN, IN \rightarrow June) \end{aligned}$$
Assume that factored events in the same set are independent of each other, from Formula \[independent\], we can get $$\begin{aligned}
\Pr(IN[in]\rightarrow NN[June]) \hspace{2.5cm} \nonumber \\
= \Pr(\Phi_{0})\Pr(in \rightarrow June)\Pr(IN \rightarrow NN) \nonumber\\
+ \Pr(\Phi_{1})\Pr(in \rightarrow NN)\Pr(IN \rightarrow June) \end{aligned}$$
Now, distribution of $\Pr(IN[in] \rightarrow NN[June])$ is approximated by the mixture of the factored models $\Pr(in \rightarrow June)$, $\Pr(IN \rightarrow NN)$ , $\Pr(in \rightarrow NN)$ and $\Pr(IN \rightarrow June)$ that are obtained based on a pre-defined backing-off lattice.
Backing-Off Formula {#sec:formula}
===================
We have presented a mixture model to approximate a more discriminative model with less discriminative factored models based on a backing-off lattice and a set of factorization functions. A mixture model, however, only combines the factored models obtained by factorizing one lattice node and if we traverse the backing-off lattice, we will get a series of mixtures. We therefore generalize Katz’s backing-off method [@katz] to organize these mixtures by firing correspondent mixture model when backing-off takes place.
$$\begin{aligned}
\Pr_{bo}(\mathcal{E}_{1}|\mathcal{E}_{2}) = \hspace{5cm} \nonumber \\
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\frac{C(\mathcal{E}_{1}\mathcal{E}_{2})}{C(\mathcal{E}_{2})} & C(\mathcal{E}_{1}\mathcal{E}_{2}) > K \\
\beta_{C(\mathcal{E}_{1}\mathcal{E}_{2})}\frac{C(\mathcal{E}_{1}\mathcal{E}_{2})}{C(\mathcal{E}_{2})} & 1 \le C(\mathcal{E}_{1}\mathcal{E}_{2}) \le K \\
\alpha \mathcal{MIXTURE} & otherwise
\end{array} \right.
\label{backoff-formula}\end{aligned}$$
where, $\mathcal{MIXTURE}$ represents the conditional version of the mixture model in Formula \[mixture-of-factored-model\]. $K$ is a frequency threshold for discounting. $\mathcal{E}_{1}$ and $\mathcal{E}_{2}$ refer to, in general, two events that adjacently co-occur in a corpus.
The basic idea of this backing-off method is the same as that of Katz’s. That is, the backing-off formula has a recursive format. At each step of the recursion, there are three branches associated with their firing conditions. If the frequency of the current model event is large enough (such as greater than $K$, Katz used the value of 5 for $K$), the maximum-likelihood estimator (MLE) is used. If the occurrence frequency is within the range of $[1, K]$, the MLE probabilities are discounted in some manner so that some probability mass is reserved for those unseen events. If the model event never occurs in the training data, we use the estimates from the factored model events.
The difference therefore lies in the combination of estimates of factored events. In traditional backing-off methods, there is only one backing-off path to go when the backing-off condition is satisfied. For example, an n-gram only has exactly one (n-1)-gram to be backed-off. However, in our case, we have more than one backing-off paths to go through. None is a branch of another. Then the mixture model obtained in the previous section is embedded here.
$\beta$ are for normalization and can be computed according to [@katz].
$\alpha$ is also for normalization. It is computed from the amount of reserved probability mass for unseen events. $\alpha$ is a function of $\mathcal{E}_{2}$ because $\mathcal{E}_{2}$ is the given event of a conditional probability, and each conditional probability should satisfy the normalization requirement. It is computed similarly to that in Katz original paper:
$$\begin{aligned}
\alpha & = &\alpha(\mathcal{E}_{2}) \nonumber \\
& = & \frac{1-\sum_{\mathcal{E}_{1},\mathcal{E}_{2}:C(\mathcal{E}_{1}\mathcal{E}_{2}) > 0} \Pr_{bo}(\mathcal{E}_{1}|\mathcal{E}_{2})}
{\sum_{\mathcal{E}_{1}, \mathcal{E}_{2}:C(\mathcal{E}_{1}\mathcal{E}_{2})=0}\mathcal{MIXTURE}} \nonumber \\
& = &\frac{1-\sum_{\mathcal{E}_{1},\mathcal{E}_{2}:C(\mathcal{E}_{1}\mathcal{E}_{2}) > 0}\Pr_{bo}(\mathcal{E}_{1}|\mathcal{E}_{2})}
{1-\sum_{\mathcal{E}_{1}, \mathcal{E}_{2}:C(\mathcal{E}_{1}\mathcal{E}_{2})>0}\mathcal{MIXTURE}}
\label{bow-formula}\end{aligned}$$
Model Factorizations {#sec:types}
====================
Now that we have presented a framework that allows a model event to be factorized along more than paths and combines different paths in a backing-off formula, we now formulate two types of model factorization that are used in natural language modeling. We first introduce some notations.
Let a matrix $\mathcal{M}^{m \times n}$ of random variables represent a linguistic object that simultaneously expresses two types of information in its row and column directions. For example, matrix[^3], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{alshawi-example}
\left[\begin{array}{ll}
nonstop & flights \\
sin & vuelos
\end{array} \right]\end{aligned}$$
denotes two lexical dependencies, each of which is the translation the other. It expresses the dependency relationship information in the row direction, and translation relationship information in the column direction.
Let $\mathcal{A} \in \mathcal{M}^{m \times n}$, and $\mathcal{B}$[^4] $\in \mathcal{M}^{m \times n}$, we want to determine $\Pr(\mathcal{A} | \mathcal{B})$ using its factored models. We can either factorize both $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ synchronously, or factorize only the conditioning event $\mathcal{B}$, which results in two types of factorizations for different tasks: [*synchronous factorization*]{}, and [*asynchronous factorization*]{}.
Synchronous factorization
-------------------------
In synchronous factorization, both $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ are factorized in the same manner according to some correspondence assumption, and the factored models determines the marginal information of the entire model.
Based on Formula \[mixture-formula\] (the mixture model), and the assumption that $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ are in sync with with each other on row (or column), we formulate the synchronous factorization as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{synchronous-factorization}
\Pr(\mathcal{A}|\mathcal{B}) &= &
\Pr\left(\Phi_{row}\right)\Pr\left(\mathcal{S}_{row}^{\mathcal{A}}|
\mathcal{S}_{row}^{\mathcal{B}}\right) \nonumber \\
&+& \Pr\left(\Phi_{col}\;\;\right)\Pr\left(\mathcal{S}_{col}^{\mathcal{A}}\;|
\mathcal{S}_{col}^{\mathcal{B}}\;\right)\end{aligned}$$
where,
- $\Phi_{row}$ projects $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ on row, respectively, and therefore results in row vectors:
1. $\mathcal{S}_{row}^{\mathcal{A}}$= $\{(\mathcal{A}_{ij})_{1 \times \ n} | 1 \le i \le m\}$
the set of row vectors of $\mathcal{A}$
2. $\mathcal{S}_{row}^{\mathcal{B}}$= $\{(\mathcal{B}_{ij})_{1 \times n} \;\;| 1 \le i \le m\}$
the set of row vectors of $\mathcal{B}$
- $\Phi_{col}$ projects $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ on column, respectively, and therefore results in column vectors:
1. $\mathcal{S}_{col}^{\mathcal{A}}\;$= $\{(\mathcal{A}_{ij})_{m \times 1} \;| 1 \le j \le n\}$
the set of column vectors of $\mathcal{A}$
2. $\mathcal{S}_{col}^{\mathcal{B}}\;$= $\{(\mathcal{B}_{ij})_{m \times 1} \;\;| 1 \le j \le n\}$
the set of column vectors of $\mathcal{B}$
Factored models $\Pr\left(\mathcal{S}_{row}^{\mathcal{A}}|\mathcal{S}_{row}^{\mathcal{B}}\right)$ and $\Pr\left(\mathcal{S}_{col}^{\mathcal{A}}|\mathcal{S}_{col}^{\mathcal{B}}\right)$ will be further factorized by other factorization functions, and the results of these factorization functions constitute the backing-off lattice. All these factored models are then combined by the backing-off formula.
Let us give an example. Let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{depend}
\mathcal{A} = \left[\begin{array}{l} nonstop \\ sin \end{array}\right]\end{aligned}$$ and let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{parent}
\mathcal{B} = \left[\begin{array}{l} flights\\ vuelos\end{array}\right]\end{aligned}$$
Under factorization manner $\Phi_{row}$, and from Formula \[synchronous-factorization\], \[depend\] and \[parent\] we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{17}
& &\Pr\left(\begin{array}{c|c}
\left[\begin{array}{c}nonstop \\ sin\end{array}\right] &
\left[\begin{array}{c}flights \\ vuelos\end{array}\right] \\
\end{array}\right) \nonumber \\
& = & \Pr(\Phi_{row}) \Pr\left(
\mathcal{S}_{row}^{\mathcal{A}}|\mathcal{S}_{row}^{\mathcal{B}}
\right) \end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{S}_{row}^{\mathcal{A}} &=& \Phi_{row}(\mathcal{A})
= \left\{
\left[nonstop\right],\left[sin\right]
\right\} \\
\mathcal{S}_{row}^{\mathcal{B}} &=& \Phi_{row}(\mathcal{B})
= \left\{
\left[flights\right],\left[vuelos\right]
\right\}\end{aligned}$$ and $\Phi_{row}=1$ (normalized).
If we assume that an element in $\mathcal{S}_{row}^{\mathcal{A}}$ is only dependent on the correspondent element in $\mathcal{S}_{row}^{\mathcal{B}}$, we get,
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{20}
\Pr\left(
\mathcal{S}_{row}^{\mathcal{A}}|\mathcal{S}_{row}^{\mathcal{B}}
\right)& =& \Pr\left(nonstop|flights\right) \nonumber \\
&\times & \Pr\left(sin|vuelos\right) \end{aligned}$$
Formula \[17\] and \[20\] indicate that, by synchronous factorization, a bilingual lexical dependency model like that in [@alshawi-fst] is approximated by two factored lexical dependency models , each of which corresponds to one language.
The factorization of a bilexical context-free grammar into a lexical dependency model and a syntactic structure model in [@klein-manning-factor] is actually synchronous factorization.
Synchronous factorization is usually used for information combination in the cases that we only have the statistics of those factored models and want to use them to approximate a more complex model; or that we want to simplify a complex model into factored models to gain efficiency [e.g., @klein-manning-factor].
Asynchronous factorization
--------------------------
Another type of factorization that is frequently used in statistical language modeling is asynchronous factorization, where only the conditioning event of the conditional probability $\Pr(\mathcal{A}|\mathcal{B})$ is recursively factorized while keeping the conditioned event fixed. The following formula describes the idea.
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{asynchronous}
\Pr(\mathcal{A}|\mathcal{B}) =
\sum_{i=1}^{|\mathcal{B}|}\left(\Pr(\Phi_{i})\Pr(\mathcal{A}|\Phi_{i}(\mathcal{B}))\right)\end{aligned}$$
where $\Phi_{i}$ = “drop the $i$’th element in matrix $\mathcal{B}$”, and $|\mathcal{B}|$ is the number of the elements in matrix $\mathcal{B}$. If we further factorize model $\Pr(\mathcal{A}|\Phi_{i}(\mathcal{B}))$, matrix $\mathcal{B}$ will be a partial matrix that contains a part of elements of the original matrix.
Formula \[asynchronous\] indicates that the original model is recursively factorized into sub-models, and each factorization recursion step has $|\mathcal{B}|$ factorization manners, each of which only drops one element from $\mathcal{B}$.
In the following, we give an example to illustrate the idea of asynchronous factorization. In PP-attachment, suppose we want to factorize model $\Pr(0|is, revenue, from, research)$[^5], which determines the probability of the attachment of preposition phrase “from research” to the noun “revenue” instead of to the verb “is”. Based on Formula \[asynchronous\], we can get,
$$\begin{aligned}
\Pr(1|is, revenue, from, research) = \nonumber \\
\Phi_{revenue}\Pr(1|is, from, research) \nonumber \hspace{0.2cm}\\
+ \Phi_{research}\Pr(1|is, revenue, from) \nonumber \hspace{0.2cm} \\
+ \Phi_{is}\Pr(1|revenue, from, research) \end{aligned}$$
where $\Phi_{word}$ refers to the factorization function that drops $word$ from the conditioning event of the left hand side model. And the factored models on the right hand side can be further factorized by continuing to traversing the backing-off lattice.
In contrast to that synchronous factorization is used for information combination, asynchronous factorization is usually used for smoothing purpose.
In practice, there might be a compromise between the above two, where we factorize both the conditioned and conditioning events, but not in a synchronous manner. And matrices $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ need not to have the same number of rows and columns.
Related Works
=============
[@collins-brooks-backoff] puts forward a method, which actually is asynchronous factorization, for backing-off of models of prepositional phrase attachment, providing a way to mixing the frequencies of different backing off choices at certain recursion step by dividing the sum of frequencies of all the more discriminative model events by those of less discriminative ones if the sum of the frequencies of the less discriminative ones are greater than zero, otherwise, backing-off continues on. One characteristic of this method is that if one of the less discriminative model events has non-zero frequency, the backing-off terminates, no matter whether other events in the same backing-off level are zero or not, whereas the mixture model we introduced to combine parallel backing-off paths is able to to make those zero count event further backoff so that they still can contribute to the final result. And we think this is necessary when we use the backing-off framework for information combination.
It turned out that [@parallel-backoff] were independently working on some similar ideas. They introduced factored models and also generalized the backing-off framework to handle parallel backing-off paths. The differences between their work and ours are (1) Their factored models can actually be categorized into the asynchronous factorization type, where only the conditioning matrix (the feature vector in their paper) is factorized; (2) We also formulated the synchronous factorization type, where both the conditioned and conditioning matrices are factorized synchronously. And we showed that this is useful for combining different information sources; (3) We use a mixture model to combine parallel paths while they selected the the path with the maximum value. We think that combining the contribution of each backing-off path is useful when we want to combine different information resources; (3) In our framework, the result of each factorization function (backing-off path) is a set of events (See Formula \[project-function\]), not merely one event. And this is usefull when we do the kind of factorization like [@klein-manning-factor] using Formula \[independent\].
Conclusions
===========
We have presented a framework for language model factorization. We adopt a backing-off lattice to reflect parallel factorizations and to define the paths along which a model is resolved into factored models, we use a mixture model to combine parallel paths in the lattice, and generalize Katz’s backing-off method to integrate all the mixture models got by traversing the entire lattice.
Based on this framework, we formulate two types of model factorizations that are used in natural language modeling.
[999]{} A. Dempster, N. Laird and D. Rubin (1977). “Maximum Likelihood from Incomplete Data via The EM Algorithm,” Journal of Royal Statistical Society, Vol. 39, pp. 1-38, 1977.
D. Klein and C. Manning (2001). “Fast Exact Natural Language Parsing with a Factored Model,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 15 (NIPS-2002), 2002.
H. Alshawi, B. Srinivas and S. Douglas (2000). “Learning Dependency Translation Models as Collections of Finite State Head Transducers,” [*Computational Linguistics*]{}, vol. 26, 2000.
J. Bilmes and K. Kirchhoff (2003). “Factored Language Models and Generalized Parallel Backoff,” Human Language Technology Conference, 2003.
J. Eisner and G. Satta (1999) “Efficient Parsing for Bilexical Context-Free Grammars and Head-Automaton Grammars,” [*Proceedings of the ACL*]{}, 1999.
J. Goodman (2001). “A Bit of Progress in Language Modeling, Extended Version,” Microsoft Research Technical Report MSR-TR-2001-72.
M. Collins and J. Brooks (1995). “Prepositional Phrase Attachment through a Backed-off Model,” Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Very Large Corpora, 1995.
S. Chen and J. Goodman (1998). “An Empirical Study of Smoothing Techniques for Language Modeling,” Technical Report TR-10-98, Center for Research in Computing Technology, Harvard University.
S. Katz (1987) “Estimation of Probabilities from Sparse Data for the Language Model Component of a Speech Recognizer,” IEEE transactions on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing ASSP-35:400-401.
W. Press, B. Flannery, S. Teukolsky, and W. Vetterling (1986). “Numerical Recipes, The Art of Scientific Computing,” Cambridge University Press.
[^1]: This example is extracted from [@collins-brooks-backoff].
[^2]: We also regard the most discriminative events in a model as factored events.
[^3]: This example is due to the hierarchical alignment in Figure 10 in [@alshawi-fst]
[^4]: We let $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ have identical distributions for simplicity of explanation. They needn’t have to be identical in general. And matrix $\mathcal{M}$ need not to have only row and column, but might be like $\mathcal{M}^{m \times n \times l \dots}$ .
[^5]: Once again, this example is extracted from [@collins-brooks-backoff].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Trevor W. Marshall
CCAB, Cardiff University, UK
[email protected]
**Abstract.** Starting from the Oppenheimer-Snyder solution for gravitational collapse, we show by putting it into the harmonic coordinates, for which the distant Riemann metric is galilean, that the final state of collapse for a collapsed star of any mass, including the one thought to occupy the centre of our galaxy, has a finite radius roughly equal to its Schwarzschild radius. By applying an expression for the gravitational energy tensor, we are able to explain the concentration of stellar material in a thin shell close to the surface, which gives an explanation for why such a star does not undergo further collapse to a black hole. The interior of the star is characterized by a low density of the original stellar material, but, far from being empty, this region is occupied by a very high density of gravitational energy; this density is negative and the consequent repulsion is what produces the surface concentration of stellar material.
Introduction
============
There is a widespread belief that space tells matter how to move[wheeler]{}. This, we believe, has resulted in a profound misunderstanding of gravity. Although the error can be traced back all the way to the founder of the modern theory[@Einstein1], there is ample evidence that he nevertheless had a strong inclination to go in the direction which we are advocating here.
Throughout the decade in which Einstein discovered what he called General Relativity (GR), he repeatedly attempted to cast gravity within the context of a classical field theory by constructing a tensor for the energy and momentum carried by its field[@Einstein2]. Perhaps the culmination of this effort was the article[@Einstein3] in which he derived the quadrupole formula for the emission of gravitational radiation from a bounded nonspherical source. He had already changed his mind twice about such radiation when he wrote that article; throughout the subsequent six decades, not only would he himself change two more times, but his oscillations of opinion would be reflected in the communal understanding of gravity, causing confusion among virtually all of the leading scholars in the field[@Kennefick]. The communal view changed radically when observation of the Hulse-Taylor pulsar[@HulseT] confirmed that this system is losing energy at the rate predicted by Einstein’s quadrupole formula.....
But did it? In our opinion the change is incomplete and inadequate. Probably most of us now confidently expect that the LIGO experiment[@LISA] will reveal that gravitational waves passing through space cause a change in the path of light signals exchanged across that same space. The light signals are items of “matter”, which is being moved but by what? We have become lazy in repeating, as a kind of mantra, that the moving agent is space itself. That may be an adequate description of the static solar field’s effect on planets and passing light signals, but the time has now come to distinguish between the gravitational field and the space carrying it. The field has energy which may be localized in a determinate manner; the energy has mass which itself gravitates, and above all it must be described by an energy tensor.
In spite of appearing in Einstein’s own articles, both before and after GR was conceived[@Einstein2], the energy “pseudotensor” has not achieved full tensorial status right up to the present day. There is a big obstacle to be overcome, and it was pointed out by Hilbert[@Hilbert], who was the codiscoverer of the basic Hilbert-Einstein field equation of GR. This is that the metric and its curvature are *the only proper tensors* which may be constructed out of $g_{\mu \nu }$. The analogy with classical field theories suggests that an energy tensor be formed from the derivatives of $g_{\mu \nu },$ but normal derivation is not tensorial and covariant derivation in the Riemann metric gives zero.
It must have been physical intuition which caused Einstein to ignore Hilbert’s objection and continue with his “pseudotensor” to deduce the quadrupole formula. In order to make his argument work he made a particular coordinate choice, using what is now called the *harmonic* system, thereby violating the Principle of Equivalence (PE), which he had put at the centre of his derivation of the Hilbert-Einstein equation, and which states that no particular coordinate system is to be preferred. Now we are able to see that, rather than introducing a favoured frame, what he was actually doing was to recognize that the gravitational field is carried by the familiar Minkowski space of so called “Special” relativity.* *The notion of the gravitational field as being like the electromagnetic field of Faraday and Maxwell was taken up by Einstein’s contemporaries de Donder and Lanczos[@dedond][@lanczos], and subsequently developed by Fock[fock]{}, Rosen[@rosen] and Weinberg[@weinberg]. This field interpretation of gravity has subsequently been developed, by Logunov and Mestvirishvili[@logmest], and by Babak and Grishchuk[@babak], to the point where the Minkowski metric is explicitly present in the field equations.
In advocating the necessity for including the Minkowski metric in the field equations, we will also be stressing the need to distinguish between the various requirements which have been laid on the theories of gravitation, namely covariance, gauge invariance and the Principle of Equivalence. We shall argue for maintaining the first, abandoning of the second, and accepting only the weakest form of the third, in the form of the Eötvös Principle (EoP).
Our new contribution to the field theory of gravity is in gravitational collapse. Starting from the Oppenheimer-Snyder solution[@oppsny], we show by putting it into the harmonic coordinates, for which the distant Riemann metric is galilean, that the final state of collapse, for a star of any mass, including the one thought to occupy the centre of our galaxy, has a finite radius roughly equal to its Schwarzschild radius.
The energy tensor
=================
We follow Babak and Grishchuk[@babak] (BG) with some changes of notation. The self-interacting tensor field $h^{\alpha \beta }\left(
x\right) $ is defined on an underlying (flat) Minkowski space with metric$$d\sigma ^{2}=\gamma _{\mu \nu }\left( x\right) dx_{\mu }dx_{\nu }\quad .$$The d’Alembertian operator is$$\square _{\gamma }=\gamma ^{\mu \nu }D_{\mu }D_{\nu }\quad , \label{minkdal}$$where $$\gamma ^{\mu \nu }\gamma _{\nu \lambda }=\delta _{\lambda }^{\mu }\quad ,$$and $D_{\mu }$ denotes covariant differentiation with respect to $x_{\mu }$ in the Minkowski metric. We define$$\Phi ^{\alpha \beta }=\gamma ^{\alpha \beta }+h^{\alpha \beta }\quad ,$$and we shall denote covariant differentiation of $\Phi $ simply by a lower index, that is$$\Phi _{\sigma }^{\alpha \beta }=D_{\sigma }\Phi ^{\alpha \beta }=\gamma
_{;\sigma }^{\alpha \beta }+h_{;\sigma }^{\alpha \beta }=h_{;\sigma
}^{\alpha \beta }\quad .$$We define also the inverse field tensor $\Psi _{\alpha \beta }$ by$$\Psi _{\alpha \beta }\Phi ^{\beta \gamma }=\delta _{\alpha }^{\gamma }\quad .$$
The field equations are determined from a lagrangian density$$L=L_{g}+L_{m}\quad .$$The gravitational lagrangian is$$L_{g}=-\frac{\sqrt{-\gamma }}{4\kappa }\Phi _{\alpha }^{\beta \gamma
}P_{\beta \gamma }^{\alpha },\quad \gamma =\text{det}\left( \gamma _{\mu \nu
}\right) ,\quad \kappa =\frac{8\pi G}{c^{4}},$$where$$P_{\beta \gamma }^{\alpha }=\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{\frac{\gamma }{\Phi }}\left[
2\Phi _{\tau }^{\sigma \tau }\left( \delta _{\beta }^{\alpha }\Psi _{\gamma
\sigma }+\delta _{\gamma }^{\alpha }\Psi _{\beta \sigma }\right) +\Phi
_{\tau }^{\rho \mu }\Phi ^{\tau \alpha }\left( \Psi _{\beta \gamma }\Psi
_{\rho \mu }-2\Psi _{\beta \rho }\Psi _{\gamma \mu }\right) \right] \quad ,$$and$$\quad \Phi =\text{det}\left( \Phi ^{\alpha \beta }\right) \quad .$$This is equivalent to an expression first given by Fock (Ref[@fock], Appendix B). The “matter” lagrangian $L_{m}$ is a function of all the nongravitational (particle and field) quantities, collectively labelled by $\phi _{m}$, and of $h^{\alpha \beta }$, which enters only through the combination $\sqrt{-\gamma }\Phi ^{\alpha \beta }$, that is$$L_{m}=L_{m}\left( \phi _{m},\sqrt{-\gamma }\Phi ^{\alpha \beta }\right)
\quad .$$The field equations are then obtained by varying $L$ with respect to $h^{\alpha \beta }$, or equivalently $\Phi ^{\alpha \beta }$, and are$$-\frac{2\kappa }{\sqrt{-\gamma }}\frac{\delta L_{g}}{\delta \Phi ^{\mu \nu }}=-D_{\alpha }P_{\mu \nu }^{\alpha }-P_{\mu \beta }^{\alpha }P_{\nu \alpha
}^{\beta }+\frac{1}{3}P_{\mu \alpha }^{\alpha }P_{\nu \beta }^{\beta }=\frac{2\kappa }{\sqrt{-\gamma }}\frac{\partial L_{m}}{\partial \Phi ^{\mu \nu }}\quad . \label{HEBG}$$BG showed that these are equivalent to the standard Hilbert-Einstein (HE) equations of GR. First one makes the identification of the inverse field tensor with the Riemannian metric tensor, namely $$g_{\alpha \beta }=\sqrt{\frac{\Phi }{\gamma }}\Psi _{\alpha \beta },\quad
\gamma =\text{det}\left( \gamma ^{\alpha \beta }\right) \quad ,
\label{riemet}$$from which it follows that$$\text{det}\left( g_{\alpha \beta }\right) =g=\Phi /\gamma ^{2}\quad .$$Then, in terms of the new variables, one finds that $$-\frac{2\kappa }{\sqrt{-\gamma }}\frac{\delta L_{g}}{\delta \Phi ^{\mu \nu }}=R_{\mu \nu }\quad ,$$the right side being the contracted curvature tensor of the Riemannian metric. On the other hand, defining the inverse metric tensor $G^{\mu \nu }$(conventional notation $g^{\mu \nu }$) by$$G^{\mu \nu }g_{\nu \lambda }=\delta _{\lambda }^{\mu }\quad ,$$and the material stress tensor by$$T_{\mu \nu }=\frac{2c^{2}}{\sqrt{-g}}\frac{\partial L_{m}}{\partial G^{\mu
\nu }}\quad ,$$we obtain, since $G^{\mu \nu }=\sqrt{\gamma /\Phi }\Phi ^{\mu \nu }$,$$\frac{2c^{2}}{\sqrt{-\gamma }}\frac{\partial L_{m}}{\partial \Phi ^{\mu \nu }}=T_{\mu \nu }-\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }G^{\alpha \beta }T_{\alpha \beta
}=T_{\mu \nu }-\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }T\quad .$$With these substitutions (\[HEBG\]) becomes$$R_{\mu \nu }=\kappa c^{2}\left( T_{\mu \nu }-\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }T\right)
\quad , \label{hilbein}$$which is the Hilbert-Einstein equation[^1].
The energy balance is obtained by varying $L$ with respect to $\gamma _{\mu
\nu }$, that is (note that this variation takes account of $\gamma ^{\mu \nu
}$ occurring in $\Phi ^{\mu \nu }$), $$\frac{\delta L_{g}}{\delta \gamma _{\mu \nu }}+\frac{\partial L_{m}}{\partial \gamma _{\mu \nu }}=0\quad . \label{ebalance}$$The first term is given by$$-\frac{2}{\sqrt{-\gamma }}\frac{\delta L_{g}}{\delta \gamma _{\mu \nu }}=-\frac{1}{2\kappa }D_{\alpha }D_{\beta }\left( \Phi ^{\mu \nu }\Phi ^{\alpha
\beta }-\Phi ^{\mu \alpha }\Phi ^{\nu \beta }\right) -\frac{2}{\sqrt{-\gamma
}}q^{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }\frac{\delta L_{g}}{\delta \Phi ^{\alpha \beta }}+t_{g}^{\mu \nu }\quad ,$$where$$q^{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }=\Phi ^{\alpha \mu }\Phi ^{\beta \nu }-\frac{1}{2}\Phi ^{\alpha \beta }\Phi ^{\mu \nu }-\gamma ^{\alpha \mu }\gamma ^{\beta
\nu }+\frac{1}{2}\gamma ^{\mu \nu }\Phi ^{\alpha \beta }\quad ,$$and[^2]$$\begin{aligned}
16\kappa t_{g}^{\mu \nu } &=&\left( 2\Phi ^{\mu \delta }\Phi ^{\nu \omega
}-\Phi ^{\mu \nu }\Phi ^{\delta \omega }\right) \left( 2\Psi _{\alpha \rho
}\Psi _{\beta \sigma }-\Psi _{\alpha \beta }\Psi _{\rho \sigma }\right) \Phi
_{\delta }^{\rho \sigma }\Phi _{\omega }^{\alpha \beta } \notag \\
&&+8\Phi ^{\rho \sigma }\Psi _{\alpha \beta }\Phi _{\sigma }^{\nu \beta
}\Phi _{\rho }^{\mu \alpha }-8\Phi ^{\mu \alpha }\Psi _{\beta \rho }\Phi
_{\sigma }^{\nu \beta }\Phi _{\alpha }^{\rho \sigma }-8\Phi ^{\nu \alpha
}\Psi _{\beta \rho }\Phi _{\sigma }^{\mu \beta }\Phi _{\alpha }^{\rho \sigma
} \notag \\
&&+4\Phi ^{\mu \nu }\Psi _{\alpha \rho }\Phi _{\sigma }^{\alpha \beta }\Phi
_{\beta }^{\rho \sigma }+8\Phi _{\rho }^{\mu \nu }\Phi _{\sigma }^{\rho
\sigma }-8\Phi _{\alpha }^{\mu \alpha }\Phi _{\beta }^{\nu \beta }\quad .\end{aligned}$$Hence, making use of the field equation (\[HEBG\]), this first term becomes$$-\frac{2}{\sqrt{-\gamma }}\frac{\delta L_{g}}{\delta \gamma _{\mu \nu }}=-\frac{1}{2\kappa }D_{\alpha }D_{\beta }\left( \Phi ^{\mu \nu }\Phi ^{\alpha
\beta }-\Phi ^{\mu \alpha }\Phi ^{\nu \beta }\right) +\frac{2}{\sqrt{-\gamma
}}q^{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }\frac{\partial L_{m}}{\partial \Phi ^{\alpha
\beta }}+t_{g}^{\mu \nu }\quad . \label{lgderiv}$$The second term is given by$$\frac{\partial L_{m}}{\partial \gamma _{\mu \nu }}=\left( \gamma ^{\mu
\alpha }\gamma ^{\nu \beta }-\frac{1}{2}\gamma ^{\mu \nu }\Phi ^{\alpha
\beta }\right) \frac{\partial L_{m}}{\partial \Phi ^{\alpha \beta }}\quad .
\label{lmderiv}$$Hence (\[ebalance\]) becomes$$\begin{gathered}
\frac{1}{2\kappa }D_{\alpha }D_{\beta }\left( \Phi ^{\mu \nu }\Phi ^{\alpha
\beta }-\Phi ^{\mu \alpha }\Phi ^{\nu \beta }\right) =t_{g}^{\mu \nu }-\frac{2}{\sqrt{-\gamma }}\left( \Phi ^{\alpha \mu }\Phi ^{\beta \nu }-\frac{1}{2}\Phi ^{\alpha \beta }\Phi ^{\mu \nu }\right) \frac{\partial L_{m}}{\partial
\Phi ^{\alpha \beta }} \notag \\
=t_{g}^{\mu \nu }+\frac{g}{\gamma }\left( G^{\alpha \mu }G^{\beta \nu }-\frac{1}{2}G^{\alpha \beta }G^{\mu \nu }\right) \left( T_{\mu \nu }-\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }G^{\sigma \tau }T_{\sigma \tau }\right) \quad .\end{gathered}$$In the usual notation the inverse Riemann metric is $G^{\alpha \beta
}=g^{\alpha \beta }$, and it is the tensor used for raising indices, so that the right side simplifies to give$$D_{\alpha }D_{\beta }\left( \Phi ^{\mu \nu }\Phi ^{\alpha \beta }-\Phi ^{\mu
\alpha }\Phi ^{\nu \beta }\right) =2\kappa t^{\mu \nu },\quad t^{\mu \nu
}=\left( t_{g}^{\mu \nu }+\frac{g}{\gamma }T^{\mu \nu }\right) \quad .
\label{ebalance1}$$Now the expression $D_{\alpha }D_{\beta }D_{\mu }\left( \Phi ^{\mu \nu }\Phi
^{\alpha \beta }-\Phi ^{\mu \alpha }\Phi ^{\nu \beta }\right) $ is antisymmetric with respect to a $\mu \alpha $ interchange, from which we may deduce the covariant conservation equation$$D_{\mu }t^{\mu \nu }=0\quad .$$The theory summarized in this section has all three basic properties mentioned in the previous section, that is covariance, gauge invariance and weak equivalence as summed up in EoP. The latter may be briefly stated as “All forms of energy gravitate equally”. It has an active aspect characterized by the single coupling constant $\kappa $ in (\[ebalance1\]), and also a passive aspect, contained in the equation$$\nabla _{\mu }T^{\mu \nu }=0\quad . \label{EOPpass}$$Of course, the latter property is a consequence of (\[hilbein\]) together with the Bianchi identity$$\nabla _{\mu }\left( R^{\mu \nu }-\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu }R\right) =0\quad .$$
The harmonic condition
======================
The condition$$\partial _{\mu }\Phi ^{\mu \nu }=0 \label{harmonic}$$has a history almost as long as GR itself. It was used by Einstein[Einstein3]{} in his derivation of the quadrupole formula, but was almost immediately criticized, for example by Eddington (Ref[@Eddington], page 130), for being noncovariant; Eddington said that gravitational waves “travel at the speed of thought”, and his criticism resounded throughout the subsequent six decades, finding fame in the title of a seminal history[Kennefick]{} of gravitational waves. In the first decade of GR the harmonic condition was developed by de Donder[@dedond], and also by Einstein’s research assistant Lanczos[@lanczos]; later it was championed by Fock[@fock], who claimed that this choice of coordinates was necessary in order to guarantee the condition that there are no ingoing waves at large distance from an isolated massive object. Fock, and also Weinberg[weinberg]{} have shown that this condition, as well as being an essential part of the field interpretation of GR, is extremely practical in all analyses of the far fields of such a system, for example in establishing post-Newtonian expansions. Subsequently[@logunov] it was argued by Logunov and Mestvirishvili that, in its covariant form$$D_{\mu }\Phi ^{\mu \nu }=0\quad , \label{coharmonic}$$the harmonic condition, far from being just a choice of coordinate system or “gauge”, is, along with the Hilbert-Einstein equation dealt with in the previous section, an essential field equation of gravitation. These authors showed that, by including the Minkowski metric $\gamma _{\mu \nu }$ explicitly in a lagrangian$$L_{g1}=\lambda \left( 2\sqrt{-\gamma }\gamma _{\mu \nu }\Phi ^{\mu \nu }-\sqrt{-g}\right) \quad ,$$so that the total lagrangian is$$L=L_{g}+L_{g1}+L_{m}\quad ,$$the covariant harmonic condition does indeed appear as a field equation. Such a modification causes the Hilbert-Einstein equation to acquire two additional terms, one of which is the familiar “cosmological constant” term (what Einstein termed his “biggest mistake”, which, however, has now come back into fashion). The cosmological effect of these two terms has been explored[@logunov] with $\lambda $ related to the Hubble constant, but in this article we shall assume that $\lambda $ is negligible, so that the Hilbert-Einstein equation remains unmodified. The extra term $\delta
L_{g1}/\delta h^{\mu \nu }$ in the field equation violates the gauge invariance, though not, we stress, the covariance. In general this additional term may result also in the violation of EoP, in the form ([EOPpass]{}), but the imposition of the field equation (\[coharmonic\]) is precisely what prevents this occurrence. It should be noted that the loss of gauge invariance arises precisely because of this additional field equation, and that in field theoretic terms it is more accurate to state that what has been lost is the *gauge ambiguity* of GR.
As far as the energy tensor is concerned, we may incorporate the new equation and write the energy balance (\[ebalance1\]) as$$t_{H}^{\mu \nu }=t_{gH}^{\mu \nu }+\frac{g}{\gamma }T^{\mu \nu }\quad ,
\label{ebalharm}$$where$$\begin{aligned}
16\kappa t_{gH}^{\mu \nu } &=&\left( 2\Phi ^{\mu \delta }\Phi ^{\nu \omega
}-\Phi ^{\mu \nu }\Phi ^{\delta \omega }\right) \left( 2\Psi _{\alpha \rho
}\Psi _{\beta \sigma }-\Psi _{\alpha \beta }\Psi _{\rho \sigma }\right) \Phi
_{\delta }^{\rho \sigma }\Phi _{\omega }^{\alpha \beta } \notag \\
&&+8\Phi ^{\rho \sigma }\Psi _{\alpha \beta }\Phi _{\sigma }^{\nu \beta
}\Phi _{\rho }^{\mu \alpha }-8\Phi ^{\mu \alpha }\Psi _{\beta \rho }\Phi
_{\sigma }^{\nu \beta }\Phi _{\alpha }^{\rho \sigma }-8\Phi ^{\nu \alpha
}\Psi _{\beta \rho }\Phi _{\sigma }^{\mu \beta }\Phi _{\alpha }^{\rho \sigma
} \notag \\
&&+4\Phi ^{\mu \nu }\Psi _{\alpha \rho }\Phi _{\sigma }^{\alpha \beta }\Phi
_{\beta }^{\rho \sigma }\quad .\end{aligned}$$Although the two terms on the right side of (\[ebalharm\]) may be referred to loosely as the “field” and “matter” parts of the energy tensor, it should be remembered that they are not just the functional derivatives of $L_{g}$ and $L_{m}$, as given by (\[lgderiv\]) and (\[lmderiv\]); some terms were transferred from one of these to the other. For most purposes it will suffice to consider them both together, and then they may be computed as the left side of (\[ebalharm\]), that is$$t_{H}^{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2\kappa }D_{\alpha }D_{\beta }\left( \Phi ^{\mu
\nu }\Phi ^{\alpha \beta }-\Phi ^{\mu \alpha }\Phi ^{\nu \beta }\right)
\quad .$$At this point we specialize to the case of cartesian harmonic coordinates, to be discussed in more detail in the next Section, and for which the Minkowski covariant derivatives are ordinary partial ones. Then the 00-component of $t_{H}^{\mu \nu }$ reduces to$$t_{H}^{00}=\frac{1}{2\kappa }\partial _{i}\partial _{j}\left( \Phi ^{00}\Phi
^{ij}-\Phi ^{0i}\Phi ^{0j}\right) \quad ,$$which may be expressed as a 3-divergence$$t_{H}^{00}=\text{div}\mathbf{t,\quad }t_{i}=\frac{1}{2\kappa }\partial
_{j}\Theta _{ij},\quad \Theta _{ij}=\partial _{j}\left( \Phi ^{00}\Phi
^{ij}-\Phi ^{0i}\Phi ^{0j}\right) \quad . \label{00comp}$$
A general spherosymmetric field may be written, in cartesian coordinates $x_{0}=t,\sqrt{x_{1}^{2}+x_{2}^{2}+x_{3}^{2}}=r,x_{i}/r=n_{i}$, as$$\Phi ^{00}=\Phi _{1}\left( r,t\right) ,\quad \Phi ^{0i}=\Phi _{2}\left(
r,t\right) n_{i},\quad \Phi ^{ij}=\Phi _{3}\left( r,t\right) n_{i}n_{j}+\Phi
_{4}\left( r,t\right) \left( \delta _{ij}-n_{i}n_{j}\right)$$and its determinant is$$\Phi =\left( \Phi _{1}\Phi _{3}-\Phi _{2}^{2}\right) \Phi _{4}^{2}\quad ,$$and so the cartesian tensor on the right side of (\[00comp\]) becomes$$\Theta _{ij}=\frac{\Phi }{\Phi _{4}^{2}}n_{i}n_{j}+\Phi _{1}\Phi _{4}\left(
\delta _{ij}-n_{i}n_{j}\right) \quad , \label{thetaij}$$that is$$\mathbf{t}=\frac{\mathbf{n}}{2\kappa }\left[ \partial _{r}\frac{\Phi }{\Phi
_{4}^{2}}+\frac{2}{r}\left( \frac{\Phi }{\Phi _{4}^{2}}-\Phi _{1}\Phi
_{4}\right) \right] \quad .$$
As a first application we use $t_{H}^{00}$ to find the field energy distribution in the exterior of a nonstatic spherosymmetric $T^{\mu \nu }$ with total mass $M$. By Birkhoff’s theorem the field is static, and is the harmonic version of the Schwarzschild metric, that is (see Ref[@fock] 209-215 ) putting $m=GM/c^{2}$ $$\Phi _{1}=\frac{\left( r+m\right) ^{3}}{r^{2}\left( r-m\right) },\quad \Phi
_{2}=0,\quad \Phi _{3}=-\frac{r^{2}-m^{2}}{r^{2}},\quad \Phi _{4}=-1,\quad
\Phi =-\left( \frac{r+m}{r}\right) ^{4}\quad ,$$it follows that$$\mathbf{t}=\frac{Mc^{2}\mathbf{n}}{4\pi r^{2}}\left( \frac{r+m}{r}\right)
^{3}\frac{2r-m}{2r-2m}\quad .$$We may define a new vector $\mathbf{t}_{1}$ by subtracting a divergence-free vector$$\mathbf{t}_{1}=\mathbf{t-}\frac{Mc^{2}\mathbf{n}}{4\pi r^{2}}\quad ,$$and then the total (matter plus field) energy contained in $r>r_{1}$ is $Mc^{2}\mu \left( r_{1}\right) $, where$$\mu \left( r_{1}\right) =\int_{r>r_{1}}\text{div}\mathbf{t}_{1}d^{3}\mathbf{r}=1-\left( \frac{r_{1}+m}{r_{1}}\right) ^{3}\frac{2r_{1}-m}{2r_{1}-2m}\quad ,
\label{mufree}$$but in this case it is entirely field energy. Note that this quantity is negative; if $r_{1}\gg m$ it is$$\int_{r_{1}}^{\infty }t_{H}^{00}d^{3}\mathbf{r}=-\frac{7}{2}Mc^{2}\left[
\frac{m}{r_{1}}+O\left( \frac{m^{2}}{r_{1}^{2}}\right) \right] \quad ,$$and, for example, the absolute value of the field energy in the exterior space of our Sun, for which $m/r_{1}\approx 2\times 10^{-6},$ is about three times the mass of our planet.
More generally, we now show that, in the spherosymmetric case, there is a simple connection between the cartesian tensor $\Theta _{ij}$ and the spatial components $g_{ij}$, of the Riemannian metric of GR. In terms of the components of the field tensor we obtained (see equation (\[thetaij\]))$$\Theta _{ij}=\frac{\Phi }{\Phi _{4}^{2}}n_{i}n_{j}+\Phi _{1}\Phi _{4}\left(
\delta _{ij}-n_{i}n_{j}\right) \quad .$$The inverse field tensor is $$\Psi _{00}=\frac{\Phi _{3}\Phi _{4}^{2}}{\Phi },\quad \Psi _{0i}=-\frac{\Phi
_{2}\Phi _{4}^{2}}{\Phi }n_{i},\quad \Psi _{ij}=\frac{\Phi _{1}\Phi _{4}^{2}}{\Phi }n_{i}n_{j}+\frac{1}{\Phi _{4}}\left( \delta _{ij}-n_{i}n_{j}\right)$$Since in these coordinates $\gamma =-1$, the corresponding Riemannian metric tensor, from (\[riemet\]), is
$$g_{\alpha \beta }=\sqrt{-\Phi }\Psi _{\alpha \beta }\quad ,$$
that is$$g_{00}=\frac{\Phi _{3}\Phi _{4}^{2}}{\sqrt{-\Phi }},\quad g_{0i}=-\frac{\Phi
_{2}\Phi _{4}^{2}}{\sqrt{-\Phi }}n_{i},\quad g_{ij}=\frac{\Phi _{1}\Phi
_{4}^{2}}{\sqrt{-\Phi }}n_{i}n_{j}+\frac{\sqrt{-\Phi }}{\Phi _{4}}\left(
\delta _{ij}-n_{i}n_{j}\right) \quad .$$Converting to spherical polar coordinates we have the metric$$ds^{2}=g_{00}dt^{2}+2g_{0r}dtdr+g_{rr}dr^{2}+g_{\theta \theta }\left(
d\theta ^{2}+\sin ^{2}\theta d\phi ^{2}\right) \quad ,$$where$$g_{0r}=-\frac{\Phi _{2}\Phi _{4}^{2}}{\sqrt{-\Phi }},\quad g_{rr}=\frac{\Phi
_{1}\Phi _{4}^{2}}{\sqrt{-\Phi }},\quad g_{\theta \theta }=r^{2}\frac{\sqrt{-\Phi }}{\Phi _{4}}\quad .$$Then (\[thetaij\]) becomes$$\Theta _{ij}=-\frac{g_{\theta \theta }^{2}}{r^{4}}n_{i}n_{j}-\frac{g_{\theta
\theta }g_{rr}}{r^{2}}\left( \delta _{ij}-n_{i}n_{j}\right) \quad ,$$which gives$$t_{H}^{00}=\text{div}\mathbf{t,\quad t}=-\frac{\mathbf{n}}{\kappa }\left(
\frac{\partial g_{\theta \theta }}{\partial r}+\frac{g_{\theta \theta
}-g_{rr}}{r}\right) g_{\theta \theta }\quad ,$$and hence the total energy (matter plus field) in $r>r_{1}$ at time $t$ is $\mu \left( r_{1},t\right) Mc^{2},$ where$$1-\mu \left( r,t\right) =\frac{g_{\theta \theta }}{2mr^{3}}\left( g_{\theta
\theta }+r^{2}g_{rr}-r\frac{\partial g_{\theta \theta }}{\partial r}\right)
\quad . \label{murt}$$
The Oppenheimer-Snyder solution
===============================
We now extend the latter calculation to a continuous mass distribution in order to discuss the gravitational collapse of a spherical star. In contrast with the negative energy distribution of the field, the mass tensor[^3] $T^{\mu \nu }$ has the positive-energy property that its contraction $T^{\mu \nu }\eta _{\mu }\eta _{\nu }$ with any timelike covariant vector $\eta _{\mu }$ is positive. One of the few exact solutions for a Riemannian metric derived from such a mass tensor is that of Oppenheimer and Snyder[@oppsny] (OS) derived in a comoving and synchronous coordinate system, for which the only nonzero component of $T^{\mu \nu }$ is a positive $T^{00}$,$$ds^{2}=d\tau ^{2}-\left\{ \partial _{R}^{\ast }W\right\}
^{2}dR^{2}-W^{2}\left( d\theta ^{2}+\sin ^{2}\theta d\phi ^{2}\right) \quad ,$$where the operator $\partial _{R}^{\ast }$ denotes differentiation with respect to $R$ at constant $\tau $, and $$W=u\left[ \sqrt{\frac{R^{3}}{u^{3}}}-\frac{3\tau \sqrt{2m}}{2}\right]
^{2/3}\quad .$$The function $u\left( R\right) $ gives the stellar material density, and is a positive monotone increasing function for $R>0$ with $u\left( 0\right) =0$ and $u\left( \infty \right) =1$. We now choose units such that $2m=1$ and define a new coordinate $$v=\sqrt{\frac{W}{u}}=\left[ \sqrt{\frac{R^{3}}{u^{3}}}-\frac{3\tau }{2}\right] ^{1/3}\quad ,$$to replace $\tau $, so that, denoting differentiation at constant $v$ by $\partial _{R}$ , $$\partial _{\tau }=-\frac{1}{2v^{2}}\partial _{v},\quad \partial _{R}^{\ast
}=\partial _{R}+\frac{\beta }{2v^{2}}\partial _{v},\quad \beta \left(
R\right) =\left( \frac{R}{u}\right) ^{3/2}\left( \frac{1}{R}-\frac{u^{\prime
}}{u}\right) \quad ,$$and$$\partial _{R}^{\ast }W=\xi v^{2},\quad \xi =u^{\prime }+\frac{\beta u}{2v^{3}}\quad .$$Then the Riemannian interval in terms of $\left( R,v,\theta ,\phi \right) $ is$$ds^{2}=\left( \beta dR-2v^{2}dv\right) ^{2}-\xi
^{2}v^{4}dR^{2}-u^{2}v^{4}\left( d\theta ^{2}+\sin ^{2}\theta d\phi
^{2}\right) \quad , \label{osmetric}$$that is$$\begin{aligned}
g_{vv} &=&4v^{4},\quad g_{vR}=-2\beta v^{2},\quad g_{RR}=\beta ^{2}-\xi
^{2}v^{4}\quad , \notag \\
g_{\theta \theta } &=&\csc ^{2}\theta g_{\phi \phi }=-u^{2}v^{4}\quad .\end{aligned}$$The contravariant inverse of this (we are now reverting to conventional notation) is,$$\begin{aligned}
g^{RR} &=&\frac{1}{4v^{4}}-\frac{\beta ^{2}}{4\xi ^{2}v^{8}},\quad g^{vR}=-\frac{\beta }{2\xi ^{2}v^{6}},\quad g^{vv}=-\frac{1}{\xi ^{2}v^{4}}\quad ,
\notag \\
g^{\theta \theta } &=&\sin ^{2}\theta g^{\phi \phi }=-\frac{1}{u^{2}v^{4}}\quad .\end{aligned}$$The Cartesian harmonic coordinates $x^{\mu }$ are obtained, (see Ref[weinberg]{} pp165-168), as solutions of the equations $$\square _{g}x^{\mu }=0\quad \left( \mu =0,1,2,3\right) \quad , \label{harm}$$where $\square _{g}$ is the Riemannian (not to be confused with the Minkowskian (\[minkdal\])) d’Alembertian $$\square _{g}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{-g}}\partial _{\alpha }\left( g^{\alpha \beta }\sqrt{-g}\partial _{\beta }\right) \quad .$$In spherical coordinates ($t=x_{0},r=\sqrt{x_{1}^{2}+x_{2}^{2}+x_{3}^{2}}$) these reduce to two equations for what OS term the “exterior time” and “exterior radius”, namely$$Qt=0,\quad \left( Q-\frac{2\xi ^{2}}{u^{2}}\right) r=0\quad ,
\label{spherharm}$$where $Q$ $=-\xi ^{2}v^{4}\square _{g}$ and is given by$$Q=\frac{\xi }{u^{2}v^{2}}\left( \partial _{R}+\frac{\beta }{2v^{2}}\partial
_{v}\right) \frac{u^{2}v^{2}}{\xi }\left( \partial _{R}+\frac{\beta }{2v^{2}}\partial _{v}\right) -\frac{\xi }{4v^{4}}\partial _{v}v^{4}\xi \partial
_{v}\quad .$$However, in the present treatment the coordinates $\left( t,r\right) $ describe both the exterior and the interior of the star.
The free-space limit of the last Section corresponds to $u=1,\beta =\sqrt{R},\xi =\sqrt{R}/v^{3}$, for which the solutions of the latter equations are[@logmest] $\ $ $$r=v^{2}-\frac{1}{2},\quad t=\frac{2}{3}R^{3/2}-2\Psi \left( v\right) ,\quad
\Psi \left( v\right) =\int_{w_{0}}^{v}\frac{w^{4}dw}{w^{2}-1}\quad \left(
w_{0}>1\right) \quad , \label{freesol}$$and, substituted in the OS metric (\[osmetric\]), these give the harmonic version of the Schwarzschild metric, that is$$ds^{2}=\frac{2r-1}{2r+1}dt^{2}-\frac{2r+1}{2r-1}dr^{2}-\left( r+\frac{1}{2}\right) ^{2}\left( d\theta ^{2}+\sin ^{2}\theta d\phi ^{2}\right) \quad ,$$and this corresponds to the far field $\Phi ^{\mu \nu }$ we used in the previous Section. Both of the PDEs (\[spherharm\]) have a singularity along the curve $v=v_{0}\left( R\right) $, specified by$$\frac{dv_{0}}{dR}=\frac{1}{2}u^{\prime }-\frac{\beta }{2v_{0}^{3}}\left(
v_{0}-u\right) ,\quad v_{0}\left( \infty \right) =1\quad . \label{limchar}$$In our earlier article[@cosmo], we showed, for a particular choice of $u$, how to solve (\[spherharm\]) numerically by integrating along a family of characteristics, satisfying the ordinary differential equation$$\frac{dv}{dR}=\frac{1}{2}u^{\prime }-\frac{\beta }{2v^{3}}\left( v-u\right)
\quad .$$The operation of differentiation along such a characteristic is$$\partial _{R}^{C}=\partial _{R}-\left( \frac{\xi }{2}-\frac{\beta }{2v^{2}}\right) \partial _{v}\quad ,$$and the operator $Q$ may be expressed as$$Q=\left( \partial _{R}^{C}\right) ^{2}+\xi \partial _{v}\partial
_{R}^{C}+q\partial _{R}^{C}+\xi ^{2}\left( \frac{1}{u}-\frac{1}{v}\right)
\partial _{v}\quad ,$$where$$q=\frac{2u^{\prime }}{u}+\frac{u^{\prime }}{\xi }+\frac{u}{\xi }\left( \frac{5\beta ^{2}}{2v^{6}}-\frac{\beta ^{\prime }}{v^{3}}\right) \quad .$$We now define the *physical region* as $R>1,v>v_{0}\left( R\right) $; it is our contention that (\[spherharm\]) describes the whole evolution of the collapsing system, without any singularity, in this region, and the final stage of the collapse, corresponding to the limit $t\left( R,v\right)
\rightarrow +\infty $, is described by the values of $r$ and $t$ close to the limit characteristic $v=v_{0}\left( R\right) $. A necessary preliminary to a numerical study of these equations is the obtaining of asymptotic expansions, both for large $R$ and for large $v$ when $R$ is small, and this was done in our earlier article[@cosmo]. An extension of this calculation may now be made by applying these earlier results to the total energy distribution given by (\[murt\]), putting$$g_{\theta \theta }=-u^{2}v^{4}\quad ,$$and$$\begin{aligned}
g_{rr} &=&\left( 2v^{2}\frac{\partial v}{\partial r}-\beta \frac{\partial R}{\partial r}\right) ^{2}-\xi ^{2}v^{4}\left( \frac{\partial R}{\partial r}\right) ^{2} \notag \\
&=&\frac{4v^{4}}{J^{2}}\frac{\partial ^{C}t}{\partial R}\left( \frac{\partial ^{C}t}{\partial R}+\xi \frac{\partial t}{\partial v}\right) \quad ,\end{aligned}$$where$$J=\frac{\partial ^{C}t}{\partial R}\frac{\partial r}{\partial v}-\frac{\partial ^{C}r}{\partial R}\frac{\partial t}{\partial v}\quad ,$$to give$$1-\mu \left( R,v\right) =\frac{u^{4}v^{8}}{2mr^{3}}\left[ 1-\frac{2r}{J}\left\{ \frac{2}{v}\frac{\partial ^{C}t}{\partial R}-\xi \left( \frac{1}{u}-\frac{1}{v}\right) \frac{\partial t}{\partial v}\right\} -\frac{4r^{2}}{J^{2}u^{2}}\frac{\partial ^{C}t}{\partial R}\left( \frac{\partial ^{C}t}{\partial R}+\xi \frac{\partial t}{\partial v}\right) \right]$$.
It is appropriate to mention again here that $t_{H}^{\mu \nu }\left(
r,t\right) ,$ from which the quantity $\mu \left( R,v\right) $ was derived, is indeed a tensor. If, for example, we should choose to transform it back to the original OS coordinates, this would be possible, provided we bear in mind that in those coordinates the partial derivatives $\partial _{\alpha }$ and $\partial _{\beta }$ would be replaced by the Minkowski covariant derivatives $D_{\alpha }$ and $D_{\beta }$; the latter, of course, are not the same as the Riemann covariant derivatives $\nabla _{\alpha }$ and $\nabla _{\beta }$. In order to describe the actual energy distribution we need $\mu $ as a function of $\left( r,t\right) $, which requires rather complicated interpolations from $\mu \left( R,v\right) ,r\left( R,v\right) $ and $t\left( R,v\right) ,$ and we shall describe such a detailed calculation in another article. Nevertheless we venture to draw some qualitative conclusions from the results already obtained.
What we expect to find
======================
The field part of the 00-component of the energy tensor is negative, as we found in an earlier section when we examined the far field. In the deep interior of the star we expect to find that this component is substantial, and indeed bigger in absolute magnitude than $T^{00}$. Being negative, it produces, in a bootstrapping manner, its own gravitational field, *and this is repulsive*. That explains why, as we already found in our earlier article[@cosmo], the material energy $T^{00}$ is concentrated in a shell near the surface as $t\rightarrow +\infty $. The density function $u\left(
R\right) $ describes a star with an initially diffuse corona, but the formation of a distinct surface is an expected part of its evolution. As pointed out above, a substantial amount of computation is required in order to obtain a quantitative expression for the total (gravitational energy plus stellar material) mass distribution, $\mu \left( r,t\right) .$ In Figure 1 we give an artist’s impression of this profile, for fixed $t$, at a fairly advanced stage of the collapse process, when the surface shell has begun to form.
The key element in our approach, stressed also in our earlier article[cosmo]{}, is that the coordinate-free topological analysis, now common in GR, fails to acknowledge the central role of the energy tensor. We accept the Hilbert-Einstein field equations, but add a supplementary set which results in the inertial (that is harmonic) coordinate system being privileged. That means maintaining both covariance and a weak principle of equivalence, in the form of EoP, but rejecting gauge invariance. As was emphasized first by Fock, this latter “loss” means taking the “G” out of GR, leaving us, nevertheless, with a theory which Fock himself called Einstein’s Theory of Gravitation.
As far as the currently fashionable notion of “black holes” is concerned, our conclusion is that there is a limit to the degree of compactification undergone in a collapsing gravitational system, and this limit is set by the properties of the gravitational field itself rather than the presence of the other forces of nature, like neutron degenerative pressure. Relatively small “condensars” are observed as neutron stars, or pulsars, but heavier ones, like the one thought to lie at the centre of our galaxy, are more diffuse, probably of white-dwarf density. Our analysis is of an idealized, purely gravitational system, and our key finding is the limit characteristic curve, which represents the limit $t\rightarrow +\infty .$ This curve is equivalent to the “event horizon” popularly acknowledged to come out of coordinate-free GR, but for us there is *nothing* the other side of the limit characteristic. The other side of our “event horizon” lies outside the physical space; to go there is to go “to infinity and beyond” along with maybe Buzz Lightyear or Doctor Who!
[99]{} C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne and J. A. Wheeler, *Gravitation,* (Freeman, San Francisco, 1973)
A. Einstein, *Sitzungsber. preuss. Akad. Wiss.* **48,** 844-847 (1915)
A. Einstein, *Naturforsch. Gesellschaft Zurich* **58,** 284-290 (1913)
A. Einstein, *Sitzungsber. preuss. Akad. Wiss.* **1,** 154-167 (1918)
D. Kennefick,*Traveling at the Speed of Thought* (Princeton Univ Press, 2007)
R. A. Hulse and J. H. Taylor, *Astrophys. J.* **195,** L51-53 (1975)
*Report on the LIGO project,* http://www.ligo-la.caltech.edu/LLO/overviewsci.htm
A. S. Eddington, *The Mathematical Theory of Relativity,* (Cambridge Univ Press,1923)
D. Hilbert, *Goettinger Nachrichten* **4**,21 (1917)
T. de Donder,* La gravitique einsteinienne*, (Gauthier Villars, Paris, 1921)
C. Lanczos, *Phys. Z.* **23**, 537 (1923)
V. A. Fock, *Space, Time and Gravitation,* (Pergamon, Oxford,1966)
N. Rosen, *Phys. Rev.* **57,** 147-153 (1940)
S. Weinberg, *Gravitation and Cosmology* (John Wiley, New York, 1972)
A. A. Logunov and M. A. Mestvirishvili, *The Relativistic Theory of Gravitation* (Mir, Moscow, 1989)
S. V. Babak and L. P. Grishchuk, *Phys. Rev. D* **61,** 024038 (1999)
J. R. Oppenheimer and H. Snyder, *Phys.Rev.* **56,** 455-459 (1939)
L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, *Classical Theory of Fields* (Addison Wesley, Cambridge, Mass, 1951)
A. A. Logunov, *Theory of Gravity* (Nauka, Moscow, 2001)
T. W. Marshall and M. K. Wallis *J. Cosmology,* **6,** 1473-1484 (2010)
[^1]: Our derivation follows a long line of field theoretic ones, starting with Hilbert, who used the lagrangian $R\sqrt{-g}.$ The lagrangian of BG is a covariant version of one used from the years shortly after the establishing of GR (see, for example, Eddington[@Eddington] section 58).
[^2]: This expression was given in noncovariant form, that is with ordinary instead of covariant derivatives, by Landau and Lifshitz[@LL] and also by Fock[@fock], as the gravitational energy “pseudotensor”.
[^3]: We use the short name, favoured by Fock, for this tensor. Neither it nor the more usual “material stress tensor” are quite exact according to our present perspective, because the gravitational field is material and has both energy and mass.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
---
=10000
[**$\bfs{(0,2)}$ SCFTs from the Leigh-Strassler Fixed Point**]{}
[**Nikolay Bobev,${}^{(1)}$ Krzysztof Pilch,${}^{(2)}$ and Orestis Vasilakis${}^{(2)}$\
**]{} ${}^{(1)}$ Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics\
31 Caroline Street North, Waterloo, ON N2L 2Y5, Canada ${}^{(2)}$ Department of Physics and Astronomy\
University of Southern California\
Los Angeles, CA 90089, USA\
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]\
We show that there is a family of two-dimensional $(0,2)$ SCFTs associated with twisted compactifications of the four-dimensional $\mathcal{N}=1$ Leigh-Strassler fixed point on a closed hyperbolic Riemann surface. We calculate the central charges for this class of theories using anomalies and $c$-extremization. In a suitable truncation of the five-dimensional maximal supergravity, we construct supersymmetric $AdS_3$ solutions that are holographic duals of those two-dimensional $(0,2)$ SCFTs. We also exhibit supersymmetric domain wall solutions that are holographically dual to the RG flows between the four-dimensional and two-dimensional theories.
Introduction
============
It has become clear in recent years that one can engineer large classes of three- and four-dimensional superconformal field theories (SCFTs) by studying twisted compactifications of the six-dimensional $(2,0)$ theory on three-manifolds and Riemann surfaces [@Gaiotto:2009we; @Dimofte:2011ju]. The higher-dimensional theory on the one side, and the geometry of the internal manifold on the other, allow one to uncover dualities in the lower-dimensional SCFTs. In addition, one is led to various relations between correlations functions in the SCFTs and a topological field theory on the compactification manifold.
In view of this rich structure, it is natural to extend these ideas to two-dimensional SCFTs. One possible approach is to study twisted compactifications of the six-dimensional $(2,0)$ theory on four-manifolds preserving at least $(0,2)$ supersymmetry in the two remaining directions. This has been attempted in [@Benini:2013cda; @Gadde:2013sca; @Gadde:2013lxa] but, due to the small amount of supersymmetry, the complicated geometry of four-manifolds, and the limited understanding of the $(2,0)$ theory, there have been only a few quantitative results. A simpler and potentially more fruitful strategy to get a handle on $(0,2)$ SCFTs is to study twisted compactifications of four-dimensional supersymmetric theories on a Riemann surface. This idea has been explored to some extent for four-dimensional $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM in [@Bershadsky:1995vm; @Maldacena:2000mw], where some particular SCFTs with $(4,4)$ and $(2,2)$ supersymmetry were studied. Recently, there has been an extension of these constructions to theories with $(0,2)$ supersymmetry obtained either from $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM [@Benini:2013cda; @Benini:2012cz; @Almuhairi:2011ws; @Donos:2011pn], or various $\mathcal{N}=1$ theories in four dimensions [@BBC; @Kutasov:2013ffl; @Kutasov:2014hha]. The goal of this paper is to enlarge further the class of such two-dimensional $(0,2)$ SCFTs by studying a twisted compactification of the four-dimensional $\mathcal{N}=1$ Leigh-Strassler (LS) SCFT, in the following referred to as the LS fixed point, [@Leigh:1995ep].
For our purposes it will be most useful to think of the LS fixed point as a strongly coupled $\mathcal{N}=1$ SCFT obtained from $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM by an RG flow induced by turning on a mass for one of the three adjoint chiral superfields [@Leigh:1995ep]. The theory has an $U(1)$ $R$-symmetry and a $SU(2)$ flavor symmetry inherited from the $SO(6)$ $R$-symmetry of $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM. To obtain a supersymmetric two-dimensional theory we place the four-dimensional SCFT on $\mathbb{R}^{1,1}\times \Sigma_{\mathfrak{g}}$, where $\Sigma_{\mathfrak{g}}$ is a closed Riemann surface of genus $\mathfrak{g}$, and turn on a background gauge field for an Abelian subgroup of this $U(1)_R \times SU(2)_F$ global symmetry. Guided by the previous work in [@Benini:2013cda; @Bershadsky:1995vm; @Maldacena:2000mw; @Benini:2012cz; @Almuhairi:2011ws; @Donos:2011pn], we assume that the low-energy two-dimensional theory is conformal and then use the knowledge of the ’t Hooft anomalies of the LS fixed point as well as two-dimensional $c$-extremization [@Benini:2013cda; @Benini:2012cz] to calculate the left and right Virasoro central charge of the two-dimensional $(0,2)$ IR fixed point. We find that for all possible topological twists on a hyperbolic Riemann surface, the central charges are positive, which is compatible with unitary and suggests that the fixed points indeed exist. However, with only $(0,2)$ supersymmetry in two-dimensions, it is typically difficult to establish rigorously the existence of a fixed point in the IR.[^1] One way to obtain more evidence for the existence of the IR fixed points is to construct string theory or supergravity backgrounds which are holographic duals to the field theories of interest. This is one of the tools we will utilize in our work. To this end we find new supersymmetric $AdS_3 \times \Sigma_{\mathfrak{g}}$ supergravity solutions in the spirit of [@Maldacena:2000mw; @Benini:2012cz; @Benini:2013cda; @Bah:2011vv; @Bah:2012dg]. In addition, we construct numerical solutions which we interpret as holographic RG flows from an asymptotically locally $AdS_5$ solution to the $AdS_3 \times \Sigma_{\mathfrak{g}}$ vacua of interest. This shows that, at least in the regime of validity of holography, the RG flows are realized dynamically.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[Sec:FieldTheory\] we summarize the salient features of the $\mathcal{N}=1$ LS SCFT. We then put the theory on $\mathbb{R}^{1,1}\times \Sigma_{\mathfrak{g}}$, perform a partial topological twist and calculate the conformal anomaly of the resulting family of two-dimensional $(0,2)$ SCFTs. In Section \[Sec:SUGRAtrunc\] we present the truncation of five-dimensional supergravity, which we use in Section \[Sec:AdS3sol\] to construct the family of supersymmetric $AdS_3\times \Sigma_{\frak{g}}$ vacua dual to the $(0,2)$ SCFTs of interest. In Section \[Sec:HoloRG\] we construct holographic RG flows which interpolate between the gravity dual of the $\mathcal{N}=1$ LS fixed point and the supersymmetric $AdS_3\times \Sigma_{\frak{g}}$ solutions found in Section \[Sec:AdS3sol\]. In addition, we construct holographic RG flows connecting the same $AdS_3\times \Sigma_{\frak{g}}$ vacua and the maximally supersymmetric $AdS_5$ solution. We conclude in Section \[Sec:Conclusions\] with some comments and open questions. In Appendix \[appendixA\] we provide some details on the supergravity truncation used in the paper and in Appendix \[appendixB\] we discuss the correspondence between the Chern-Simons couplings in five- and three-dimensional supergravity and the anomalies for global symmetries in the dual field theory.
Field theory
============
\[Sec:FieldTheory\] It was shown in [@Benini:2012cz; @Benini:2013cda], following the earlier work [@Bershadsky:1995vm; @Maldacena:2000mw], that there is a rich family of $(0,2)$ SCFTs in two dimensions obtained by compactifying $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM on a Riemann surface and flowing to the IR. It is also well known that there is an interacting four-dimensional $\mathcal{N}=1$ SCFT, known as the LS fixed point [@Leigh:1995ep], which can be obtained by integrating out one of the three adjoint chiral superfields in $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM. The goal of this section is to provide some evidence that, when the LS fixed point is put on $\mathbb{R}^{1,1}\times \Sigma_{\mathfrak{g}}$ with a partial topological twist, the effective two-dimensional theories in the IR are a family of $(0,2)$ SCFTs similar to the ones studied in [@Benini:2012cz; @Benini:2013cda]. We will argue in favor of the existence of these fixed points using ’t Hooft anomaly matching together with $c$-extremization [@Benini:2012cz; @Benini:2013cda].
Anomalies {#subsec:ANSYM}
---------
Recall that $\cN=4$ SYM can be viewed as an $\mathcal{N}=1$ theory of a vector multiplet with gauge field $A_{\mu}$ and gaugino $\lambda$, coupled to three adjoint chiral multiplets, $\Phi_i$, each containing a complex scalar, $\phi_i$, as its lowest component and a complex fermion, $\chi_i$. The $\cN=1$ superpotential reads $$W = \Tr \Phi_1\Phi_2\Phi_3\;.$$ In this formulation only an $SU(3)\times U(1)_R^{\mathcal{N}=4}$ subgroup of the $SO(6)\simeq SU(4)$ -symmetry of the $\mathcal{N}=4$ theory is manifest. The $U(1)_R^{\mathcal{N}=4}$ is the superconformal -symmetry generated by $$\label{TRN=4}
T_R^{\mathcal{N}=4} = \frac{2}{3}\left(T_1+T_2+T_3\right)\;,$$ where the three $T_i$’s are the generators of the Cartan subalgebra of $SO(6)$ given by the three diagonal $SO(2)_i$’s. The charges of the four adjoint fermions with respect to those $SO(2)_i$’s and the resulting -charges are given in Table \[table:one\]. The -charges of the complex scalars, $\phi_i$, in the three chiral multiplets are all the same and equal to $2/3$. By evaluating the usual triangle diagrams with the chiral fermions, one finds that the cubic and linear ’t Hooft anomalies for $U(1)_R^{\mathcal{N}=4}$ are given by: $$\label{thooftn4}
\begin{split}
\mathop{\rm tr} R^3_{\mathcal{N}=4} &\eql d_{G}\,\Big [1^3-3\Big({1\over 3}\Big)^3\,\Big] = \frac{8}{9}\,d_G\;, \qquad
\mathop{\rm tr} R_{\mathcal{N}=4} \eql d_{G}\,\Big [1-3\,\Big({1\over 3}\Big)\,\Big] = 0\;,
\end{split}$$ where $d_G$ is the dimension of the gauge group ($d_G=N^2-1$ for $SU(N)$).
The superconformal -symmetry current in any $\mathcal{N}=1$ SCFT lies in the same supermultiplet as the energy-momentum tensor. This can be used to show that the conformal anomaly is simply determined in terms of ’t Hooft anomalies of the -current by the following well-known formulae for the central charges [@Anselmi:1997am; @Intriligator:2003jj; @Cassani:2013dba]: $$\label{andc}
a = \frac{9}{32} \text{tr}R^3 - \frac{3}{32} \text{tr}R\;, \qquad c = \frac{9}{32} \text{tr}R^3 - \frac{5}{32} \text{tr}R\;.$$ Using and it is then straightforward to compute the central charges in $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM $$\label{ccN=4}
a_{\mathcal{N}=4} = c_{\mathcal{N}=4} = \frac{1}{4}d_{G}\;.$$
[@ c c c c c c]{} Field & $SO(2)_1$ & $SO(2)_2$ & $SO(2)_3$ & $U(1)_R^{\cN=4}$ & $U(1)_R^{\rm LS}$\
$\lambda$ & $\phantom{-}{1\over 2}$ & $\phantom{-}{1\over 2}$ & $\phantom{-}{1\over 2}$ & $\phantom{-}1$ & $\phantom{-}1$\
$\chi_1$ & $-{1\over 2}$ & $-{1\over 2}$ & $\phantom{-}{1\over 2}$ & $-{1\over 3}$ & $\phantom{-}*$\
$\chi_2$ & $-{1\over 2}$ & $\phantom{-}{1\over 2}$ & $-{1\over 2}$ & $-{1\over 3}$ & $-{1\over 2}$\
$\chi_3$ & $\phantom{-}{1\over 2}$ & $-{1\over 2}$ & $-{1\over 2}$ & $-{1\over 3}$ & $-{1\over 2}$\
The LS fixed point [@Leigh:1995ep] is a strongly coupled $\mathcal{N}=1$ SCFT that can be thought of as the IR fixed point of an RG flow obtained by deforming $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM with a particular relevant deformation of the superpotential $$\label{LSsuperpot}
\Delta W =\frac{m}{2}\,\Tr \Phi_1^2\;.$$ Under the RG flow, the superfield $\Phi_1$ is integrated out and the IR fixed point theory has the superconformal -symmetry given by[^2] $$\label{TRLS}
T_R^{\rm LS} = \frac{1}{2}\left(T_1+T_2+2\,T_3\right)\;.$$ The charges of the three remaining fermions under this -symmetry are given in Table \[table:one\]. The charges of the two complex scalars, $\phi_{2}$ and $\phi_3$, in the two remaining adjoint chiral multiplets of the LS fixed point under $U(1)_R$ are the same and equal to $1/2$. In addition, there is an $SU(2)_F$ flavor symmetry which acts on the two chiral superfields $\Phi_{2}$ and $\Phi_3$ [@Leigh:1995ep]. This $SU(2)_F$ is the $SU(2)_{\ell}$ factor in the decomposition $SU(2)_{\ell}\times SU(2)_r\times SO(2)\simeq SO(4)\times SO(2) \subset SO(6)$.
Similarly as in the $\cN=4$ theory, one can calculate the cubic and linear ’t Hooft anomalies for $U(1)_R$: $$\mathop\text{tr}R^3_{\rm LS} = d_{G} [1^3-2(1/2)^3] = \frac{3}{4}d_G\;, \qquad \mathop\text{tr}R_{\rm LS} = d_{G} [1-2(1/2)] = 0\;,$$ and find that the central charges of the LS fixed point are $$\label{ccLS}
a_{\rm LS} = c_{\rm LS} = \frac{27}{128}d_{G}\;.$$ This yields the familiar result (see [@Freedman:1999gp; @Tachikawa:2009tt]) $$\label{ccLS2}
\frac{a_{\rm LS}}{a_{\mathcal{N}=4}} = \frac{c_{\rm LS}}{c_{\mathcal{N}=4}}= \frac{27}{32}\;.$$
${(0,2)}$ SCFTs from the LS fixed point {#subsec:LSFT}
---------------------------------------
One way to preserve some supersymmetry when a supersymmetric QFT is put on a curved manifold is to embed the structure group of the manifold into the $R$-symmetry of the QFT [@Witten:1988ze]. In other words, one has to turn on an $R$-symmetry background gauge field which cancels the spin-connection of the curved manifold. If the supersymmetric QFT at hand has additional flavor symmetry, one is also free to turn on a background gauge field for this flavor symmetry without any additional breaking of supersymmetry.
To construct the two-dimensional SCFTs of interest, we place the four-dimensional supersymmetric LS theory on $\mathbb{R}^{1,1}\times \Sigma_{\frak{g}}$ and perform a partial topological twist by turning on a background flux for the global symmetries. After integrating out all massive KK modes on $\Sigma_{\mathfrak{g}}$ we are left with an effective two-dimensional theory with $(0,2)$ supersymmetry. This is an old idea first explored in the current context in [@Bershadsky:1995vm; @Maldacena:2000mw] and subsequently generalized in many papers including [@Benini:2013cda; @Benini:2012cz; @Almuhairi:2011ws; @Naka:2002jz]. Based on these results it is natural to assume that the low-energy theory will be a $(0,2)$ SCFT. The consistency of the results below together with the holographic analysis in the subsequent sections provide strong evidence for the validity of this assumption.
The four Poincaré supercharges of $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM are in the $(\bf{2}, \bf{4})$ representation of $SO(1,3)\times SO(6)$. After the relevant deformation in is turned on, only one of these supercharges is preserved and this is the supercharge present at the $\mathcal{N}=1$ LS fixed point.[^3] The supercharge has the same charges under $U(1)_R$ and $U(1)_F$ as the gaugino $\lambda$ in Table \[table:two\]. After putting the four-dimensional theory on $\mathbb{R}^{1,1}\times \Sigma_{\frak{g}}$, in order to implement the topological twist and preserve some supersymmetry, we turn on a background gauge field along the generator $$\label{Tback}
T_{\mathfrak{b}} =\frac{\kappa}{2}\, T_R^{\rm LS} +\mathfrak{b} \,T_F \;,$$ where $$\label{TF}
T_{F} = \frac{1}{2}(T_1-T_2)\;,$$ is the Cartan generator of the $SU(2)_F$ flavor symmetry. The constant, $\kappa$, in is the normalized curvature of the Riemann surface, with $\kappa=1$ for $\mathfrak{g}=0$, $\kappa=0$ for $\mathfrak{g}=1$, $\kappa=-1$ for $\mathfrak{g}>1$. The coefficient $\mathfrak{b}$ is real and, since it measures the flux through a compact Riemann surface, it is quantized as $2(\mathfrak{g}-1)\mathfrak{b} \in \mathbb{Z}$ for $\mathfrak{g}\neq 1$ and $\mathfrak{b} \in \mathbb{Z}$ for $\mathfrak{g}= 1$.
[@ c c c r r]{} Field & $U(1)_R^{\rm LS}$ & $U(1)_F$ & $U(1)_\mathfrak{b}$ & $U(1)_{\text{tr}}$\
$\lambda$ & $\phantom{-}1$ & $\phantom{-}0$ & ${\kappa\over 2}$ & $1$\
$\chi_2$ & $-{1\over 2}$ & $-{1\over 2}$ & $-{\kappa\over 4}-{\mathfrak{b}\over 2}$ & $-{1\over 2}-{\epsilon\over 2}$\
$\chi_3$ & $-{1\over 2}$ & $\phantom{-}{1\over 2}$ & $-{\kappa\over 4}+{\mathfrak{b}\over 2}$ & $-{1\over 2}+{\epsilon\over 2}$\
An analysis similar to the one in Appendix E of [@Benini:2013cda] shows that for $\mathfrak{g}\neq 1$ and any value of $\frak{b}$ there is $(0,2)$ supersymmetry preserved in the two-dimensional theory. When $\mathfrak{g}=1$ the discussion is slightly different. For $\mathfrak{g}=1$ and $\frak{b}=0$ there is $(2,2)$ supersymmetry preserved in two dimensions since the torus is flat. However, for $\mathfrak{g}=1$ and $\frak{b}\neq 0$, only two supercharges are preserved and one has $(0,2)$ supersymmetry [@Almuhairi:2011ws; @Benini:2013cda; @Kutasov:2013ffl]. Finally, one can preserve more supersymmetry in two-dimensions if the relevant deformation in is switched off and one is left with a topological twist of the $\mathcal{N}=4$ theory. This was explored in detail in [@Benini:2013cda; @Benini:2012cz].
We assume that in the IR the effective two-dimensional theory is conformal. Since it preserves $(0,2)$ supersymmetry, we can leverage anomalies to calculate the left and right central charges. The calculation proceeds as in [@Benini:2013cda]. The two-dimensional theory has two Abelian global symmetries: the $R$-symmetry of the LS fixed point given by the generator as well as the $U(1)_F$ subgroup of the $SU(2)_F$ flavor symmetry with the generator . The charges of the fermions under these two Abelian symmetries are given in Table \[table:two\]. The background gauge field is along the generator and has flux proportional to the volume form of the Riemann surface.
The two-dimensional superconformal $R$-symmetry is some linear combination of the Abelian global symmetries of the four-dimensional LS theory $$\label{Ttr}
T_{\rm tr} = \epsilon~ T_F + T_R^{}\;.$$ The real parameter $\epsilon$ is yet undetermined and will be fixed by applying the $c$-extremization procedure [@Benini:2012cz; @Benini:2013cda].[^4] To this end we have to calculate the right-moving trial central charge, $c_r^{\rm tr}(\epsilon)$.
The global symmetries of the two-dimensional theory are anomalous since there are massless chiral fermions. The number of these fermions is computed by the index theorem as in [@Maldacena:2000mw; @Benini:2012cz; @Benini:2013cda] $$\label{nrnldef}
n_r^{(\sigma)}-n_{\ell}^{(\sigma)} = -t_{\frak{b}}^{(\sigma)}\eta_{\Sigma}\;, \qquad \sigma=\lambda, \chi_2, \chi_3 \;,$$ where $\eta_{\Sigma}=2|\mathfrak{g}-1|$ for $\mathfrak{g}\neq1$, $\eta_{\Sigma} =1$ for $\mathfrak{g}=1$, and $t_{\frak b}^{(\sigma)}$ is the charge of each of the three species of four-dimensional fermion fields under the background gauge field . The values of $t_{\frak{b}}^{(\sigma)}$ are given in Table \[table:two\].
The two-dimensional (right-moving) trial central charge is computed using the fact that in two-dimensional $(0,2)$ SCFTs the conformal anomaly is proportional to the quadratic ’t Hooft anomaly of the unique superconformal $U(1)$ $R$-symmetry [@AlvarezGaume:1983ig] $$\label{ctr1}\begin{split}
c_{r}^{\text{tr}} &= 3 \,d_{G}\ds\sum_{\sigma}(n_r^{(\sigma)}-n_{\ell}^{(\sigma)}) (q_{\rm tr}^{(\sigma)})^2\\ & = -3 \,\eta_{\Sigma}\, d_{G} \left[ t_{\frak{b}}^{(\lambda)}(q_{\rm tr}^{(\lambda)})^2 +t_{\frak{b}}^{(\chi_2)}(q_{\rm tr}^{(\chi_2)})^2 + t_{\frak{b}}^{(\chi_3)}(q_{\rm tr}^{(\chi_3)})^2 \right]\;,
\end{split}$$ where $d_{G}$ is the dimension of the gauge group and $q_{\rm tr}^{(\sigma)}$ are the charges of the four-dimensional fermions under the trial $R$-symmetry given in Table \[table:two\]. Plugging these charges in , we find $$\label{ctr2}
c_{r}^{\text{tr}}(\epsilon,\frak b) = \frac{3}{8}\, \eta_{\Sigma}\, d_{G}\,(3-\epsilon^2+4\,\mathfrak{b}\,\epsilon)\;.$$ Next, we extremize $c_{r}^{\text{tr}}(\epsilon,\frak b)$ with respect to $\epsilon$, which gives $$\epsilon=2\mathfrak{b}\;,$$ so that the two-dimensional right-moving central charge is $$\label{cc2db}
c_{r}(\frak b) = \frac{3}{8}\,\eta_{\Sigma}\,d_G\, (3+ 4 \mathfrak{b}^2)\;.$$ The central charge in is always positive and this suggests that, for fixed $G$ and $\mathfrak{g}$, there is a one-parameter family of two-dimensional $(0,2)$ SCFTs obtained by compactifying the LS fixed point on $\Sigma_{\mathfrak{g}}$ and turning on a flavor flux for the $U(1)_F$ flavor symmetry with magnitude $\mathfrak{b}$. For $\mathfrak{b}=0$ there is no flavor flux and one has $$\label{c2db=0}
c_{r}({ \mathfrak{b}=0}) = \frac{9}{8}\,\eta_{\Sigma}\,d_G = \frac{16}{3}\,\eta_{\Sigma} \,a_{\rm LS}\;.$$ This is the universal two-dimensional $(0,2)$ fixed point that one can find for any four-dimensional $\mathcal{N}=1$ SCFT compactified on $\Sigma_{\mathfrak{g}}$ [@Benini:2013cda; @BBC]. Since the flavor flux vanishes, this theory has an enhanced global symmetry given by $U(1)_R\times SU(2)_F$. For general values of the flavor flux $\mathfrak{b}$, the two-dimensional IR SCFTs have only $U(1)_R\times U(1)_F$ global symmetry.
One can also show that the family of two-dimensional SCFTs does not have a gravitational anomaly by evaluating the difference between the left and right central charges [@AlvarezGaume:1983ig] $$\label{crmincl}
c_{r}-c_{l} = d_{G}\ds\sum_{\sigma}\big(n_r^{(\sigma)}-n_{\ell}^{(\sigma)}\big) = 0\;.$$ This result can be traced back to the fact that the LS fixed point has no linear ’t Hooft anomaly for the superconformal $R$-symmetry, i.e. $a_{\rm{LS}}=c_{\rm{LS}}$ in .
The central charge, $c_r(\frak b)$, given by is positive for any value of the flux parameter, $\mathfrak{b}$, and the genus of the Riemann surface, $\mathfrak{g}$. This means that unitarity is not violated and naively suggests that for any choice of these parameters there is a two-dimensional CFT in the IR. We will discuss this further in Section \[Sec:AdS3sol\].
$(0,2)$ SCFTs from $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM {#subsec:N=4flowsFT}
--------------------------------------
There is a natural generalization of the foregoing discussion, which suggests that the $(0,2)$ SCFTs in Section \[subsec:LSFT\] can also be accessed by a family of RG flows in $\cN=4$ SYM. The idea is to turn on simultaneously two relevant deformations of $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM: the mass deformation and a twisted compactification along $\Sigma_\fg$.
Since the mass deformation breaks the $R$-symmetry of $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM from $SO(6)$ to $U(1)_R\times SU(2)_F$ and preserves $\cN=1$ supersymmetry, a simultaneous partial topological twist, with the background gauge field in this unbroken global symmetry subgroup, will result in a two-dimensional $(0,2)$ supersymmetric theory in the IR. Assuming that the theory is superconformal, one can proceed as in Section \[subsec:LSFT\] to calculate its central charge. We parametrize the background flux as in $\eqref{Tback}$ and observe that, with no other Abelian global symmetries available, the trial $R$-symmetry is the same as in . We can also use the formula for the zero modes, except that we must now include the fermions $\chi_1$ in the calculation. This leads to the following trial central charge $$\label{ctr1N4}
\begin{split}
c_{r}^{\text{tr}} &= -3 \,\eta_{\Sigma} \,d_{G} \left[ t_{\frak{b}}^{(\lambda)}(q_{\rm tr}^{(\lambda)})^2 +t_{\frak{b}}^{(\chi_1)}(q_{\rm tr}^{(\chi_1)})^2+t_{\frak{b}}^{(\chi_2)} (q_{\rm tr}^{(\chi_2)})^2 + t_{\frak{b}}^{(\chi_3)}(q_{\rm tr}^{(\chi_3)})^2 \right] \\[6 pt]
&= \frac{3}{8} \,\eta_{\Sigma} \,d_{G}\,(3-\epsilon^2+4\mathfrak{b}\epsilon)\;.
\end{split}$$ This expression for $c_{r}^{\text{tr}}$ is the same as for the simple reason that the fermions $\chi_1$ have vanishing charges under $T_F$ and $T_R $. Then $t_{\frak{b}}^{(\chi_1)}=0$ and thus reduces to . One can now extremize $c_{r}^{\text{tr}}$ as a function of $\epsilon$ to find that the right-moving central charge is given by and the resulting $(0,2)$ SCFTs are the same as in Section \[subsec:LSFT\].
However, there is also a new feature of these RG flows not present in Section \[subsec:LSFT\]. For a fixed value of the flavor flux $\mathfrak{b}$, the trajectory of the RG flow from $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM may not be unique given that now one has two scales with which to deform, namely, the mass $m$ and the volume of the Riemann surface. Thus, for a given value of $\frak b$, there should be a one parameter family of RG flow trajectories which connect $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM with the corresponding two-dimensional $(0,2)$ SCFT. In contrast, the RG flow trajectory from the LS fixed point to the same SCFT should be unique. We will see how this expectation bears out in Section \[Sec:HoloRG\], where we construct explicitly the holographic duals of those RG flows in gauged supergravity.
We would like to emphasize that the RG flows from $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM obtained by a twisted compactification and a simultaneous mass deformation are different from the RG flows studied in [@Benini:2012cz; @Benini:2013cda] where the $\mathcal{N}=4$ theory is deformed *only* by a twisted compactification with no mass deformation. Then the effective two-dimensional $(0,2)$ SCFT has a $U(1)^3$ global symmetry (the Cartan of $SO(6)$) and in the $c$-extremization calculation one must take an arbitrary linear combination of *all* three $U(1)$ symmetries. In contrast, in the presence of the mass deformation , we have only $U(1)^2$ global symmetry (the Cartan of $U(1)_R\times SU(2)_F $) in the effective two-dimensional theory. This modifies the $c$-extremization calculation and the resulting central charge. The difference between the two deformations is most clearly visible by simply plugging the values of the background fluxes given in into the formula for the central charge in equation (3.12) of [@Benini:2013cda]. This does not reproduce the correct result in above.
The supergravity model and BPS equations
========================================
\[Sec:SUGRAtrunc\] Our goal now is to find a dual gravity description of the SCFTs and RG flows discussed in Section \[Sec:FieldTheory\]. In this section we identify a suitable truncation of $\cN=8$, $d=5$ gauged supergravity [@PPvN; @Gunaydin:1984qu; @Gunaydin:1985cu] and derive the corresponding BPS equations.
The truncation
--------------
By the AdS/CFT correspondence, the $SO(6)$ gauge symmetry of $\cN=8$, $d=5$ gauged supergravity can be identified with the $R$-symmetry of $\cN=4$ SYM. We are interested in a truncation of this theory which is invariant under $U(1)_R\times U(1)_F\subset SO(6)$, where $U(1)_R$ is the $R$-symmetry of the LS fixed point and $U(1)_F\subset SU(2)_\ell$ is the flavor symmetry . The bosonic fields of $\cN=8$, $d=5$ gauged supergravity invariant under this subgroup of $SO(6)$ are: the metric, $g_{\mu\nu}$, three vector fields, $A^{(i)}$, $i=1,2,3$, gauging the $SO(2)_1\times SO(2)_2\times SO(2)_3$ subgroup in $ SO(6)$, and six scalar fields parametrizing the coset $$\label{slcosetM}
\mathcal{M} = O(1,1)\times O(1,1) \times \dfrac{SU(2,1)}{SU(2)\times U(1)}\,.$$ Details of this truncation are discussed in Appendix \[appendixA\]. Here let us note that the scalar fields, $\alpha$ and $\beta$, parametrizing the first two factors in , come from the scalars in $\bf{20}'$ of $SO(6)$ and are dual to the bosonic bilinear operators $$\label{N=4ops}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{O}_{\alpha} &= {\rm Tr}\big(2\,|\phi_1|^2-|\phi_2|^2 - |\phi_3|^2\big)\;, \\[6 pt]
\mathcal{O}_{\beta} &= {\rm Tr}\big(\,|\phi_2|^2 - |\phi_3|^2\,\big)\;,
\end{split}$$ where $\phi_a$ are the three complex adjoint scalars of $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM.[^5] The last factor in is parametrized by the complex scalar $\chi e^{i\theta}$ in the $\bf 10\oplus\overline{10}$ of $SO(6)$, plus the dilaton and axion dual to the complexified gauge coupling of $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM. For the solutions we are interested in, one can consistently turn off the dilaton and axion and set the phase $\theta$ to be constant. This leaves only one real scalar, $\chi$, in the third factor in , which is dual to the fermion bilinear $$\label{Ochi}
\mathcal{O}_{\chi} = {\rm Tr} (\chi_1\chi_1 + {\rm h.c.})\;,$$ where, as in Section \[subsec:ANSYM\], $\chi_a$ are the adjoint Weyl fermions in the three chiral super fields.
The bosonic part of the action in this sector is derived in Appendix \[appendixA\]. For the trivial dilaton/axion, it reads[^6] $$\label{CCaction}
\begin{split}
e^{-1}\cals L& \eql -{1\over 4} R -{1\over 4}\Big[e^{4(\alpha-\beta)}\,F^{(1)}_{\mu\nu}F^{(1)}{}^{\mu\nu}+e^{4(\alpha+\beta)} F^{(2)}_{\mu\nu}F^{(2)}{}^{\mu\nu}+e^{-8\alpha}F^{(3)}_{\mu\nu}F^{(3)}{}^{\mu\nu}\Big]
\\[5pt] & +3(\partial_\mu\alpha)^2+(\partial_\mu\beta)^2+{1\over 2}(\partial_\mu\chi)^2+{1\over 8}\sinh^2(2\chi)\Big[\partial_\mu\theta+{g}\,(A^{(1)}+A^{(2)}-A^{(3)})\Big]^2 -g^2\,\cals P\,,
\end{split}$$ with the scalar potential $$\label{CCpotential}
\begin{split}
\cals P\eql {1\over 8}e^{-4(\alpha+\beta)}\cosh^2\chi\Big[
\big(1+e^{8\beta}+e^{4(3\alpha+\beta)}\big)\cosh^2\chi-\big(1+e^{4\beta}+e^{2(3\alpha+\beta)}\big)^2
\Big]\,.
\end{split}$$ As in similar supersymmetric truncations (see, e.g. [@Freedman:1999gp; @Bobev:2010de]), the potential can be rewritten as $$\mathcal{P} =\frac{1}{48} \left(\partial_{\alpha}\mathcal{W}\right)^2 + \frac{1}{16} \left(\partial_{\beta}\mathcal{W}\right)^2 + \frac{1}{8} \left(\partial_{\chi}\mathcal{W}\right)^2- \frac{1}{3}\mathcal{W}^2\;,$$ where $$\label{suppot5d}
\cals W\eql \frac{1}{4} e^{-2 (\alpha +\beta )} \left(e^{6 \alpha +2 \beta } (\cosh (2 \chi )-3)-2 \left(e^{4 \beta
}+1\right) \cosh ^2(\chi )\right)\,,$$ is the superpotential determined by the supersymmetry variations, see Section \[BPSeqs\].
The potential, $\cP$, has three critical points [@Khavaev:1998fb] and those give rise to three $AdS_5$ vacua in this truncation:
- The maximally supersymmetric critical point with $SO(6)$ global symmetry: $$\label{SO6fp}
\alpha =\beta=\chi=0\;, \qquad \mathcal{P} = -\frac{3}{4}\;, \qquad L = \frac{2}{g}\;.$$
- The $\mathcal{N}=2$ critical point with $SU(2) \times U(1)$ global symmetry: $$\label{PWfp}
\alpha = \frac{1}{6}\log 2\;, \qquad \beta=0\;, \qquad \chi=\pm \frac{1}{2}\log 3\;, \qquad \mathcal{P} = -\frac{2^{4/3}}{3}\;, \qquad L = \frac{3}{2^{2/3}g}\;.$$
- The non-supersymmetric $SU(3)$-invariant critical point: $$\label{SU3fp}
\alpha =0\;, \qquad \beta=0\;, \qquad \chi= \frac{1}{2}\log (2\pm \sqrt{3})\;, \qquad \mathcal{P} = -\frac{27}{32}\;, \qquad L = \frac{2^{5/2}}{3g}\;.$$
The $AdS_5$ radius, $L$, is related to the critical value, $\cals P_*$, of the potential by $$\label{}
L^2\eql -{3\over g^2\,\cals P_*}\,.$$ Both supersymmetric points (i) and (ii) are also critical points of the superpotential and are perturbatively stable. The $SU(3)$-invariant critical point is stable within the truncation, but is perturbatively unstable in the full $\cN=8$ theory.
In the following we will concentrate on the supersymmetric $SU(2) \times U(1)$-invariant critical point (ii), from now on referred to as the KPW point, which is the holographic dual of the $\mathcal{N}=1$ LS SCFT [@Freedman:1999gp; @Khavaev:1998fb; @Karch:1999pv]. In particular, within the truncation , we will be interested in constructing supersymmetric flows that, in a certain sense,[^7] interpolate between this point and supersymmetric solutions of the form $AdS_3\times \Sigma_\mathfrak{g}$.
It might be worth pointing out that the five-dimensional theory used in [@Maldacena:2000mw; @Benini:2012cz; @Benini:2013cda] to find similar supersymmetric flows from the maximally supersymmetric $SO(6)$ point to $AdS_3\times \Sigma_\mathfrak{g}$ solutions is a truncation of obtained by setting $\chi=\theta=0$. This truncation is usually called the STU model of five-dimensional gauged supergravity [@Cvetic:1999xp].
The Ansatz
----------
We will assume from now on that the metric on the Riemann surface, $\Sigma_{\frak g}$, has the constant curvature. This is justified if we extrapolate the result in [@Anderson:2011cz], where it was shown that the holographic RG flow uniformizes the metric on a Riemann surface for the supergravity truncation with $\chi=0$. We have checked that for $\mathfrak{g}=0,1$ there are no supersymmetric $AdS_3\times \Sigma_\mathfrak{g}$ solutions and, to simplify the presentation, we will assume from now on that $\frak g>1$. The Riemann surface $\Sigma_{\mathfrak{g}}$ can then be represented as a quotient of the upper half plane with the metric, $$\label{}
ds^2_{\mathbb{H}_2}\eql {1\over y^2}\left({dx^2+dy^2}\right)\,,$$ by a discrete subgroup of $PSL(2,\RR)$. This makes our choice of a constant curvature metric manifest.
To find the supergravity solutions dual to the SCFTs in Section \[Sec:FieldTheory\], we employ the same Ansatz as in [@Maldacena:2000mw; @Benini:2012cz; @Benini:2013cda], where the metric is of the form $$\label{}
ds^2 = e^{2f(r)}(dt^2-dz^2-dr^2)-{e^{2h(r)}\over y^2}(dx^2+dy^2)\,,$$ with two undetermined functions, $f(r)$ and $h(r)$, of the radial coordinate, $r$. This metric Ansatz encompasses two types of solutions we are interested in: (i) asymptotically locally $AdS_5$ solutions[^8] with $\mathbb{R}^{1,1}\times \Sigma_{\frak{g}}$ boundary and $f(r)\sim h(r)\sim-\log r$ diverging at the same rate for $r\rightarrow 0$, and (ii) $AdS_3\times \Sigma_\mathfrak{g}$ solutions with constant $h(r)$ and divergent $f(r)\sim -\log r$ for $r\rightarrow\infty $. When needed, we adopt the obvious choice of frames $$\label{framedef}
e^{0} = e^{f(r)}dt\;, \qquad e^{1} = e^{f(r)}dz\;, \qquad e^{2} = e^{f(r)}dr\;, \qquad e^{3} = \frac{e^{h(r)}}{y}dx\;, \qquad e^{4} = \frac{e^{h(r)}}{y}dy\;.$$ The topological twist in the dual field theory implies that the flux of the gauge field on the gravity side must be proportional to the volume of the Riemann surface, $$\label{theflux}
F^{(i)}~\equiv~ dA^{(i)}\eql a_i\,{\rm vol}_{\Sigma_{\mathfrak g}}\,,\qquad {\rm vol}_{\Sigma_{\mathfrak g}}\eql {1\over y^2}\,dx\wedge dy \,,\qquad i=1,2,3\,,$$ where $a_i$ are arbitrary constants. Correspondingly, we take the gauge field potentials to be $$\label{}
A^{(i)}\eql {a_i\over y}\,dx\,,\qquad i=1,2,3\,.$$ Finally, the scalar fields, $\alpha(r)$, $\beta(r)$, $\chi(r)$ and $\theta(r)$, depend only on the radial coordinate.
With this Ansatz at hand one can derive a system of BPS equations directly from the supersymmetry variations of the $\mathcal{N}=8$, $d=5$ supergravity. In the next section we outline the calculation and summarize the results.
The BPS equations {#BPSeqs}
-----------------
The supersymmetry variations of $\cN=8$, $d=5$ gauged supergravity read:[^9] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{var32}
\delta\psi_{\mu\,a} & \eql D_\mu\epsilon_a-{1\over 6}\,g\,W_{ab}\gamma_\mu\epsilon^b-{1\over 6}\,H_{\nu\rho\,ab}(\gamma^{\nu\rho}\gamma_\mu+2\gamma^\nu\delta^\rho{}_\mu)\, \epsilon^b\,,\\[6 pt]
\delta\chi_{abc} & \eql \sqrt 2\Big[\gamma^\mu P_{\mu\,abcd}\,\epsilon^d-{1\over 2}\,g A_{dabc}\,\epsilon^d-{3\over 4}\,\gamma^{\mu\nu} H_{\mu\nu[ab}\,\epsilon_{c]|}\Big]\,.
\label{var12}\end{aligned}$$ Under $U(1)_R\times U(1)_F$, the eight gravitini, $\psi^a$, and the supersymmetry parameters, $\epsilon^a$, transform with the charges $$\label{branch8}
\bfs 8\quad \longrightarrow \quad (0,0)+(0,0)+(1,0)+(-1,0)+(\coeff 1 2,\coeff 1 2)+(-\coeff 1 2,-\coeff 1 2)+(\coeff 1 2,-\coeff 1 2)+(-\coeff 1 2, \coeff 1 2)\,.$$ In the following, we are interested in the sector where the gravitini and the corresponding supersymmetries have the unit $R$-charge and are invariant under the flavor symmetry. Those supersymmetry parameters are given by (see (3.1) in [@Khavaev:2000gb] and (3.36) in [@Bobev:2010de]), $$\label{susypar}
\epsilon^a\eql \varepsilon_{(1)}\,\eta^a_{(1)}+\varepsilon_{(2)}\,\eta^a_{(2)}\,,\qquad \epsilon_a\eql \Omega_{ab}\,\epsilon^b\,,$$ where $\varepsilon_{(1)}$ and $\varepsilon_{(2)}$ are a symplectic pair of five-dimensional spinors, $\Omega_{ab}$ is an $8\times 8$ symplectic matrix, and $$\label{}
\eta_{(1)}\eql (1,\, 0,-1,\, 0,\, 0,\, 1,\, 0,\, 1)
\,,\qquad
\eta_{(2)}\eql (0,\, 1,\, 0,\, 1,-1,\, 0,\, 1,\, 0)\,.$$ In this two-dimensional subspace we have, $$\label{}
\Omega_{ab}\,\eta^b_{(i)}\eql \omega_{ij}\eta^a_{(j)}\,,\qquad
W_{ab}\,\eta^b_{(i)}\eql \cals W\,\eta^a_{(i)}\,,$$ where $\cals W$ is the superpotential and we have defined $\omega_{12}=-\omega_{21}=1$, $\omega_{11}=\omega_{22}=0$.
We start with the spin-3/2 variations with $\epsilon^a$ in . The $r$-dependence of the Killing spinors for the unbroken supersymmetries is determined by the vanishing of the spin-3/2 variation along the radial direction, $$\label{varr}
\partial_r\varepsilon_{(i)}+{1\over 6}\,e^{f-2h} \,\cals H\,\gamma^{234}\varepsilon_{(i)}+\omega_{ij}
\Big({g\over 6}\,\,e^f \,\cals W\,
\gamma^2+{1\over 2}\,\sinh^2\chi\,\theta'
\Big)\varepsilon_{(j)}\eql 0\,,$$ where the prime denotes a derivative with respect to $r$. Then, assuming that the Killing spinors do not depend on the $t$, $z$, $x$ and $y$ coordinates, the remaining variations reduce to three algebraic constraints on $\varepsilon_{(1)}$ and $\varepsilon_{(2)}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vartx}
\big(3\,e^{-f}f'\,\gamma^2 - e^{-2h}\,\cals H\,\gamma^{34}\big)\,\varepsilon_{(i)} -{g}\,\omega_{ij}\,\cals W\, \varepsilon_{(j)} & \eql 0\,,\\[6 pt]
\label{varxy}
(3\,e^{-f}h'\,\gamma^2 +2\,e^{-2h}\,\cals H\,\gamma^{34}\big)\,\varepsilon_{(i)}-g\,\omega_{ij}\,\cals W\,\varepsilon_{(j)}& \eql 0\,,\\[6 pt]
\label{varxydef}
2\, \gamma^4\,\varepsilon_{(i)}-{g }\,\omega_{ij}\, \, \Lambda\, \gamma^3\varepsilon_{(j)}& \eql 0\,.\end{aligned}$$ Here and above, we have defined $$\label{}
\begin{split}
\cals H & \eql e^{2\alpha-2\beta}a_1+e^{2\alpha+2\beta}a_2+e^{-4\alpha} a_3 \,,\\[6 pt]
\Lambda & \eql a_1+a_2+3 a_3+(a_1+a_2-a_3)\cosh 2\chi\,.
\end{split}$$ The first equation, , arises from the variations along $\mathbb{R}^{1,1}$, while the remaining two, and , from the variations along the Riemann surface. The function $\cals H$ in , and is the eigenvalue of the $H_{ab}$ tensor in and its dependence on $a_i$’s comes from the field strengths, $F^{(i)}$. The $\Lambda$-term in comes from the composite connection in the covariant derivative in and its dependence on $a_i$ is due to the gauge potentials, $A^{(i)}$.
To solve the algebraic equations - we impose projection conditions on the Killing spinors, $$\label{projc}
\gamma^{34}\varepsilon_{(i)}\eql - \omega_{ij}\varepsilon_{(j)}\,,\qquad \gamma^2\varepsilon_{(i)}\eql \omega_{ij}\varepsilon_{(j)}\,,$$ which are unique up to a choice of signs on the right hand side, with different choices leading to equivalent BPS equations. Note that by combining the two projectors in and using that $\gamma^0\gamma^1\gamma^2\gamma^3\gamma^4 = 1$ one finds $$\label{}
\gamma^{01}\varepsilon_{(i)}\eql \varepsilon_{(i)}\,,$$ which shows that the two-dimensional holographic field theory indeed has $(0,2)$ supersymmetry.
Using in we then get $$\label{acond}
a_1+a_2+3 a_3+(a_1+a_2-a_3)\cosh 2\chi \eql {2\over g}\,.$$ Since $a_i$ are constant, supersymmetric flows with a varying field, $\chi$, must satisfy[^10] $$\label{aconstr}
a_3=a_1+a_2\;, \qquad a_1+a_2 = \dfrac{1}{2g}\;.$$ It is convenient to solve the second constraint in by introducing a single parameter, $\mathfrak a$, $$\label{a1a2a}
a_1 \eql {1\over g}\Big({1\over 4}+\mathfrak a\Big)\,, \qquad a_2 \eql {1\over g}\Big({1\over 4}-\mathfrak a\Big)\,.$$ Note that is tantamount to the topological twist along the Riemann surface. Indeed, it implies a cancellation, in the covariant derivative in , between the terms with the spin connection along the Riemann surface and the vector potential terms from the composite connection. This is also a supergravity manifestation of the fact that in order to preserve some supersymmetry we need to turn on a specific background gauge field for the $R$-symmetry. Indeed, , and imply that $$\label{sugraR}
F^{(i)}\,T_i\eql \Big({1\over 2g}\,T_R+{2\mathfrak a\over g}\,T_F\Big)\,{\rm vol}_{\Sigma_{\mathfrak g}}\,,$$ with a fixed component along $T_R$. This matches the field theory flux for $\kappa=-1$ provided we identify $\frak{b}= - 2\frak{a}$ and set $g=2$.[^11] Using we find that $a_i$ must be quantized such that $4(\frak{g}-1)a_i \in \mathbb{Z}$. After using and this is compatible with the quantization condition $2(\frak{g}-1)\frak{b} \in \mathbb{Z}$ discussed below .
Finally, using in and , we obtain the following flow equations for the metric functions $$\label{BPSfh}
\begin{split}
f' & \eql {g\over 3}\Big( e^f \,\cals W-{1\over g }e^{f-2h}\,\cals H\Big)\,,\qquad
h' \eql {g\over 3}\Big( e^f \, \cals W+{2\over g }e^{f-2h}\,\cals H\Big)\,.
\end{split}$$
The spin-1/2 variations simplify dramatically after using the projections and the vector field constraints . All variations reduce to three first order flow equations for the three scalars, $$\label{BPSabc}
\begin{split}
\alpha' &\eql -{g\over 12}\,{\partial \over\partial\alpha}\Big( e^f\, \cals W+{1\over g }e^{f-2h}\, \cals H\Big)\,,\\[6 pt]
\beta' & \eql -{g\over 4}\,{\partial \over\partial\beta}\Big( e^f\, \cals W+{1\over g }e^{f-2h}\, \cals H\Big)\,,\\[6 pt]
\chi' & \eql -{g\over 2}\,{\partial \over\partial\chi}\Big( e^f\, \cals W+{1\over g }e^{f-2h}\, \cals H\Big)\,,
\end{split}$$ and set $\theta$ to be constant. Note that the BPS equations and are symmetric under $\frak{a}\rightarrow - \frak{a}$ and $\beta\rightarrow -\beta$.
The flow equations and allow for an explicit solution to , $$\label{}
\varepsilon_{(i)}\eql e^{f/2}\,\varepsilon_{(i)}^0\,,\qquad i=1,2\,,$$ where $\varepsilon_{(i)}^0$ are two constant spinors satisfying the same projections as in .
This completes our analysis of the supersymmetry variations and . One can check that the BPS equations and imply that the equations of motion are satisfied. In order to classify supersymmetric $AdS_3\times \Sigma_{\mathfrak g}$ solutions in the next section, and to construct holographic RG flows in Section \[Sec:HoloRG\], it will be sufficient to consider the first order ODEs and .
$AdS_3\times \Sigma_{\frak{g}}$ solutions
=========================================
\[Sec:AdS3sol\] To find $AdS_3\times \Sigma_{\frak{g}}$ solutions of the BPS equations and , we take constant scalars and set $$f(r) = f_0 + \log \frac{1}{r}\;, \qquad h(r) = h_0\;,$$ where $f_0$ and $h_0$ are constants. This turns and into algebraic equations that can be solved systematically. The result is that all $AdS_3\times \Sigma_{\frak{}g}$ solutions of the BPS equations with $|\frak a|<1/4$ are given by $$\label{AdS3sol}
\begin{gathered}
e^{12\alpha} = \frac{4}{1-16\mathfrak{a}^2}\;, \qquad e^{4\beta} = \frac{1-4\mathfrak{a}}{1+4\mathfrak{a}}\;, \qquad e^{\chi} = \frac{2+\sqrt{1-16\mathfrak{a}^2}}{\sqrt{3+16\mathfrak{a}^2}}\;, \\[6 pt]
e^{3f_0} = \frac{2}{g^3} (1-16\mathfrak{a}^2)\;, \qquad e^{6h_0} = \frac{1}{16 g^6} \frac{(3+16\mathfrak{a}^2)^3}{1-16 \mathfrak{a}^2} \;.
\end{gathered}$$ With the $AdS_3\times \Sigma_{\frak{g}}$ solutions at hand, we can now calculate the central charge in the dual field theory using the Brown-Henneaux formula [@Brown:1986nw], $$\label{BHform}
c = \frac{3L^{(3)}}{2G_{N}^{(3)}}\;,$$ where $L^{(3)}$ is the effective scale of $AdS_3$ and $G_{N}^{(3)}$ is the three-dimensional Newton constant. After setting $g=2$, so that we have the same normalization and conventions as in [@Benini:2012cz; @Benini:2013cda; @Maldacena:2000mw], we find that the central charges of field theories dual to the $AdS_3\times \Sigma_{\frak g}$ solutions are $$\label{ccsugra}
c = 6 \,\eta_{\Sigma }\,N^2 e^{f_0+2h_0} = \frac{6}{2 g^3}\, \eta_{\Sigma}\, N^2 (3+16 \mathfrak{a}^2) = \frac{3}{8}\, \eta_{\Sigma}\, N^2 (3+16 \mathfrak{a}^2)\;.$$ Upon the identification $\mathfrak{b}=-2\mathfrak{a}$, this precisely reproduces the field theory result for $G=SU(N)$ and $N \gg 1$.
The solution with $\mathfrak{a}=0$ is somewhat special. From we see that it has $\beta=0$ and, since $a_1-a_2$ vanishes, there is no flux for the gauge field along the generator $T_F$ in . This means that the $SU(2)$ gauge symmetry is not broken, which is in harmony with the fact that in field theory we have an enhanced $SU(2)_F$ global symmetry precisely for $\mathfrak{b}=0$. As will be discussed in the next section, the BPS equations with $\mathfrak{a}=0$ admit an analytic solution which interpolates between the KPW point and the $AdS_3\times \Sigma_{\frak g}$ vacuum in .
When $\mathfrak{a}=\pm 1/4$, the supersymmetric $AdS_3\times \Sigma_{\frak{g}}$ solutions cease to exist and one of the gauge fields $A^{(1)}$ or $A^{(2)}$ vanishes, see and . This happens because in solving the BPS equations we have assumed that $\chi \neq 0$. For $\chi=0$, there is a special family of solutions to , and given by $$\label{AdS3a14}
\begin{gathered}
\frak{a} = \pm \dfrac{1}{4}\;, \qquad\qquad e^{2\beta} = \dfrac{1}{2}\left(\mp e^{6\alpha}+\sqrt{4+e^{12\alpha}}\right)\;, \\[6 pt]
e^{2h_0} = \dfrac{e^{-2\alpha}}{8}\left(e^{6\alpha}+\sqrt{4+e^{12\alpha}}\right)\;, \qquad e^{f_0} = \dfrac{e^{2\alpha}}{2}\left(-e^{6\alpha}+\sqrt{4+e^{12\alpha}}\right)\;,
\end{gathered}$$ and parametrized by $\alpha$. This family is not new – it was found in [@Maldacena:2000mw] and recently discussed further in [@Benini:2013cda]. It has enhanced $(2,2)$ supersymmetry and the scalar $\alpha$ is a free modulus indicating the existence of an exactly marginal deformation in the dual field theory. The central charge for these solutions is independent of the sign in $\frak{a}=\pm 1/4$ and the value of the scalar $\alpha$, $$c = 6\eta_{\Sigma} N^2 e^{f_0+2h_0} = \frac{3}{2}\eta_{\Sigma} N^2 = 3(\frak{g}-1) N^2\;.$$ This is always an integer multiple of 3 and is precisely the central charge of the $(2,2)$ solutions found in [@Maldacena:2000mw; @Benini:2013cda].
The central charges computed via anomalies and $c$-extremization are positive, and thus compatible with unitarity, for all possible values of the genus $\frak{g}$ and the flavor flux $\frak{b}$. Here, we see that the $AdS_3\times \Sigma_{\frak{g}}$ supergravity solutions are regular and causal only for $\frak{g}>1$ and $|\mathfrak{a}|\leq 1/4$, or, equivalently, $|\mathfrak{b}|\leq 1/2$. For values of the parameters outside this range, holography suggests that one of the following scenarios might be realized: (i) The IR theory is not conformal; (ii) There is an IR SCFT, but it does not admit a gravity dual; (iii) There are accidental Abelian symmetries in the IR which render the use of $c$-extremization invalid; (iv) There is an IR SCFT with a non-normalizable vacuum state.[^12] (v) Finally, it is also possible that there are $AdS_3 \times \Sigma_{\frak{g}}$ solutions for other values of the parameters $\frak{g}$ and $\frak{b}$ that are not captured by the present supergravity truncation.
Starting with the action in and setting $\chi=0$, we can recover all supersymmetric $AdS_3\times \Sigma_{\frak g}$ solutions found in [@Benini:2013cda]. Thus one may wonder whether it is possible to realize a holographic RG flow that interpolates between some of the $AdS_3\times \Sigma_{\frak g}$ solutions in [@Benini:2013cda] and the solutions in this paper. If such a flow exists within our supergravity truncation, the magnetic flux of the gauge field, specified by the constants $a_i$ in , should not change along the flow. The reason is that, as discussed below , the parameters $a_i$ are quantized and thus cannot change continuously as a function of the radial variable, $r$. One can then show that there are no values of the parameters $a_i$ (except for $\frak{a}=\pm 1/4$, see the discussion above) for which there is both an $AdS_3$ solution in the truncation of [@Benini:2013cda] and a solution of and . This means that within the supergravity truncation we are using there are no holographic RG flows interpolating between the $AdS_3\times \Sigma_{\frak g}$ solutions and the ones in [@Benini:2013cda].
Holographic RG flows
====================
\[Sec:HoloRG\]
We are looking for domain wall solutions to the BPS equations and that are holographically dual to the RG flows discussed in Section \[Sec:FieldTheory\]. In the UV ($r\rightarrow 0$), such solutions should asymptote to one of the $AdS_5$ solutions for either the maximally supersymmetric $SO(6)$ critical point or the KPW critical point . More precisely, since the field theory lives on $\mathbb{R}^{1,1}\times \Sigma_{\mathfrak{g}}$, the five-dimensional space-time is only asymptotically locally $AdS_5$,[^13] namely, its metric on the boundary has a non-zero curvature, which is cancelled by the non-zero background flux determined by the gauge fields . In the IR ($ r\rightarrow \infty$), the solutions should asymptote to one of the $AdS_3\times \Sigma_{\frak g}$ points . Similar supersymmetric flow solutions in five-dimensional gauged supergravity were constructed in [@Benini:2013cda; @Maldacena:2000mw; @Almuhairi:2011ws; @Donos:2011pn; @Naka:2002jz; @Cucu:2003yk; @Hristov:2013xza].
The structure of the BPS equations becomes particularly simple after we rewrite them in terms of a “superpotential” $$\label{Vsuperpot}
\mathcal{V} = g\, e^{-2h}\, \cals W+e^{-4h}\, \cals H\;,$$ and a new radial variable $$\label{rhodef}
\rho = f+2h \qquad \Longrightarrow\qquad \frac{d\rho}{dr} = e^{\rho}\, \mathcal{V}\,.$$ Indeed, if we define the canonically normalized scalar fields $$\label{varphidef}
\varphial \equiv 2\sqrt{3} \alpha\;, \qquad \varphibe \equiv 2 \beta\;, \qquad \varphichi \equiv \sqrt{2} \chi\;, \qquad \varphih \equiv \sqrt{6} h\;,$$ then and are equivalent to plus the following first order system of flow equations $$\label{BPSeqnV}
\frac{d\varphi_i}{d\rho} = - {1\over \cals V}\,\frac{\partial\mathcal{V}}{\partial\varphi_i}\;, \qquad\qquad i=\alpha,\beta,\chi,h\,,$$ where $\cals V$ is now a function of the fields, $\varphi_i$, but not $f$, and depends on the flux parameter, $\fa$.
![ The superpotential $\cals V(\alpha,\beta,\chi,h)$ in the $(\alpha,\chi)$-plane with $\beta=\beta_{\frak a}$ and $h=h_{\frak a}$ kept constant at their critical values for $ \frak a=0$, $0.20$ and 0.248. The orange line denotes the position of the $AdS_3\times \Sigma_{\frak g}$ critical points for $0\leq |\frak a|<1/4$. The end point denoted by the blue dot is the KPW point, the red dot is the critical point for the corresponding value of $\frak a$, and the black dot is the $SO(6)$ point. []{data-label="SuperpotCont"}](Vplota0s.pdf "fig:"){width="5cm"} ![ The superpotential $\cals V(\alpha,\beta,\chi,h)$ in the $(\alpha,\chi)$-plane with $\beta=\beta_{\frak a}$ and $h=h_{\frak a}$ kept constant at their critical values for $ \frak a=0$, $0.20$ and 0.248. The orange line denotes the position of the $AdS_3\times \Sigma_{\frak g}$ critical points for $0\leq |\frak a|<1/4$. The end point denoted by the blue dot is the KPW point, the red dot is the critical point for the corresponding value of $\frak a$, and the black dot is the $SO(6)$ point. []{data-label="SuperpotCont"}](Vplota20s.pdf "fig:"){width="5cm"}![ The superpotential $\cals V(\alpha,\beta,\chi,h)$ in the $(\alpha,\chi)$-plane with $\beta=\beta_{\frak a}$ and $h=h_{\frak a}$ kept constant at their critical values for $ \frak a=0$, $0.20$ and 0.248. The orange line denotes the position of the $AdS_3\times \Sigma_{\frak g}$ critical points for $0\leq |\frak a|<1/4$. The end point denoted by the blue dot is the KPW point, the red dot is the critical point for the corresponding value of $\frak a$, and the black dot is the $SO(6)$ point. []{data-label="SuperpotCont"}](Vplota248s.pdf "fig:"){width="5cm"}
It is straightforward to verify that the critical points of $\mathcal{V}$, $$\label{IRAdS3V}
\begin{gathered}
\varphial = \frac{1}{\sqrt{12}} \log\left(\frac{4}{1-16 \mathfrak{a}^2}\right) \;, \qquad \varphibe = \frac{1}{2} \log\left(\frac{1-4\mathfrak{a}}{1+4\mathfrak{a}}\right) \;,\\[6 pt]
\varphichi = \sqrt{2} \log\left(\frac{2+\sqrt{1-16\mathfrak{a}^2}}{\sqrt{3+16\mathfrak{a}^2}}\right) \;,\qquad
\varphih = \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} \log \left( \frac{1}{16 g^6} \frac{(3+16\mathfrak{a}^2)^3}{1-16 \mathfrak{a}^2}\right) \;,\end{gathered}$$ are precisely the supersymmetric $AdS_3\times \Sigma_{\mathfrak{g}}$ vacua of interest shown in Figure \[SuperpotCont\]. As is evident from the plots, the $SO(6)$ point (black dot) is not a critical point of $\cals V$ and the KPW point (blue dot) is a critical point only at $\frak{a}=0$, where the blue and red dots coincide. The $AdS_3\times \Sigma_{\frak{g}}$ solutions in with $\frak{a}=\pm 1/4$ are not shown in Figure \[SuperpotCont\].
To construct the flow solutions, we will first examine asymptotic expansions of at both UV points and in the IR. In the special case of $\fa=0$, we will also find an analytic solution for the flow between the KPW point and the corresponding $AdS_3\times \Sigma_\fg$ solution. For general $\fa$, solutions can be constructed only numerically and we will exhibit some of them.
Asymptotic analysis {#sec:asym}
-------------------
The asymptotic analysis of the flow equations and is quite similar to that for ordinary RG flows (see, e.g., [@Freedman:1999gp]) except that now there are two UV fixed points given by the two $AdS_5$ solutions and a family of $AdS_3 \times \Sigma_{\frak{g}}$ fixed points in the IR labelled by $\mathfrak{a}$. For both UV fixed points, the corresponding asymptotically locally $AdS_5$ solutions satisfy [@Maldacena:2000mw] $$\label{}
f~\sim ~h~\sim ~{\log{L\over r}}\,, \qquad r~\longrightarrow~0\,,$$ where $L$ is the $AdS_5$ radius given in and . Using , we then have $$\label{asymfg}
f~\sim ~h~\sim {1\over 3}\,\rho\,,\qquad \rho~\sim~ {3\log{ L\over r} }~\longrightarrow~\infty\,.$$ With the asymptotics of $f$ and $h$ fixed by , it is convenient to rewrite the flow equations for the remaing fields using $$\label{}
t~\equiv~ e^{-h}~\sim~ e^{-\rho/3}\,,$$ as the independent variable. Setting $$\label{}
\varphi_i(t)\eql\varphi_i^{{ \rm UV}}+\phi_i(t)\,,\qquad i=\alpha,\beta,\chi\,,$$ where $\varphi_i^{\rm UV}$ are the UV values of the scalar fields in or , we obtain a system of three first order equations of the form $$\label{fstorder}
t\,{d\phi_i\over dt}\eql A_i(t,\phi_\alpha,\phi_\beta,\phi_\chi)\,,\qquad i=\alpha,\beta,\chi\,.$$ where $A_i(t,\phi_j)$ are holomorphic functions of $\phi_j$ and $t$ satisfying $A_i(0,0,0,0)=0$.
The asymptotic behavior for the solutions of interest can be obtained as follows: First, we expand $A_i(t,\phi)$ to the linear order in the fields, $\phi_\alpha $, $\phi_\beta$ and $\phi_\chi $, and to the leading order in $t$. The resulting linearized system can be solved analytically and its solution determines the structure of the local series expansion for the exact solutions to the nonlinear system, see for example [@Hukuhara].
At the $SO(6)$ point , the linearization of gives $$\label{theeqs1}
t\,{d\phi_\alpha \over dt}\eql {t^2\over\sqrt 3\,g^2}+{2}\,\phi_\alpha \,,
\qquad
t\,{d\phi_\beta\over dt}\eql {4\frak a\over g^2}\,t^2+ {2}\,\phi_\beta\,,\qquad
t\,{d\phi_\chi \over dt}\eql\phi_\chi \,.$$ The general solution to at the $SO(6)$ point can then be obtained by expanding the three fields into power series in $t$ and $t^2\log t$. The resulting recurrence for the expansion coefficients is consistent and yields the following general solution: $$\label{sersolso6}
\begin{split}
\phi_{\alpha} (t) & \eql \Big({1\over \sqrt 3\,g^2}-{2\over\sqrt 3}\,c_0^2\Big)\,t^2\log t+a_0\,t^2
+\ldots \,,\\[6 pt]
\phi_{\beta}(t)& \eql {4\frak a\over g^2}\,t^2\log t+b_0\,t^2+\ldots\,,\\[6 pt]
\phi_{\chi} (t) & \eql c_0\,t+\Big({4c_0^3\over 3}-{2c_0\over 3 g^2}\Big)\,t^3\log t+\Big({c_0\over g^2}-{2\,a_0c_0\over\sqrt 3}-{7\,c_0^3\over 12}\Big)\,t^3+\ldots\,,
\end{split}$$ where the coefficient of the omitted higher order terms are completely determined by $a_0$, $b_0$, $c_0$, and $\fa$. Note that the leading terms in can be obtained as an exact solution to the linearized system .
We note that all solutions vanish as $t\rightarrow 0$. This means that the $SO(6)$ point should act as a local “attractor point” in the UV, in the sense that a generic flow solution will asymptote to that point as $\rho\rightarrow\infty$. We will see that this expectation is indeed confirmed by the numerical results below.
The other $AdS_5$ solution is the KPW point . The linearization of around this point gives the following equations $$\label{linpweqs}
\begin{split}
t\,\dfrac{d\phi_{\alpha}}{dt} &= 2\,\phi_{\alpha} -\sqrt{6}\,\phi_{\chi}\,,\qquad
t\,\dfrac{d\phi_{\beta}}{dt} = {3\cdot 2^{2/3} \,\frak a\over g^2}\,t^2+2\,\phi_{\beta}\;,\qquad
t\,\dfrac{d\phi_{\chi}}{dt} = -{\sqrt 6}\,\phi_{\alpha} \;,
\end{split}$$ which are solved by $$\label{LSsersol}
\begin{split}
\phi_\alpha (t) & \eql p_0\,t^{1+\sqrt 7}+s_0\,t^{1-\sqrt 7}\,,\\[6 pt]
\phi_\beta(t) & \eql {3\cdot 2^{2/3}\over g^2}\,{\frak a }\,t^2\log t+q_0\,t^2\,,\\[6 pt]
\phi_\chi (t) & \eql {1-\sqrt 7\over\sqrt 6}\,p_0\,t^{1+\sqrt 7}+{1+\sqrt 7\over\sqrt 6}\,s_0\,t^{1-\sqrt 7}
\,.
\end{split}$$ The general solution to that vanishes as $t\rightarrow 0$ can be found as a power series in $t^2$, $t^2\log t$ and $t^{1+\sqrt 7}$ with the leading terms given in with $s_0=0$. The subleading terms, which we omit here, have coefficients fixed in terms of $p_0$, $q_0$, and $\mathfrak{a}$.
Using the standard holographic dictionary, the expansions and are in perfect agreement with the field theory picture in Section \[Sec:FieldTheory\]. The operators $\cals O_\alpha$, $\cals O_\beta$ and $\cals O_\chi$ in $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM, see and , are dual to the supergravity fields, $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\chi$, and at the $SO(6)$ point have dimensions 2, 2, and 3, respectively. These are consistent with , where the most singular terms determine the sources and the subleading terms determine the expectations values for the corresponding operators.
As expected, we read off from that a nontrivial background flux amounts to turning on sources for the bosonic bilinears, $\cals O_\alpha $ and $\cals O_\beta $, in $\cN=4$ SYM. In particular, the source for $\cals O_\beta $ depends on the magnitude of the background flux, $\fa$, while that for $\cals O_\alpha$ is constant. The latter can be traced to the constant coefficient of the background flux along the $R$-symmetry generator in and that in turn follows from the particular solution of in we have chosen. As for the untwisted RG flows [@Freedman:1999gp], the parameter $c_0$ in is proportional to the source for the operator $\cals O_\chi$, while the parameters $a_0$ and $b_0$ are related to the vevs for the bosonic bilinear operators $\cals O_\alpha$ and $\cals O_\beta$ in .
At the KPW point, from we have three operators, $\cals O_\Delta$, of dimension $\Delta=2$, $1+\sqrt 7$ and $ 3+\sqrt 7$, respectively. The operator $\cals O_2$ is dual to the scalar $\beta$, while a relevant operator $\cals O_{1+\sqrt 7}$ and an irrelevant operator $\cals O_{3+\sqrt 7}$ are dual to linear combinations of the scalars $\alpha$ and $\chi$. We see that as before the background flux sources the operator, $\cals O_2$, with the overall coefficient determined by the cosmological constant of the $AdS_5$ solution. The absence of a constant source, which was present at the $SO(6)$ point, is consistent with the uniqueness of the $R$-symmetry current at the LS fixed point.
It may seem surprising at first that in the linearized expansion there is no term of the form $t^{3-\sqrt{7}}$, which would correspond to a source of the relevant operator $\cals O_{1+\sqrt 7}$ in the dual field theory. The reason for the absence of such a source is that the operators $\cals O_{1+\sqrt 7}$ and $\cals O_{3+\sqrt 7}$ lie in the same (unprotected) massive vector supermultiplet in the LS fixed point (see, Table 6.2 in [@Freedman:1999gp]). Therefore, if we turn off the source for the operator $\cals O_{3+\sqrt 7}$ by setting $s_0=0$, then we must also turn off the source for the operator $\cals O_{1+\sqrt 7}$ to ensure that supersymmetry is preserved.[^14] This amounts to being able to turn on only a vev for the operator $\cals O_{1+\sqrt 7}$, which is proportional to $p_0$ in . As usual, the parameter $q_0$ is related to the vev for the operator $\mathcal{O}_2$. In summary, the supersymmetric RG flow away from the LS fixed point is driven by the operator $\cals O_2$ sourced by the background flavor flux proportional to $\mathfrak{a}$.
![Eigenvalues of the mass matrix $M_{ij}$. []{data-label="figeigs"}](Meigs.pdf){width="7cm"}
Let us now turn to the IR region close to the $AdS_3\times \Sigma_{\frak g}$ solutions. At the critical values $\varphi_i=\varphi^{\rm IR}_i$ given in , we find $$\label{}
\cals V_{\rm IR}\equiv \cals V(\varphi^{\rm IR})\eql -{2\,g^3\over 3+16\,\fa^2}\,,$$ and thus $$\label{}
\rho \sim -\log(|\cals V_{\rm IR}|\,r)\quad \longrightarrow\quad -\infty\,.$$ Setting $
\varphi_i = \varphi_i^{\rm IR} + \phi_i$ and expanding to the leading order, we obtain a linear system $$\label{linMeqs}
{d\phi_i\over d\rho} = M_{ij} \phi_j\,,\qquad i,j=\alpha,\beta,\chi,h\,,$$ where $M_{ij}=M_{ji}$ is a symmetric “mass matrix” with the following nonvanishing entries $$\label{IRmassmatrix}
\begin{gathered}
M_{11} \eql -{2\,(3+80\fa^2)\over 3\,(3+16\,\fa^2)}\,,\qquad M_{12}\eql -{32\fa\over \sqrt 3\,(3+16\,\fa^2)}\,,\qquad M_{13}\eql {2\sqrt 6\sqrt{1-16\,\fa^2}\over 3+16\,\fa^2}\,, \\
M_{14} \eql -{64\sqrt 2\,\fa^2\over 3(3+16\,\fa^2)}\,,\qquad M_{22}\eql -{2( 1-16\,\fa^2)\over 3+16\,\fa^2}\,,\qquad M_{23}\eql {8\sqrt 2\,\fa\,\sqrt{1-16\,\fa^2}\over 3+16\,\fa^2}\,,\\
M_{24} \eql {16\sqrt 2\,\fa\over\sqrt3\,(3+16\,\fa^2)}\,,\qquad M_{44}\eql {4\over 3}\,.
\end{gathered}$$
Note that the mass matrix depends on the background flux, $\fa$, but does not depend on $g$. For $\fa=0$, its eigenvalues, $\mu_i$, are $4/3, 4/3, -2/3$, and $-2$, and the same pattern of two positive and two negative eigenvalues persists throughout the whole range $|\fa| < 1/4$ as shown in Figure \[figeigs\]. This means that for a fixed value of $\mathfrak{a}$ in the IR, we should have a two-parameter family of flows into the $AdS_3$ point tangent to the plane spanned by the eigenvectors, $v_{(1)}$ and $v_{(2)}$, of the mass matrix for the two positive eigenvalues. For the special values $\frak{a} = \pm 1/4$, two of the eigenvalues of $M_{ij}$ vanish. This is consistent with the explicit solution , where the scalar $\chi$ vanishes and the scalar $\alpha$ is a modulus. The corresponding fluctuations are the two zero modes.
Analytic example
----------------
![The radial variable and the two metric functions $f$ and $h$ for the analytic solution in and . []{data-label="figanalytic"}](rofrho.pdf "fig:"){height="4.35cm"} ![The radial variable and the two metric functions $f$ and $h$ for the analytic solution in and . []{data-label="figanalytic"}](fhofrho.pdf "fig:"){height="4.5cm"}\
![The radial variable and the two metric functions $f$ and $h$ for the analytic solution in and . []{data-label="figanalytic"}](hfofr.pdf "fig:"){height="5.75cm"}
In general it is not possible to solve the system of equations analytically. There is, however, a special value of the parameter, $\frak a$, namely $\mathfrak{a}=0$, for which the flow equations admit the following simple analytic solution, $$\label{analytic}
\begin{split}
\varphial &= \frac{\log 2}{\sqrt{3}}\;, \qquad \varphibe = 0\;, \qquad \varphichi = \frac{\log 3}{\sqrt{2}}\;, \\[6 pt]
\varphih &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\log\Big[\,\frac{3^3}{2^7g^6} \Big(\sqrt{c^2 e^{4\rho/3}+1}+1\Big)^3\,\Big]\;.
\end{split}$$ Here $c$ is an integration constant, which can be set to one by a constant shift of the radial variable $\rho \to \rho - \frac{3}{2}\log c$. Substituting the solution in , we find the following explicit relation between the two radial coordinates $$\label{rrho}
r(\rho)\eql {3\over 8\,g^3}\Big[2 e^{-\rho } \big(\sqrt{e^{4 \rho /3}+1}+1\big) -e^{\rho /3} \, _2F_1\left(\coeff{1}{4},\coeff{1}{2};\coeff{5}{4};-e^{4 \rho /3}\right) +\coeff{1}{\sqrt \pi}\Gamma (\coeff{1}{4}) \Gamma (\coeff{5}{4})\Big]\;.$$ In Figure \[figanalytic\], we have plotted $r(\rho)$, together with $h$ and $f$ as functions of both $r$ and $\rho$. Note that the asymptotic behavior of those functions agrees with , and .
The solution is special in that the supergravity scalars remain fixed at their values for the $AdS_5$ solution at the KPW point . Thus the only quantities that change along the flow are the metric functions $f(r)$ and $h(r)$. There is a similar analytic supersymmetric flow solution which interpolates between the $SO(6)$ point and an $AdS_3 \times \Sigma_{\frak{g}}$ vacuum [@Maldacena:2000mw]. In fact, as discussed in [@Benini:2013cda; @BBC], any minimal five-dimensional gauged supergravity admits such an analytic flow solution. This solution should describe a universal RG flow, triggered by a twisted compactification on a Riemann surface, in any $\mathcal{N}=1$ SCFT with a holographic dual.
Numerical solutions
-------------------
![Examples of flows from the $SO(6)$ point to different $AdS_3\times \Sigma_{\frak g}$ solutions projected onto the $(\alpha,\chi)$-plane for $\frak a=0.001,\,0.1,\, 0.15,\, 0.2 $, and $0.22$ from left to right. []{data-label="SO6Traj"}](ToSO6flows.pdf){width="7cm"}
For an arbitrary value of the background flux, $\fa$, the flow equations can only be solved numerically. In the following, we construct some representative solutions for different classes of RG flows predicted by the field theory analysis in Section \[Sec:FieldTheory\].
As usual, we find that the integration of the first order system is numerically more stable if we specify the initial conditions in the IR close to an $AdS_3\times\Sigma_{\frak g}$ critical point. Hence, for a given $|\frak a| < 1/4$, we take $\rho_0\ll 0$ and set $$\label{initcond}
\varphi_i(\rho_0)=\varphi_i^{\rm IR}+ \phi_i^{(0)}\,, \qquad \phi_i^{(0)}\eql \xi^{(1)}\,v_{(1)}^i+\xi^{(2)}\,v_{(2)}^i\,, \qquad
i=\alpha,\,\beta,\,\chi,\,h\,,$$ where $v_{(1)}$ and $v_{(2)}$ are two orthonormal eigenvectors for the positive eigenvalues of the mass matrix in and $\xi^{(1)}$ and $\xi^{(2)}$ are arbitrary small parameters. In the examples below, we typically work with $\rho_0\sim -10$ and $|\xi^{(1,2)}|\sim 10^{-4}$. Since the other two eigenvalues of the mass matrix are negative, this choice of initial conditions does not guarantee numerical stability as we integrate towards the $AdS_3$ critical point where $\rho\ll \rho_0$. However, by extrapolating the linearized analysis to full nonlinear solutions, it is reasonable to assume that any flow from an $AdS_3$ critical point is asymptotic for $\rho\gg \rho_0$ to a solution in the class we are considering.
As one might have expected from the asymptotic analysis in Section \[sec:asym\], a generic solution for small $\xi^{(1,2)}$, or equivalently, small velocites in the IR, remains in the basin of attraction of the $SO(6)$ critical point in the UV. In particular, for a given $AdS_3\times \Sigma_{\frak g}$ critical point we find a one-parameter family of flows that originate at the $SO(6)$ point. Examples of such flows projected onto the $(\alpha,\chi)$-plane are shown in Figures \[SO6Traj\] and \[SuperpotTraj\]. This family can be parametrized by $c_0$ in , which in turn corresponds to the mass $m$ in the LS superpotential . This agrees with the field theory expectation discussed in Section \[subsec:N=4flowsFT\].
![Solutions of the flow equations projected onto the $(\alpha,\chi)$-plane for $\frak a=0.20$. The curves between the $SO(6)$ point (black dot) and the $AdS_3\times \Sigma_{\frak{g}}$ point (red dot) are representatives of the one-parameter family of holographic RG flows labelled by the parameter $c_0$ in corresponding to the mass $m$ in . The red curve connecting the blue and red dots is the unique holographic RG flow between the KPW point and the $AdS_3\times \Sigma_{\frak{g}}$ solution. []{data-label="SuperpotTraj"}](FamFla0125.pdf){width="7cm"}
The flows from the KPW point in the UV are more subtle. First, we are looking for solutions in the four-dimensional space of fields, $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\chi$ and $h$, that interpolate between two points, an $AdS_3$ critical point and the KPW point, where the latter has $h\rightarrow\infty$. Since we have only two tunable parameters, $\xi^{(1)}$ and $\xi^{(2)}$, to work with, the existence of such solutions is by no means guaranteed. Secondly, unlike the $SO(6)$ point, the KPW point is numerically unstable, because of the presence of the $t^{1-\sqrt 7}$ mode in the linearized solution . Therefore, any numerical flow trajectory obtained by shooting from the IR will eventually start moving away from the KPW point. Hence, all we can hope for is to see some numerical evidence that, by fine tuning of the initial conditions, one can obtain solutions which remain close to the KPW point within a large range of $\rho\gg 0$. Indeed, this is precisely what we find.
![ A family of solutions of the flow equations for $\mathfrak{a}=0.20$ illustrating the tuning of initial conditions for the RG flow (red plot) from the KPW point in the UV to an $AdS_3\times \Sigma_{\frak g}$ point in the IR. The colors of the plots are correlated with those in Figure \[SuperpotTraj\].[]{data-label="FamSol"}](Famalphaa0125.pdf "fig:"){width="7cm"} ![ A family of solutions of the flow equations for $\mathfrak{a}=0.20$ illustrating the tuning of initial conditions for the RG flow (red plot) from the KPW point in the UV to an $AdS_3\times \Sigma_{\frak g}$ point in the IR. The colors of the plots are correlated with those in Figure \[SuperpotTraj\].[]{data-label="FamSol"}](Fambetaaa0125.pdf "fig:"){width="7cm"}\
![ A family of solutions of the flow equations for $\mathfrak{a}=0.20$ illustrating the tuning of initial conditions for the RG flow (red plot) from the KPW point in the UV to an $AdS_3\times \Sigma_{\frak g}$ point in the IR. The colors of the plots are correlated with those in Figure \[SuperpotTraj\].[]{data-label="FamSol"}](Famchia0125.pdf "fig:"){width="7cm"} ![ A family of solutions of the flow equations for $\mathfrak{a}=0.20$ illustrating the tuning of initial conditions for the RG flow (red plot) from the KPW point in the UV to an $AdS_3\times \Sigma_{\frak g}$ point in the IR. The colors of the plots are correlated with those in Figure \[SuperpotTraj\].[]{data-label="FamSol"}](Famha0125.pdf "fig:"){width="7cm"}\
A typical family of flow solutions for $\frak{a}=0.20$ is presented in Figure \[SuperpotTraj\]. One should keep in mind that the plot represents a projection from the four-dimensional space of scalar fields onto the $(\alpha,\chi)$-plane. The family of solutions is constructed by varying the parameters $\xi^{(1)}$ and $\xi^{(2)}$ in . As is clear from Figure \[SuperpotTraj\], generically the flow is to the $SO(6)$ point. However, by fine tuning of the parameters $\xi^{(1)}$ and $\xi^{(2)}$, the UV side of the projection of the flow onto the $(\alpha,\chi)$-plane can be brought arbitrarily close the KPW point as illustrated in Figure \[SuperpotTraj\]. The existence of such a family of flows might not seem that surprising given that we have two free parameters and the tuning is done in a plane of two scalar fields. It turns out, however, that by bringing the projection of the flow close to the KPW point in the $(\alpha,\chi)$-plane, the flow itself in the four-dimensional space of scalar fields approaches the $AdS_5$ solution for the KPW point. This is a nontrivial evidence that this finely tuned flow indeed exists. The behavior of all four scalars in the family of flow solutions with $\frak{a}=0.20$ is shown in Figure \[FamSol\], whose colors are correlated with those in Figure \[SuperpotTraj\]. Note that the curves in Figure \[FamSol\] that appear missing in the plots for $\beta(\rho)$ and $h(\rho)$ lie too close to the ones that are shown to be visible.
The red curves represent our best approximation to the holographic RG flow from the KPW point to the $AdS_3\times \Sigma_{\frak{g}}$ point at $\frak{a}=0.20$ that we are looking for. Similar flows can be constructed also for other values of the parameter $\frak{a}$ in the range $|\frak{a}|<1/4$.[^15] The flow solutions we have exhibited should be considered as a strong evidence from holography that the SCFTs described in Section \[Sec:FieldTheory\] indeed exist and the RG flows to them are dynamically realized.
Conclusions
===========
\[Sec:Conclusions\] In this paper we have provided ample evidence, both in field theory and in supergravity, that there exists a family of two-dimensional SCFTs obtained by a twisted compactification of the $\mathcal{N}=1$ LS SCFT on a closed Riemann surface $\Sigma_{\frak{g}}$. The existence of this family of SCFTs and their dual $AdS_3\times \Sigma_{\frak{g}}$ solutions and holographic RG flows raises a number of interesting points.
It is known that non-Abelian flavor symmetries cannot mix with the $R$-symmetry in purely four-dimensional RG flows [@Intriligator:2003jj]. However, when one places the four-dimensional theory on a Riemann surface and turns on a background gauge field for the Cartan subgroup of the non-Abelian flavor symmetries, the infrared dynamics is richer. The flavor flux provides a parameter which labels different two-dimensional IR fixed points. The superconformal $R$-symmetry undergoes nontrivial mixing during an RG flow from four dimensions and, at the two-dimensional fixed point, it becomes a linear combination of the original $R$-symmetry and a subgroup of the flavor symmetry. The same scenario is present in the RG flows from six to four dimensions discussed in [@Bah:2011vv; @Bah:2012dg]. Thus we can conclude that turning on background magnetic fluxes for flavor symmetries provides a general mechanism for constructing families of interacting SCFTs.
It would be desirable to have a two-dimensional field theory construction for the family of interacting $(0,2)$ SCFTs found in this paper. One possible route is to study twisted compactifications of $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM or the $\mathcal{N}=1$ LS SCFT on punctured Riemann surfaces. In this way one may be able to identify a SCFT that would serve as an elementary “building block" for more general SCFTs corresponding to closed Riemann surfaces. Such a construction would be analogous to the one for four-dimensional SCFTs of class $\mathcal{S}$ [@Gaiotto:2009we; @Bah:2011vv; @Bah:2012dg]. It would also provide insights into the rich set of dualities (or trialities [@Gadde:2013lxa]) that are expected to exist for these two-dimensional theories.
On the supergravity side, it would be interesting to uplift our $AdS_3\times \Sigma_{\frak{g}}$ vacua to solutions of type IIB supergravity in ten dimensions. Most likely, those ten-dimensional solutions will fall outside the classification of supersymmetric $AdS_3$ vacua of type IIB supergravity given in [@Kim:2005ez; @Gauntlett:2007ts]. The reason is that the $AdS_3$ solutions in [@Kim:2005ez; @Gauntlett:2007ts] are supported only by $F_{(5)}$ flux, while the Pilch-Warner solution of type IIB supergravity [@Pilch:2000ej], which is the uplift of the KPW point, involves non-trivial $C_{(3)}$, $H_{(3)}$ and $F_{(5)}$ fluxes. We expect that the same will hold for the uplifts of the $AdS_3$ vacua in Section \[Sec:AdS3sol\].
It should be possible to recast our $AdS_3 \times \Sigma_{\frak{g}}$ solutions in terms of three-dimensional $\mathcal{N}=2$ gauged supergravity along the lines of [@Karndumri:2013iqa; @Karndumri:2013dca]. It is clear that the function $\mathcal{V}$ defined in Section \[Sec:AdS3sol\] should have some interesting interpretation. To this end one can reduce the action on $\Sigma_g$ and show that the three-dimensional effective gravitational action has the following potential $$\mathcal{P}_{3D} = e^{-4h}\mathcal{P} + \frac{e^{-8h}}{2g^4} \left[\left(\frac{1}{4}+\mathfrak{a}\right)^2 e^{4\alpha-4\beta}+\left(\frac{1}{4}-\mathfrak{a}\right)^2 e^{4\alpha+4\beta}+\frac{1}{4}e^{-8\alpha}\right]+ \frac{e^{-6h}}{2g^2}\;.$$ One then finds that $$\mathcal{P}_{3D} =\frac{1}{4g^2}\left[\ds\sum_{i}(\partial_{\varphi_i}\mathcal{V})^2-2\mathcal{V}^2\right]\;,$$ where the sum runs over the fields $i=\alpha,\beta,\chi,h$. Thus one can think of $\mathcal{V}$ as a superpotential for some three-dimensional gauged supergravity and this explains why the critical points of $\mathcal{V}$ are precisely the $AdS_3$ vacua we found in Section \[Sec:AdS3sol\]. This structure is very similar to the one observed in [@Karndumri:2013iqa; @Karndumri:2013dca].
In addition to the flows between fixed points discussed in Section \[Sec:HoloRG\], there are also solutions in supergravity that start at an $AdS_5$ or $AdS_3\times \Sigma_{\frak{g}}$ fixed point in the UV and diverge in the IR. Those are similar to the “flows to Hades” in conventional holographic RG flows [@Freedman:1999gp; @Gubser:2000nd]. It would be interesting to identify some criterion, along the lines of [@Gubser:2000nd; @Maldacena:2000mw], that would distinguish which of these flows are physical from the point of view of the dual field theory.
Finally, using a similar approach as in this paper, one should be able to construct supersymmetric $AdS_2\times \Sigma_{\frak{g}}$ solutions in four-dimensional supergravity dual to twisted compactifications on $\Sigma_g$ of the three-dimensional $\mathcal{N}=2$ SCFT [@Benna:2008zy], which is a mass-deformed ABJM theory. There should be also holographic RG flows from the $AdS_4$ CPW solution [@Corrado:2001nv] to those new $AdS_2\times \Sigma_{\frak{g}}$ solutions.
NB would like to thank Francesco Benini and Marcos Crichigno for many discussions and collaboration on [@BBC]. NB is also grateful to Mathew Bullimore for useful discussions. We would like to thank Anna Ceresole and Gianguido Dall’Agata for correspondence and Francesco Benini for comments on a draft of this paper. The work of NB is supported by Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics. Research at Perimeter Institute is supported by the Government of Canada through Industry Canada and by the Province of Ontario through the Ministry of Research and Innovation. The work of KP and OV is supported in part by DOE grant DE-FG03-84ER-40168. OV would also like to thank the USC Dana and David Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences for support through the College Doctoral Fellowship and the CEA-Saclay for hospitality while this work was being completed.
A truncation of $\cN=8$, $d=5$ supergravity
===========================================
\[appendixA\] In this appendix we derive the bosonic action for the $U(1)_R$-invariant sector of $\cN=8$, $d=5$ supergravity. Further truncation to the $U(1)_F$-invariant subsector and a trivial dilaton/axion gives then the action .
First, we would like to clarify a subtle point that otherwise might be confusing. It follows from that by imposing the same symmetries on the fermionic fields one obtains a consistent truncation of $\cN=8$, $d=5$ supergravity to some $\cN=2$, $d=5$ supergravity. In fact, we will find it convenient to present our results below in the language of $\cN=2$, $d=5$ gauged supergravity [@Ceresole:2000jd]. However, since the Killing spinors for unbroken supersymmetries in Section \[Sec:SUGRAtrunc\] are charged under $U(1)_R$, the BPS equations that we obtain and solve are [*not*]{} for that $\cN=2$, $d=5$ supergravity. Instead, our analysis in Section \[Sec:SUGRAtrunc\] is carried out in the full $\cN=8$, $d=5$ supergravity. The truncation in the bosonic sector allows us to identify the fields that can be nontrivial and is crucial in making the entire analysis of the supersymmetry variations in Section \[Sec:SUGRAtrunc\] managable.
Recall that the Lie algebra of $E_{6(6)}$ in the $SL(6,\RR)\times SL(2,\RR)$ basis (see, [@Gunaydin:1985cu]) consists of the $SL(6,\RR)$ generators, $\Lambda ^I{}_J$, $SL(2,\RR)$ generators, $\Lambda^\alpha{}_\beta$, and the generators $\Sigma_{IJK\alpha}$, where $I,J,\ldots=1,\ldots,6$ are the $SO(6)$ vector indices, while $\alpha,\beta=1,2$ are the vector indices of $SL(2,\RR)$. The 42 noncompact generators comprise of the traceless $\Lambda^I{}_J\eql \Lambda ^J{}_I$, the self-dual tensors, $\Sigma_{IJK\alpha}$, and the traceless $\Lambda^\alpha{}_\beta=\Lambda^\beta{}_\alpha$ that transform in $\bf 20'$, $\bf 10\oplus \overline{10}$ and $\bf 1\oplus 1$ of $SO(6)$, respectively.
The $U(1)_R\subset SO(6)$ symmetry generator is $$\label{Tigens}
T_R\eql {1\over 2} \left(\begin{matrix}
T_1 & &\\
& T_2 & \\
& & 2 \,T_3
\end{matrix}\right)\,,$$ where $T_i$, $i=1,2,3$, are the three $SO(2)$ generators, $$\label{so2s}
T_i\eql \left(\begin{matrix}
\phantom{-}0 & 1 \\ -1 & 0
\end{matrix}\right)\,,$$ in the Cartan subalgebra of $SO(6)$.
The bosonic fields of $\cN=8$, $d=5$ supergravity that are invariant under $U(1)_R$ and comprise the bosonic sector of the corresponding $\cN=2$, $d=5$ gauged supergravity are the graviton, $g_{\mu\nu}$, five vector fields for the commutant of $U(1)_R$ in $SO(6)$ and eight scalar fields arising from the noncompact generators in $E_{6(6)}$ that commute with $U(1)_R$.[^16]
The invariant vector fields are given explicitly by $$\label{ungagef}
A^{(a)}\,T_{a}\eql
\left(\begin{matrix}
0 & A^{ {(1)}} & A^{ {(4)}} & A^{ {(5)}} & 0 & 0 \\
-A^{ {(1)}} & 0 & -A^{ {(5)}} & A^{ {(4)}} & 0 & 0 \\
-A^{ {(4)}} & A^{ {(5)}} & 0 & A^{ {(2)}} & 0 & 0 \\
-A^{ {(5)}} & -A^{ {(4)}} & -A^{ {(2)}} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & A^{ {(3)}} \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -A^{ {(3)}} & 0
\end{matrix}\right)\,.$$ In particular, the fields $A^{(1)}$, $A^{(2)}$ and $A^{(3)}$ are the ones considered in Section \[Sec:SUGRAtrunc\]. With all fields present, the unbroken gauge symmetry is $SU(2)_\ell\times U(1)_R\times U(1)$, with the corresponding generators given by the following linear combinations of the generators in : $$\label{curlyTs}
\begin{gathered}
\cals T_1 \eql T_5\,,\qquad \cals T_2\eql - T_4\,,\qquad \cals T_3\eql T_1-T_2\,,\\[4 pt]
\cals T_4 \eql T_1+T_2+2\, T_3\,,\qquad \cals T_5\eql T_1+T_2-T_3\,,
\end{gathered}$$ As one might have expected, the structure of the resulting truncation becomes more transparent when written in terms of gauge fields, $\cA^a$, $a=1,\ldots,5$, with respect to this basis. Setting $$\label{}
\cA^a\,\cT_a\eql A^{(a)}T_a \,,$$ we find $$\label{curlytoflatA}
\begin{gathered}
\mathcal{A}^{1} \eql A^{(5)}\;, \qquad \mathcal{A}^{2} \eql -A^{(4)}\;, \qquad \mathcal{A}^{3} = \frac{1}{2}(A^{(1)}-A^{(2)})\;,\\[4 pt]
\mathcal{A}^{4} \eql \frac{1}{6}(A^{(1)}+A^{(2)}+2A^{(3)})\;, \qquad \mathcal{A}^{5}\eql \frac{1}{3}(A^{(1)}+A^{(2)}-A^{(3)})\;.
\end{gathered}$$ The eight scalar fields, $\alpha$, $\beta^1,\,\beta^2,\,\beta^3$ and $w^1=x^1+i y^1$, $w^2=x^2+i y^2$, parametrize a product of three noncompact coset spaces $$\label{slcoset}
\mathcal{M} = \mathcal{M}_{VS}\times \mathcal{M}_{QK} = \left[O(1,1)\times\dfrac{SO(3,1)}{SO(3)} \right] \times \left[\dfrac{SU(2,1)}{SU(2)\times U(1)}\right]\;,$$ where $\mathcal{M}_{VS}$ is a very special manifold for the scalars in the vector multiplet and $\mathcal{M}_{QK}$ is a quaternionic Kähler manifold for the four real scalars in a full five-dimensional $\cN=2$ hypermultiplet. The scalars in $\mathcal{M}_{VS}$ arise from $\bf{20}'$ of $SO(6)$ in the $\cN=8$ theory. Two of the scalars in $\mathcal{M}_{SK}$ are the five-dimensional dilaton/axion, while the other two lie in $\bf{10}\oplus \overline{\bf{10}}$ of $SO(6)$. The four gauge fields in the vector multiplet gauge the $SO(3)$ and $U(1)$ isometries of $\mathcal{M}_{VS}$ and $\mathcal{M}_{QK}$, respectively, while the graviphoton of the five-dimensional theory is the gauge field for $U(1)_R$. This agrees nicely with the fact that the graviphoton should be dual to the superconformal $R$-symmetry of the LS fixed point. The kinetic term in the truncated supergravity is a sum of three terms, one for each factor in . Let us discuss them in turn introducing the scalar fields along the way.
The noncompact generator for the first factor in is the diagonal element in $SL(6,\RR)$, $$\label{}
X^{(\alpha)}\eql \mathop{\text{diag}}(-1,-1,-1,-1,2,2)\,,$$ with the corresponding $O(1,1)\subset E_{6(6)}$ group elements $$\label{}
V(\alpha)\eql \exp(\alpha \,X^{(\alpha)})\,.$$ The kinetic term for $\alpha$ is simply $$\label{alphalag}
e^{-1}\cL_{kin,\alpha}\eql 3\,g^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu\alpha\,\partial_\nu\alpha\,.$$
The second coset in also arises from $U(1)_R$ invariant $SL(6,\RR)$ generators in $\bf 20'$ of $SO(6)$. The $SO(3,1)\subset E_{6(6)}$ group elements parametrizing this coset are $$\label{so31grp}
V(\beta^1,\beta^2,\beta^3)\eql \exp(\beta^1\,X^{(\beta)}_1+\beta^2\,X^{(\beta)}_2+\beta^3\,X^{(\beta)}_3)
\,,$$ where $$\label{}
\beta^1\,X^{(\beta)}_1+\beta^2\,X^{(\beta)}_2+\beta^3\,X^{(\beta)}_3\eql
\left(\begin{matrix}
\beta ^3 & 0 & \beta ^1 & \beta ^2 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \beta ^3 & -\beta ^2 & \beta ^1 & 0 & 0 \\
\beta ^1 & -\beta ^2 & -\beta ^3 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\beta ^2 & \beta ^1 & 0 & -\beta ^3 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\end{matrix}\right)\,.$$ The normalization of the fields and generators here has been chosen to agree with the truncation in Section \[Sec:SUGRAtrunc\]. The group elements are then isomorphic with $$\label{}
g(\beta^1,\beta^2,\beta^3)\eql \exp\,\left(\begin{matrix}
0 & 0 & 0 & 2\beta^1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 2\beta^2 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 2\beta^3 \\
2\beta^1 & 2\beta^2 & 2\beta^3 & 0 \\
\end{matrix}\right)\,,$$ in the fundamental representation of $SO(3,1)$. Thus the standard projective coordinates on this coset are given by $$\label{}
\xxi^i\eql {\beta^i\over \bfs\beta}\tanh 2\bfs \beta \,,\qquad \bfs \beta\eql \sqrt{(\beta^1)^2+(\beta^2)^2+(\beta^3)^2}\,.$$ In terms of these coordinates, the kinetic action in this sector is $$\label{zlag}
e^{-1}\cals L_ {kin,\xxi}\eql {1\over 4}\,g^{\mu\nu} \,\Big[\, {\nabla_\mu \xxi^i\nabla_\nu \xxi^i\over 1- \bfs\xxi{}^2}+ {( \xxi^i\nabla_\mu \xxi^i)( \xxi^j\nabla_\nu \xxi^j)\over ( 1- \bfs\xxi{}^2)^2}\,
\Big]\,,$$ where $\bfs\xxi{}^2=( \xxi^1)^2+( \xxi^2)^2+( \xxi^3)^2$. The gauge covariant derivative is $$\label{}
\nabla \xxi^i\eql d \xxi^i+g\,\mathcal{A}^{a}\mathcal{K}_{(a)}^z{}^{i} \,,$$ with the Killing vector fields $$\label{killz}
\begin{gathered}
\mathcal{K}_{(1)}^z \eql (0, 2\, \xxi^3,-2\, \xxi^2)\,, \qquad \mathcal{K}_{(2)}^z \eql (-2\, \xxi^3,0,2\, \xxi^1)\,, \qquad \mathcal{K}_{(3)}^z \eql (2\, \xxi^2,-2\, \xxi^1,0)\,,\\[6 pt]
\mathcal{K}_{(4)}^z \eql \mathcal{K}_{(5)}^z \eql (0,0,0) \,.
\end{gathered}$$ Note that only the $SU(2)_\ell$ symmetry is gauged by this sector.
The last coset in is the most intricate and can be parametrized in a variety of ways.[^17] Here we will use two parametrizations, one with a familiar form of the kinetic term and the other one with a manifest independence of the scalar potential on the dilaton/axion field.
There are four noncompact generators in this sector. The first two are the tensor generators $\Sigma_{IJK\alpha}=\Sigma_{[IJK]\alpha}$ in $\bf 10\oplus\overline{10}$ of $SO(6)$ and the nonvanishing components: $$\label{}
\begin{split}
X^{(x)}_1~:\qquad \Sigma_{1361}& \eql -\Sigma_{1451}=-\Sigma_{2351}\eql-\Sigma_{2461}\\
& \eql -\Sigma_{1352}\eql -\Sigma_{1462}\eql-\Sigma_{2362}\eql\Sigma_{2452}\eql {1\over 2\sqrt 2}\,,\\
X^{(y)}_1~:\qquad \Sigma_{1351} & \eql \Sigma_{1461} \eql \Sigma_{2361} \eql -\Sigma_{2451}\\ &
\eql \Sigma_{1362} \eql -\Sigma_{1452} \eql -\Sigma_{2352} \eql -\Sigma_{2462} \eql {1\over 2\sqrt 2}\,,
\end{split}$$ while the other two are the dilaton/axion singlets in $SL(2,\RR)$, $$\label{}
X^{(x)}_2\eql \left(\begin{matrix}
1 & \phantom{-}0\\ 0 & -1
\end{matrix}\right)\,,\qquad X^{(y)}_2\eql \left(\begin{matrix}
0 & 1\\ 1 & 0
\end{matrix}\right)\,.$$ With those choices, the group elements $$\label{}
V(x^1,y^1,x^2,y^2)\eql\exp(x^1 X^{(x)}_1+y^1 X^{(y)}_1 + x^2 X^{(x)}_2 + y^2 X^{(y)}_2)\,,$$ in $SO(2,1)\subset E_{6(6)}$ yield the same parametrization of the coset as the more familiar $SU(2,1)$ matrices, $$\label{}
g(w^1,w^2)\eql \exp\left(\begin{matrix}
0 & 0 & w^1\\
0 & 0 & w^2\\
\overline w{}^1 & \overline w{}^2 & 0
\end{matrix}\right)\,,\qquad w^j\eql x^j+i\,y^j\,.$$ In terms of the projective coordinates, $$\label{}
\zeta^i\eql {w^i\over w}\tanh w\,,\qquad w^2\eql |w^1|^2+|w^2|^2\,,$$ the kinetic part of the action in this sector has the familiar noncompact Fubini-Study form $$\label{zetalag}
e^{-1}\cals L_{kin,\zeta} \eql {1\over 2}\,g^{\mu\nu}\left[{\nabla_\mu \zeta^i\nabla_\nu\bar\zeta{}^i\over 1-| \bfs\zeta|^2}
+{(\zeta^i\nabla_\mu\bar\zeta{}^i)(\bar\zeta{}^j\nabla_\nu\zeta{}^j)\over ( 1-| \bfs\zeta|^2){}^2}
\right]\,,$$ where $|\bfs\zeta|^2=|\zeta^1|^2+|\zeta^2|^2$. The covariant derivatives are $$\label{covdevzeta}
\nabla\zeta^i\eql d\zeta^i+g \,\cA^a\,\cK_{(a)}^\zeta{}^{i}\,,$$ where $$\label{kilzeta}
\mathcal{K}_{(1)}^\zeta \eql \mathcal{K}_{(2)}^\zeta \eql \mathcal{K}_{(3)}^\zeta \eql \mathcal{K}_{(4)}^\zeta \eql (0,0)\,,\qquad \mathcal{K}_{(5)}^\zeta \eql (3i\zeta^1,0)\,.$$ This shows that only a single $U(1)$ is gauged in this sector.
The price that one pays for the simplicity of the kinetic action in this parametrization is that the scalar potential, when restricted to the fields in this sector, reads $$\label{potzeta}
\cals P_\zeta\eql -{3\over 8}{( 2-3|\zeta^1|^2-2|\zeta^2|^2)(1-|\zeta^2|^2)\over (1-|\zeta^1|^2-|\zeta^2|^2)^2}\,.$$ and thus depends on both $\zeta^1$ and $\zeta^2$. This makes the identification of the dilaton/axion fields somewhat tricky [@Clark:2005te].
Instead, one can use another parametrization in which the coset is decomposed locally as the product $$\label{splitpar}
{ SU(2,1)\over SU(2)\times U(1)}\simeq {SU(1,1)\over U(1)}\cdot {SU(1,1)\over U(1)}\,,$$ with the complex fields $\xi^1$ and $\xi^2$, respectively, where $\xi^2$ is the dilaton/axion field. This new parametrization amounts to the field redefinition $$\label{chvar}
\zeta^1\eql \xi^1\,\sqrt{1-|\xi^2|^2}\,,\qquad \zeta^2\eql\xi^2\,,$$ which can be applied to any (composite) gauge invariant expressions.[^18] In particular, the kinetic action in terms of those fields is obtained from and involves covariant derivatives $$\label{covdexi}
\nabla\xi^i\eql d\xi^i+g \,\cA^{(a)}\cK_{(a)}^\xi{}^{i}\,,$$ with the Killing vectors $$\label{kilxi}
\mathcal{K}_{(1)}^\xi \eql \mathcal{K}_{(2)}^\xi \eql \mathcal{K}_{(3)}^\xi \eql \mathcal{K}_{(4)}^\xi \eql (0,0)\,,\qquad\qquad \mathcal{K}_{(5)}^\xi \eql (3i\xi^1,0)\,.$$ The potential now becomes $$\label{}
\cals P_\xi \eql -{3\over 8}{( 2-3|\xi^1|^2)\over (1-|\xi^1|^2}\,.$$ and is manifestly independent of the dilaton/axion field, $\xi^2$.
Using this parametrization, it is now straightforward to calculate the full scalar potential with all eight scalar fields. It reads $$\label{finpot}
\begin{split}
\cals P & \eql {1\over 8}\,e^{8\alpha}\,{|\xi^1|^2\over (1-|\xi^1|^2)^2}-{1\over 2}\,e^{2\alpha}\,{1\over \sqrt{1-\bfs z^2}\, (1-|\xi^1|^2) } - {1\over 4}\,e^{-4\alpha}\,{1-\bfs z^2-2\,|\xi^1|^2\over (1-\bfs z^2)\, (1-|\xi^1|^2)^2 }\,.
\end{split}$$ It does not depend on the dilaton/axion and is invariant under the gauge transformations generated by and .
Let us now turn to the vector fields. We find that the Maxwell action reduces to $$\label{maxact}
e^{-1}\cals L_{Max}\eql -{1\over 4}\,a_{ab}\,\mathcal{F}^{(a)}_{\mu\nu}\mathcal{F}^{(b)}{}^{\mu\nu}\,,$$ with the field strengths $$\cals F^a\eql d\,\cals A^a-{g\over 2}\,f_{bc}{}^a\,\cals A^b\wedge \cals A^c\,,$$ where $f_{ab}{}^c$ are the structure constants, $[\cals T_a,\cals T_b]=f_{ab}{}^c \cals T_c$. The matrix, $(a_{ab})$, $a,b=1,\ldots,5$, of Yang-Mills couplings is given explicitly by $$\label{}
\begin{split}
a_{ij} & \eql 2\,e^{4\alpha}\, \Big(\delta^{ij}+2 \,{z^iz^j\over 1-\bfs z^2}\Big)\,,\qquad\qquad a_{i4} \eql -4\,e^{4\alpha}\,{z^i\over 1-\bfs z^2}\,, \qquad\qquad i,j=1,2,3\,,
\\[5pt]
a_{44}&\eql 4\,e^{-8\alpha}+2\,e^{4\alpha}\,{1+\bfs z^2\over 1-\bfs z^2}\,,~~
a_{45} \eql -2\,e^{-8\alpha}+2\,e^{4\alpha}\,{1+\bfs z^2\over 1-\bfs z^2}\,,~~
a_{55} \eql e^{-8\alpha}+2\,e^{4\alpha}\,{1+\bfs z^2\over 1-\bfs z^2}\,.
\end{split}$$ It depends only on the scalar fields $\alpha$ and $z^1,\ldots,z^3$.
The full action of the truncated theory is thus $$\label{fulllag}
\cals L\eql -{1\over 4}\,e\,R+\cals L_{Max}+\cals L_{kin,\alpha}+\cals L_{kin,z}+\cals L_{kin,\zeta}-e\,g^2\,\cals P+\cals L_{CS}\,,$$ with the individual terms given in , , , and , respectively. The last term in is the Chern-Simons term which we discuss in more detail below.
The $U(1)_F$-invariant subtruncation is now simply obtained by setting $$\label{}
\beta^1\eql \beta^2\eql 0\,,\qquad \beta^3\eql \beta\qquad \text{or}\qquad z^1\eql z^2\eql 0\,,\qquad z^3\eql \tanh 2\beta\,,$$ which reduces the coset to , and restricting the vector fields to the Abelian subalgebra, $\cals A^1=\cals A^2=0$. Finally, the truncation in Section \[Sec:SUGRAtrunc\] is obtained by turning off the dilaton and axion field, $$\label{}
w^1\eql i\,\chi\,e^{i\theta}\,,\qquad w^2\eql 0\qquad \text{or}\qquad \zeta^1\eql \xi^1\eql i\,\tanh\chi\,e^{i\theta}\,,\qquad \zeta^2\eql\xi^2\eql 0\,,$$ One can verify that at the level of equations of motion the latter is a consistent truncation.
Let us conclude with some comments. First, one may wish to check that the $U(1)_R$-invariant truncation of the fermionic sector indeed yields the correct fields to complement the bosonic sector of the putatitive $\cN=2$, $d=5$ gauged supergravity. We have already seen that out of the eight gravitini of the maximal theory, two are invariant under $U(1)_R$, see . They correspond to the two gravitini in the five-dimensional $\mathcal{N}=2$ gravity multiplet. Similarly, out of the forty eight spin-1/2 fields in the $\mathcal{N}=8$ theory, there are ten singlets under $U(1)_R$, out of which eight belong to the four vector multiplets, and two are in the hypermultiplet. Given the bosonic action in , we know both the precise scalar coset and the Killing vectors , of the symmetries that are gauged. In Appendix \[appendixB\], we will also obtain the Chern-Simons couplings. With this information at hand it should be possible to recover the full $\mathcal{N}=2$, $d=5$ gauged supergravity [@Ceresole:2000jd] corresponding to this truncation.
Secondly, one can calculate the linearized mass spectrum of the eight scalars in this truncation around the $AdS_5$ critical points - and determine the dimensions of the dual operators using the standard relation $m^2L^2=\Delta(\Delta-4)$. This provides a useful comparison with the known results for the full $\cN=8$ theory [@Kim:1985ez; @Distler:1998gb; @Freedman:1999gp]. Around the $SO(6)$ critical point , one finds that the axion-dilaton has $m^2L^2=0$, which is appropriate for the marginal complexified YM coupling of $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM. The scalars $\alpha$ and $\beta_i$ have $m^2L^2=-4$ and are dual to bosonic bilinear operators with $\Delta=2$. The remaining two scalars in the hypemultiplet have $m^2L^2=-3$ and are dual to fermionic bilinear operators of dimension $\Delta=3$. Around the KPW critical point , the axion-dilaton together with the field $\theta$ have $m^2L^2=0$ and are thus dual to marginal operators in the LS SCFT. The triplet of scalars $\beta_i$ all have $m^2L^2=-4$ and are dual to operators with $\Delta=2$. These operators belong to the short multiplet containing the conserved $SU(2)_F$ current (see, Table 6.1 in [@Freedman:1999gp]). The scalars $\alpha$ and $\chi$ mix at the linearized level and the eigenvalues of the mass matrix are $m^2L^2=2(2\pm \sqrt{7})$, which corresponds to a relevant operator of dimension $\Delta=1+\sqrt{7}$ and an irrelevant one of dimension $\Delta=3+\sqrt{7}$. These two operators belong to the unprotected multiplet in the first entry of Table 6.2 in [@Freedman:1999gp]. Finally, at the $SU(3)$ invariant critical point , the scalar $\chi$ has $m^2L^2=8$ and all other seven scalars have $m^2L^2=0$. Since this point is perturbatively unstable in the full $\mathcal{N}=8$ theory, it is unclear whether one can interpret it holographically.
Chern-Simons levels and anomalies
=================================
\[appendixB\]
The Chern-Simons term of the $U(1)_R$-invariant truncation discussed in Appendix \[appendixA\] can be read off from [@Gunaydin:1985cu] $$\mathcal{L}_{CS} = C_{abc} \,\Big[\mathcal{F}^{a}\wedge \mathcal{F}^{b} \wedge \mathcal{A}^{c} - \frac{3g}{4}f_{de}{}^{c} \mathcal{F}^{a} \wedge \mathcal{A}^{b}\wedge \mathcal{A}^{d} \wedge \mathcal{A}^{e} \Big]\;,$$ where $f_{ab}{}^c$ are the structure constants of the gauge group.[^19] The symmetric tensor of CS couplings, $C_{abc}$, has only nine non-zero components given by $$\begin{gathered}
C_{114} = C_{224} = C_{334} = \frac{4}{3} \;, \qquad C_{115} = C_{225} = C_{335} = -\frac{2}{3} \;, \\
C_{444} = -4\;, \qquad C_{445} = -2\;, \qquad C_{555} = 2\;.
\end{gathered}$$
In $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM the supergravity gauge fields $\mathcal{A}^a$ correspond to conserved currents $\mathcal{J}^a$. One can then define the matrix of ’t Hooft anomalies for the global currents $\mathcal{J}^a$ as $$k^{abc} = \text{Tr}(\mathcal{J}^a\mathcal{J}^b\mathcal{J}^c)\,,$$ where the trace is to be taken over all fermions in $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM. Using the charges of the fermions in Table \[table:one\], one finds that the non-vanishing components of $k^{abc}$ are $$\begin{gathered}
k^{114} = k^{224} = k^{334} = -\frac{1}{4}d_{G} \;, \qquad k^{115} = k^{225} = k^{335} = \frac{1}{8}d_{G} \;, \\
k^{444} = \frac{3}{4}d_{G} \;, \qquad k^{445} = \frac{3}{8}d_{G}\;, \qquad k^{555} = -\frac{3}{8}d_{G}\;.
\end{gathered}$$ It is a consequence of holography that the matrix of Chern-Simons couplings for gauge fields in five-dimensional supergravity is proportional to the matrix of ’t Hooft anomalies for global currents in the dual field theory. Indeed we find $$k^{abc} = -\frac{3 d_G}{16}\,C_{abc}\;.$$ It is worth noting that at the LS fixed point the conserved current $\mathcal{J}^5$ is not present. This is manifested in supergravity by the gauge field $\mathcal{A}^5$ becoming massive at the KPW point due to the non-zero value of the scalar field $\chi$.
At the $AdS_3$ vacua of interest, the scalar $\beta$ is generically nonzero which breaks the $SU(2)$ gauge symmetry by giving mass to the $\mathcal{A}^{1}$ and $\mathcal{A}^{2}$ gauge fields. Thus we are left with two massless gauge fields $\mathcal{A}^{3}$ and $\mathcal{A}^{4}$ corresponding to the two Abelian global symmetries of the $(0,2)$ SCFTs in the IR. The value $\mathfrak{a}=0$ is special because $\beta=0$ and we preserve the full $SU(2)$ gauge symmetry in the gravity theory. Then the dual $(0,2)$ SCFT has $SU(2)$ flavor symmetry in addition to the omnipresent $U(1)_R$ symmetry.
The two supergravity gauge fields that are massless at the $AdS_3\times \Sigma_{\frak g}$ solutions are $$\mathcal{F}^3 = \dfrac{(a_1-a_2)}{2} \frac{dx\wedge dy}{y^2} = \frac{\mathfrak{a}}{g} \frac{dx\wedge dy}{y^2}\;, \qquad \mathcal{F}^4 = \dfrac{(a_1+a_2+2a_3)}{6} \frac{dx\wedge dy}{y^2}= \frac{1}{4g} \frac{dx\wedge dy}{y^2}\;,$$ where we have used the explicit change of basis . Upon dimensional reduction to three dimensions, one finds the following Chern-Simons term $$\mathcal{L}^{(3)}_{CS} =C_{ab} \,\mathcal{F}^{a} \wedge \mathcal{A}^{b} \;,$$ where the symmetric matrix of Chern-Simons couplings is $$C_{33} = \frac{1}{g} 2\pi\eta_{\Sigma}\;, \qquad C_{34} =C_{43}= \frac{4\mathfrak{a}}{g} 2\pi\eta_{\Sigma}\;, \qquad C_{44}= - \frac{3}{g} 2\pi\eta_{\Sigma}\;,$$ and $\eta_{\Sigma}$ is defined below .
The matrix of two-dimensional current anomalies is $$\label{kIJ}
k^{ab} = -\eta_{\Sigma} d_{G} \left[ t_{\frak{b}}^{(\lambda)}q_{a}^{(\lambda)}q_{b}^{(\lambda)} +t_{\frak{b}}^{(\chi_2)} q_{a}^{(\chi_2)}q_{b}^{(\chi_2)} + t_{\frak{b}}^{(\chi_3)}q_{a}^{(\chi_3)}q_{b}^{(\chi_3)} \right]\;,$$ where the charges of the fermion fields can be read off from Table \[table:two\] with the index $a,b=3$ corresponding to $U(1)_F$ and $a,b=4$ to $U(1)_R$, respectively. A short calculation yields $$k^{33} = - \frac{1}{8}d_G\eta_{\Sigma}\;, \qquad k^{34} = k^{43} = \frac{\mathfrak{b}}{4}d_G\eta_{\Sigma}\;, \qquad k^{44} = \frac{3}{8}d_G\eta_{\Sigma}\;.$$ Thus we arrive at the expected result that the matrix of Chern-Simons level in the three-dimensional gravitational theory is proportional to the matrix of current anomalies in the dual CFT $$k^{ab} = -\frac{g d_G}{16\pi}\,C_{ab}\,.$$ This holds provided we set $\mathfrak{b}=-2\mathfrak{a}$, which agrees with the discussion below .
[99]{}
D. Gaiotto, “N=2 dualities,” JHEP [**1208**]{}, 034 (2012) \[arXiv:0904.2715 \[hep-th\]\]. T. Dimofte, D. Gaiotto and S. Gukov, “Gauge Theories Labelled by Three-Manifolds,” arXiv:1108.4389 \[hep-th\]. F. Benini and N. Bobev, “Two-dimensional SCFTs from wrapped branes and c-extremization,” JHEP [**1306**]{}, 005 (2013) \[arXiv:1302.4451 \[hep-th\]\]. A. Gadde, S. Gukov and P. Putrov, “Fivebranes and 4-manifolds,” arXiv:1306.4320 \[hep-th\]. A. Gadde, S. Gukov and P. Putrov, “(0,2) Trialities,” arXiv:1310.0818 \[hep-th\]. M. Bershadsky, A. Johansen, V. Sadov and C. Vafa, “Topological reduction of 4-d SYM to 2-d sigma models,” Nucl. Phys. B [**448**]{}, 166 (1995) \[hep-th/9501096\]. J. M. Maldacena and C. Nunez, “Supergravity description of field theories on curved manifolds and a no go theorem,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**16**]{}, 822 (2001) \[hep-th/0007018\]. F. Benini and N. Bobev, “Exact two-dimensional superconformal R-symmetry and c-extremization,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**110**]{}, no. 6, 061601 (2013) \[arXiv:1211.4030 \[hep-th\]\]. A. Almuhairi and J. Polchinski, “Magnetic $AdS \times R^2$: Supersymmetry and stability,” arXiv:1108.1213 \[hep-th\]. A. Donos, J. P. Gauntlett and C. Pantelidou, “Magnetic and Electric AdS Solutions in String- and M-Theory,” Class. Quant. Grav. [**29**]{}, 194006 (2012) \[arXiv:1112.4195 \[hep-th\]\]. F. Benini, N. Bobev, and P. M. Crichigno, “2D SCFTs from 4D Quivers,” to appear.
D. Kutasov and J. Lin, “(0,2) Dynamics From Four Dimensions,” arXiv:1310.6032 \[hep-th\]. D. Kutasov and J. Lin, “(0,2) ADE Models From Four Dimensions,” arXiv:1401.5558 \[hep-th\]. R. G. Leigh and M. J. Strassler, “Exactly marginal operators and duality in four-dimensional N=1 supersymmetric gauge theory,” Nucl. Phys. B [**447**]{}, 95 (1995) \[hep-th/9503121\]. N. Seiberg, “Electric-magnetic duality in supersymmetric non-Abelian gauge theories,” Nucl. Phys. B [**435**]{}, 129 (1995) \[hep-th/9411149\]. I. Bah, C. Beem, N. Bobev and B. Wecht, “AdS/CFT Dual Pairs from M5-Branes on Riemann Surfaces,” Phys. Rev. D [**85**]{}, 121901 (2012) \[arXiv:1112.5487 \[hep-th\]\]. I. Bah, C. Beem, N. Bobev and B. Wecht, “Four-Dimensional SCFTs from M5-Branes,” JHEP [**1206**]{}, 005 (2012) \[arXiv:1203.0303 \[hep-th\]\]. D. Anselmi, D. Z. Freedman, M. T. Grisaru and A. A. Johansen, “Nonperturbative formulas for central functions of supersymmetric gauge theories,” Nucl. Phys. B [**526**]{}, 543 (1998) \[hep-th/9708042\]. K. A. Intriligator and B. Wecht, “The exact superconformal R symmetry maximizes a,” Nucl. Phys. B [**667**]{}, 183 (2003) \[hep-th/0304128\]. D. Cassani and D. Martelli, “Supersymmetry on curved spaces and superconformal anomalies,” JHEP [**1310**]{}, 025 (2013) \[arXiv:1307.6567 \[hep-th\]\]. D. Z. Freedman, S. S. Gubser, K. Pilch and N. P. Warner, “Renormalization group flows from holography supersymmetry and a c theorem,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**3**]{}, 363 (1999) \[hep-th/9904017\]. Y. Tachikawa and B. Wecht, “Explanation of the Central Charge Ratio 27/32 in Four-Dimensional Renormalization Group Flows between Superconformal Theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**103**]{}, 061601 (2009) \[arXiv:0906.0965 \[hep-th\]\].
E. Witten, “Topological Quantum Field Theory,” Commun. Math. Phys. [**117**]{}, 353 (1988). M. Naka, “Various wrapped branes from gauged supergravities,” hep-th/0206141. L. Alvarez-Gaume and E. Witten, “Gravitational Anomalies,” Nucl. Phys. B [**234**]{}, 269 (1984). M. Pernici, K. Pilch and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, “Gauged N=8 D=5 Supergravity,” Nucl. Phys. B [**259**]{}, 460 (1985). M. Gunaydin, L. J. Romans and N. P. Warner, “Gauged N=8 Supergravity in Five-Dimensions,” Phys. Lett. B [**154**]{}, 268 (1985). M. Gunaydin, L. J. Romans and N. P. Warner, “Compact and Noncompact Gauged Supergravity Theories in Five-Dimensions,” Nucl. Phys. B [**272**]{}, 598 (1986). E. Witten, “Anti-de Sitter space and holography,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**2**]{}, 253 (1998) \[hep-th/9802150\].
N. Bobev, A. Kundu, K. Pilch and N. P. Warner, “Supersymmetric Charged Clouds in $AdS_5$,” JHEP [**1103**]{}, 070 (2011) \[arXiv:1005.3552 \[hep-th\]\]. A. Khavaev and N. P. Warner, “A Class of N=1 supersymmetric RG flows from five-dimensional N=8 supergravity,” Phys. Lett. B [**495**]{}, 215 (2000) \[hep-th/0009159\].
A. Khavaev, K. Pilch and N. P. Warner, “New vacua of gauged N=8 supergravity in five-dimensions,” Phys. Lett. B [**487**]{}, 14 (2000) \[hep-th/9812035\]. A. Karch, D. Lust and A. Miemiec, “New N=1 superconformal field theories and their supergravity description,” Phys. Lett. B [**454**]{}, 265 (1999) \[hep-th/9901041\]. M. Cvetic, M. J. Duff, P. Hoxha, J. T. Liu, H. Lu, J. X. Lu, R. Martinez-Acosta, C. N. Pope, H. Sati, T. A. Tran, “Embedding AdS black holes in ten-dimensions and eleven-dimensions,” Nucl. Phys. B [**558**]{}, 96 (1999) \[hep-th/9903214\]. M. T. Anderson, C. Beem, N. Bobev and L. Rastelli, “Holographic Uniformization,” Commun. Math. Phys. [**318**]{}, 429 (2013) \[arXiv:1109.3724 \[hep-th\]\]. K. Skenderis, “Lecture notes on holographic renormalization,” Class. Quant. Grav. [**19**]{}, 5849 (2002) \[hep-th/0209067\]. J. D. Brown and M. Henneaux, “Central Charges in the Canonical Realization of Asymptotic Symmetries: An Example from Three-Dimensional Gravity,” Commun. Math. Phys. [**104**]{}, 207 (1986). S. Cucu, H. Lu and J. F. Vazquez-Poritz, “Interpolating from $AdS_{D-2}\times S^2$ to $AdS_D$,” Nucl. Phys. B [**677**]{}, 181 (2004) \[hep-th/0304022\]. K. Hristov and A. Rota, “Attractors, black objects, and holographic RG flows in 5d maximal gauged supergravities,” arXiv:1312.3275 \[hep-th\]. M. Hukuhara, T. Kimura, T. Matuda, “Equations différentielles ordinaires du premier ordre dans le champ complexe," Publ. Math. Soc. Japan, 7 (1961). A. Khavaev and N. P. Warner, “An N=1 supersymmetric Coulomb flow in IIB supergravity,” Phys. Lett. B [**522**]{}, 181 (2001) \[hep-th/0106032\].
N. Kim, “AdS(3) solutions of IIB supergravity from D3-branes,” JHEP [**0601**]{}, 094 (2006) \[hep-th/0511029\]. J. P. Gauntlett and N. Kim, “Geometries with Killing Spinors and Supersymmetric AdS Solutions,” Commun. Math. Phys. [**284**]{}, 897 (2008) \[arXiv:0710.2590 \[hep-th\]\]. K. Pilch and N. P. Warner, “A New supersymmetric compactification of chiral IIB supergravity,” Phys. Lett. B [**487**]{}, 22 (2000) \[hep-th/0002192\].
P. Karndumri and E. O Colgain, “Supergravity dual of $c$-extremization,” Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{}, 101902 (2013) \[arXiv:1302.6532 \[hep-th\]\]. P. Karndumri and E. O Colgain, “3D Supergravity from wrapped D3-branes,” JHEP [**1310**]{}, 094 (2013) \[arXiv:1307.2086\]. S. S. Gubser, “Curvature singularities: The Good, the bad, and the naked,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**4**]{}, 679 (2000) \[hep-th/0002160\]. M. Benna, I. Klebanov, T. Klose and M. Smedback, “Superconformal Chern-Simons Theories and $AdS_4/CFT_3$ Correspondence,” JHEP [**0809**]{}, 072 (2008) \[arXiv:0806.1519 \[hep-th\]\].
R. Corrado, K. Pilch and N. P. Warner, “An N=2 supersymmetric membrane flow,” Nucl. Phys. B [**629**]{}, 74 (2002) \[hep-th/0107220\].
A. Ceresole and G. Dall’Agata, “General matter coupled N=2, D = 5 gauged supergravity,” Nucl. Phys. B [**585**]{}, 143 (2000) \[hep-th/0004111\]. A. Ceresole, G. Dall’Agata, R. Kallosh and A. Van Proeyen, “Hypermultiplets, domain walls and supersymmetric attractors,” Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 104006 (2001) \[hep-th/0104056\]. M. Suh, “Supersymmetric Janus solutions in five and ten dimensions,” JHEP [**1109**]{}, 064 (2011) \[arXiv:1107.2796 \[hep-th\]\]. A. Clark and A. Karch, “Super Janus,” JHEP [**0510**]{}, 094 (2005) \[hep-th/0506265\]. H. J. Kim, L. J. Romans and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, “The Mass Spectrum of Chiral N=2 D=10 Supergravity on $S^5$,” Phys. Rev. D [**32**]{}, 389 (1985). J. Distler and F. Zamora, “Nonsupersymmetric conformal field theories from stable anti-de Sitter spaces,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**2**]{}, 1405 (1999) \[hep-th/9810206\].
[^1]: This is reminiscent of the situation in four-dimensional $\mathcal{N}=1$ theories [@Seiberg:1994pq].
[^2]: For notational clarity, from now on we will usually drop the superscript LS.
[^3]: Since the LS theory is superconformal, there is also the corresponding conformal supercharge.
[^4]: We assume that there are no accidental Abelian symmetries emerging at the IR fixed point.
[^5]: One should recall that the operator ${\rm Tr}\big(|\phi_1|^2+|\phi_2|^2 +|\phi_3|^2\big)$ receives a large anomalous dimension at strong ’t Hooft coupling and is thus not a supergravity mode [@Witten:1998qj]. It can be added to to preserve supersymmetry and positivity.
[^6]: We follow the same conventions as in [@Gunaydin:1985cu; @Bobev:2010de] with the mostly minus metric. This action can also be obtained from another truncation of the $\cN=8$ supergravity discussed in [@Bobev:2010de; @Khavaev:2000gb]. In the notation of those papers we are keeping the fields $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\theta_1\equiv\theta$ and $\varphi_1\equiv\chi$.
[^7]: See, Section \[Sec:HoloRG\] for a detailed discussion.
[^8]: For a formal definition and a review of asymptotically locally $AdS$ spacetimes in holography, see [@Skenderis:2002wp].
[^9]: For definitions of the various tensors and further details, we refer the reader to [@Gunaydin:1985cu].
[^10]: Note that for $\chi=0$, reduces to $a_1+a_2+a_3=1/g$, which leads to the solutions constructed in [@Benini:2013cda].
[^11]: The factor of 2 in $\mathfrak{b}=- 2\mathfrak{a}$ is due to a different normalization of the Maxwell terms in field theory and in supergravity. To see this, we compare the action (46) in [@Maldacena:2000mw] with above. This leads to $a_i^{BB}=2a_i^{\rm here}$, where $a_i^{BB}$ are the constants used in [@Benini:2012cz; @Benini:2013cda]. The sign difference between $\mathfrak{b}$ and $\mathfrak{a}$ comes from the opposite signature of the space-time metric in field theory.
[^12]: An example where this is realized is the $(4,4)$ two-dimensional sigma model on the Hitchin moduli space obtained by placing $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM on a Riemann surface with a special partial topological twist [@Bershadsky:1995vm]. Since the Hitchin moduli space is a non-compact hyper-Kähler manifold, the SCFT does not have a normalizable vacuum state and thus there is no dual $AdS_3$ vacuum [@Maldacena:2000mw].
[^13]: With some abuse of terminology, we will refer to the five-dimensional asymptotically locally $AdS_5$ solutions as $AdS_5$ solutions or simply critical points.
[^14]: One can use the same argument to explain the observation in [@Khavaev:2000gb; @Khavaev:2001yg] that holographic RG flows out of the KPW point with $\mathbb{R}^{1,3}$ slicing involve only vevs for the operator $\cals O_{1+\sqrt 7}$.
[^15]: Holographic RG flows between the $SO(6)$ point and the $(2,2)$ $AdS_3\times \Sigma_{\frak{g}}$ vacua for $\frak{a}=\pm 1/4$ were constructed numerically in [@Benini:2013cda]. There are no flows from the KPW point to the $AdS_3\times \Sigma_{\frak{g}}$ solutions for $\frak{a}=\pm 1/4$.
[^16]: The two-form fields, $B_{\mu\nu}^{I\alpha}$, of the $\cN=8$ supergravity are all charged under $U(1)_R$ and hence they do not contribute to the truncation.
[^17]: For an extensive discussion and earlier references, see [@Ceresole:2001wi; @Suh:2011xc].
[^18]: In general, there will be a compensating composite $SU(2)\times U(1)\subset USp(8)$ gauge transformation that must be performed on top of the field redefinition.
[^19]: The $\mathcal{A}\wedge \mathcal{A}\wedge \mathcal{A}\wedge \mathcal{A}\wedge \mathcal{A}$ CS term present in the $\mathcal{N}=8$ theory is identically zero in this truncation.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We compute the fundamental group of the spaces of ordered commuting $n$-tuples of elements in the Lie groups $SU(2)$, $U(2)$ and $SO(3)$. For $SO(3)$ the mod-2 cohomology of the components of these spaces is also obtained.'
author:
- '**Enrique Torres-Giese[^1] and Denis Sjerve[^2]**'
title: '**Fundamental Groups of Commuting Elements in Lie Groups**'
---
**Introduction** {#intro}
================
In this paper we calculate the fundamental groups of the connected components of the spaces $$M_n(G):=Hom(\Z^n,G),\ \mbox{ where $G$ is one of $SO(3),\ SU(2)$ or $U(2)$.}$$ The space $M_n(G)$ is just the space of ordered commuting $n$-tuples of elements from $G,$ topologized as a subset of $G^n.$
The spaces $M_n(SU(2))$ and $M_n(U(2))$ are connected (see [@AC]), but $M_n(SO(3))$ has many components if $n>1.$ One of the components is the one containing the element $(id,id,\ldots,id);$ see Section \[thespaces\]. The other components are all homeomorphic to $V_2(\mathbb R^3)/\mathbb Z_2\oplus\mathbb Z_2,$ where $V_2(\mathbb R^3)$ is the Stiefel manifold of orthonormal $2$-frames in $\mathbb R^3$ and the action of $\mathbb Z_2\oplus\mathbb Z_2$ on $V_2(\mathbb R^3)$ is given by $$(\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2)(v_1,v_2)=(\epsilon_1 v_1,\epsilon_2 v_2),\
\mbox{where $\epsilon_j=\pm 1$ and $(v_1,v_2)\in V_2(\mathbb R^3). $}$$ Let $e_1,e_2,e_3$ be the standard basis of $\mathbb R^3.$ Under the homeomorphism $SO(3)\to V_2(\mathbb R^3)$ given by $A\mapsto (Ae_1,Ae_2)$ the action of $\mathbb Z_2\oplus\mathbb Z_2$ on $V_2(\mathbb R^3)$ corresponds to the action defined by right multiplication by the elements of the group generated by the transformations $$(x_1,x_2,x_3)\mapsto(x_1,-x_2,-x_3),\ (x_1,x_2,x_3)\mapsto(-x_1,x_2,-x_3).$$ The orbit space of this action is homeomorphic to $\S^3/Q_8$, where $Q_8$ is the quaternion group of order eight.
Then $M_n(SO(3))$ will be a disjoint union of many copies of $\S^3/Q_8$ and the component containing $(id,\ldots,id).$ For brevity let $\vec{1}$ denote the $n$-tuple $(id,\ldots,id).$
\[comps\] [*Let $M_n^+(SO(3))$ be the component of $\vec{1}$ in $M_n(SO(3))$, and let $M_n^-(SO(3))$ be the complement $M_n(SO(3))-M_n^+(SO(3))$.*]{}
Our main result is the following
\[mainth\] For all $n\ge 1$ $$\begin{array}{rcc}
\pi_1(M_n^+(SO(3))) & = & \Z_2^n \\
\pi_1(M_n(SU(2))) & =& 0 \\
\pi_1(M_n(U(2))) & = & \Z^n \end{array}$$
The other components of $M_n(SO(3)),$ $n>1,$ all have fundamental group $Q_8.$
\[cover\][*To prove this theorem we first prove that $\pi_1(M_n^+(SO(3))) = \Z_2^n,$ and then use the following property of spaces of homomorphisms (see [@G]). Let $\Gamma$ be a discrete group, $p:\tilde{G}\to G$ a covering of Lie groups, and $C$ a component of the image of the induced map $p_*:Hom(\Gamma,\tilde{G})\to Hom(\Gamma,G)$. Then $p_*:p_*^{-1}(C)\to C$ is a regular covering with covering group $Hom(\Gamma,Ker\ p)$. Applying this to the universal coverings $SU(2)\to SO(3)$ and $SU(2)\times\R \to U(2)$ induces coverings $$\Z_2^n\to M_n(SU(2))\to M_n^+(SO(3))$$ $$\Z^n\to M_n(SU(2))\times\R^n\to M_n(U(2))$$*]{}
[*The spaces of homomorphisms arise in different contexts (see [@J]). In physics for instance, the orbit space $Hom(\Z^n,G)/G$, with $G$ acting by conjugation, is the moduli space of isomorphism classes of flat connections on principal $G$-bundles over the $n$-dimensional torus. Note that, if $G$ is connected, the map $\pi_0(Hom(\Z^n,G))\to\pi_0(Hom(\Z^n,G)/G)$ is a bijection of sets. The study of these spaces arises from questions concerning the understanding of the structure of the components of this moduli space and their number. These questions are part of the study of the quantum field theory of gauge theories over the $n$-dimensional torus (see [@BFM],[@KS]).* ]{}
The organization of this paper is as follows. In Section 2 we study the toplogy of $M_n(SO(3))$ and compute its number of components. In Section 3 we prove Theorem \[mainth\] and apply this result to mapping spaces. Section 4 treats the cohomology of $M_n^+(SO(3))$. Part of the content of this paper is part of the Doctoral Dissertation of the first author ([@E]).
**The Spaces $M_n(SO(3))$** {#thespaces}
===========================
In this section we describe the topolgy of the spaces $M_n(SO(3)),\ n\ge 2.$ If $A_1,A_2$ are commuting elements from $SO(3)$ then there are $2$ possibilities: either $A_1,A_2$ are rotations about a common axis; or $A_1,A_2$ are involutions about axes meeting at right angles. The first possibility covers the case where one of $A_1,A_2$ is the identity since the identity can be considered as a rotation about any axis.
It follows that there are 2 possibilities for an $n$-tuple $(A_1,\ldots,A_n)\in M_n(SO(3)):$
1. Either $A_1,\ldots,A_n$ are all rotations about a common axis $L$; or
2. There exists at least one pair $i,j$ such that $A_i,A_j$ are involutions about perpendicular axes. If $v_i,v_j$ are unit vectors representing these axes then all the other $A_k$ must be one of $id,A_i,A_j$ or $A_iA_j=A_jA_i$ (the involution about the cross product $v_i\times v_j).$
It is clear that if $\omega(t)=(A_1(t),\ldots,A_n(t))$ is a path in $M_n(SO(3))$ then exactly one of the following 2 possibilities occurs: either the rotations $A_1(t),\ldots,A_n(t)$ have a common axis $L(t)$ for all $t$; or there exists a pair $i,j$ such that $A_i(t),A_j(t)$ are involutions about perpendicular axes for all $t$. In the second case the pair $i,j$ does not depend on $t.$
\[compvec[1]{}\] $M_n^+(SO(3))$ is the space of $n$-tuples $(A_1,\ldots,A_n)\in SO(3)^n$ such that all the $A_j$ have a common axis of rotation.
Let $A_1,\ldots,A_n$ have a common axis of rotation $L$. Thus $A_1,\ldots,A_n$ are rotations about $L$ by some angles $\theta_1,\ldots,\theta_n.$ We can change all angles to $0$ by a path (while maintaining the common axis). Conversely, if $\omega(t)=(A_1(t),\ldots,A_n(t))$ is a path containing $\vec{1}$ then the $A_j(t)$ will have a common axis of rotation for all $t$ (which might change with $t$).
Thus any component of $M_n^-(SO(3))$ can be represented by an $n$-tuple $(A_1,\ldots,A_n)$ satisfying possibility 2 above.
The connected components of $M_2(SO(3))$ are $M_2^{\pm}(SO(3)).$
Let $(A_1,A_2)$ be a pair in $M_2^-(SO(3)).$ Then there are unit vectors $v_1,v_2$ in $\R^3$ such that $v_1,v_2$ are perpendicular and $A_1,A_2$ are involutions about $v_1,v_2$ respectively. The pair $(v_1,v_2)$ is not unique since any one of the four pairs $(\pm v_1,\pm v_2)$ will determine the same involutions. In fact there is a 1-1 correspondence between pairs $(A_1,A_2)$ in $M_2^-(SO(3))$ and sets $\{(\pm v_1,\pm v_2) \}.$ Thus $M_2^-(SO(3))$ is homeomorphic to the orbit space $V_2(\R^3)/\Z_2\oplus\Z_2.$ Since $V_2(\R^3)$ is connected so is $M_2^-(SO(3)).$
Next we determine the number of components of $M_n^-(SO(3))$ for $n>2$. The following example will give an indication of the complexity.
\[example1\] Let $(A_1,A_2,A_3)$ be an element of $M_3^-(SO(3)).$ Then there exists at least one pair $A_i,A_j$ without a common axis of rotation. For example suppose $A_1,A_2$ don’t have a common axis. Then $A_1,A_2$ are involutions about perpendicular axes $v_1,v_2$, and there are $4$ possibilities for $A_3:$ $A_3=id,A_1,A_2\ \mbox{or}\ A_3=A_1A_2.$ We will see that the triples $$(A_1,A_2,id),(A_1,A_2,A_1),(A_1,A_2,A_2),(A_1,A_2,A_1A_2)$$ belong to different components. Similarly if $A_1,A_3$ or $A_2,A_3$ don’t have a common axis of rotation. This leads to 12 components, but some of them are the same component. An analysis leads to a total of 7 distinct components corresponding to the following 7 triples: $(A_1,A_2,id)$, $(A_1,A_2,A_1)$, $(A_1,A_2,A_2)$, $(A_1,A_2,A_1A_2)$, $(A_1,id,A_3)$, $(A_1,A_1,A_3)$, $(id,A_2,A_3)$; where $A_1,A_2$ are distinct involutions in the first 4 cases; $A_1,A_3$ are distinct involutions in the next 2 cases; and $A_2,A_3$ are distinct involutions in the last case. These components are all homeomorphic to $\S^3/ Q_8$. Thus $M_3(SO(3))$ is homeomorphic to the disjoint union $$M_3^+(SO(3))\sqcup \S^3/Q_8\sqcup\ldots\sqcup \S^3/Q_8,$$ where there are 7 copies of $\S^3/Q_8$.
The pattern of this example holds for all $n\ge 3.$ A simple analysis shows that $M_n^-(SO(3))$ consists of $n$-tuples $\vec{A}=(A_1,\ldots,A_n)\in SO(3)^n$ satisfying the following conditions:
1. Each $A_i$ is either an involution about some axis $v_i,$ or the identity.
2. If $A_i,A_j$ are distinct involutions then their axes are at right angles.
3. There exists at least one pair $A_i,A_j$ of distinct involutions.
4. If $A_i,A_j$ are distinct involutions then every other $A_k$ is one of $id,A_i,A_j$ or $A_iA_j.$
This leads to 5 possibilities for any element $(B_1,\ldots,B_n)\in M_n^-(SO(3)):$ $$(B_1,B_2,*,\ldots,*),(B_1,id,*,\ldots,*),(id,B_2,*,\ldots,*),
(B_1,B_1,*,\ldots,*),(id,id,*,\ldots,*),$$
where $B_1,B_2$ are distinct involutions about perpendicular axes and the asterisks are choices from amongst $id,B_1,B_2,B_3=B_1B_2.$ The choices must satisfy the conditions above.
These 5 cases account for all components of $M_n^-(SO(3)),$ but not all choices lead to distinct components. If $\omega(t)= (B_1(t),B_2(t),\ldots,B_n(t))$ is a path in $M_n^-(SO(3))$ then it is easy to verify the following statements:
1. If some $B_i(0)=id$ then $B_i(t)=id$ for all $t$.
2. If $B_i(0)=B_j(0)$ then $B_i(t)=B_j(t)$ for all $t$.
3. If $B_i(0),B_j(0)$ are distinct involutions then so are $B_i(t),B_j(t)$ for all $t$.
4. If $B_k(0)=B_i(0)B_j(0)$ then $B_k(t)=B_i(t)B_j(t)$ for all $t$.
These 4 statements are used repeatedly in the proof of the next theorem.
The number of components of $M_n^-(SO(3))$ is $$\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
{\displaystyle}\frac{1}{6}(4^{n}-3\times 2^{n}+2) & \mbox{if $n$ is even}\\
& \\
{\displaystyle}\frac{2}{3}(4^{n-1}-1)-2^{n-1}+1 &\mbox{if $n$ is odd}
\end{array}\right.$$ Moreover, each component is homeomorphic to $\S^3/Q_8.$
Let $x_n$ denote the number of components. The first 3 values of $x_n$ are $x_1=0,$ $ x_2=1$ and $x_3=7,$ in agreement with the statement in the theorem. We consider the above 5 possibilities one by one. First assume $\vec{B}=(B_1,B_2,*,\ldots,*).$ Then different choices of the asterisks lead to different components. Thus the contribution in this case is $4^{n-2}.$ Next assume $\vec{B}=(B_1,id,*,\ldots,*).$ Then all choices for the asterisks are admissible, except for those choices involving only $id$ and $B_1.$ This leads to $4^{n-2}-2^{n-2}$ possibilities. However, changing every occurrence of $B_2$ to $B_3,$ and $B_3$ to $B_2,$ keeps us in the same component. Thus the total contribution in this case is $(4^{n-2}-2^{n-2})/2.$ This is the same contribution for cases 3 and 4. Finally, there are $x_{n-2}$ components associated to $\vec{B}=(id,id,*,\ldots,*).$ This leads to the recurrence relation $${\displaystyle}x_n= 4^{n-2}+\frac{3}{2}(4^{n-2}-2^{n-2})+x_{n-2}$$ Now we solve this recurrence relation for the $x_n.$
Given any element $(B_1,\ldots,B_n)\in M_n^-(SO(n))$ we select a pair of involutions, say $B_i,B_j,$ with perpendicular axes $v_i,v_j.$ All the other $B_k$ are determined uniquely by $B_i,B_j.$ Thus the element $(v_i,v_j)\in V_2(\mathbb R^3)$ determines $(B_1,\ldots,B_n).$ But all the elements $(\pm v_i,\pm v_j)$ also determine $(B_1,\ldots,B_n).$ Thus the component to which $(B_1,\ldots,B_n)$ belongs is homeomorphic to $V_2(\mathbb R^3)/\mathbb Z_2\oplus\mathbb Z_2\cong \S^3/Q_{8}.$
**Fundamental Group of $M_n(G)$**
=================================
In this section we prove Theorem \[mainth\], and we start by finding an appropriate description of $M_n^+(SO(3))$. Let $T^n=(\S^1)^n$ denote the $n$-torus. Then
\[quotient\] $M_n^+(SO(3))$ is homeomorphic to the quotient space $\S^2\times T^n/\sim,$ where $\sim$ is the equivalence relation generated by $$\displaystyle
(v,z_1,\dots,z_n)\sim (-v,\bar{z}_1,\ldots,\bar{z}_n)\ \mbox{ and }\
(v,\vec{1})\sim(v^{\prime},\vec{1})\
\mbox{for all $v,v^{\prime}\in \S^2,z_i\in \S^1.$}$$
If $(A_1,\ldots,A_n)\in M_n^+(SO(3))$ then there exists $v\in \S^2$ such that $A_1,\ldots,A_n$ are rotations about $v$. Let $z_j\in \S^1$ be the elements corresponding to these rotations. The $(n+1)$-tuple $(v,z_1,\ldots,z_n)$ is not unique. For example, if one of the $A_i$’s is not the identity then $(-v,\bar{z}_1,\ldots,\bar{z}_n)$ determines the same $n$-tuple of rotations. On the other hand, if all the $A_i$’s are the identity then any element $v\in \S^2$ is an axis of rotation.
We will use the notation $[v,z_1,\ldots,z_n]$ to denote the equivalence class of $(v,z_1,\dots,z_n).$ Thus $x_0=[v,\vec{1}]\in \S^2\times T^n/\sim$ is a single point, which we choose to be the base point. It corresponds to the $n$-tuple $(id,\dots, id)\in M_n^+(SO(3))$. Then $M_n^+(SO(3))$ is locally homeomorphic to $\mathbb R^{n+2}$ everywhere except at the point $x_0$ where it is singular.
[*Proof of Theorem 1.2*]{}: Notice that the result holds for $n=1$ since $Hom(\Z,G)$ is homeomorphic to $G$. The first step is to compute $\pi_1(M_n^+(SO(3))).$ Let $T^n_0=T^n-\{\vec{1}\}$ and $M_n^+=M_n^+(SO(3)).$ Removing the singular point $x_0=[v,\vec{1}]$ from $M_n^+$ we have $M_n^+-\{x_0\}\cong \S^2\times T_0^n/\mathbb Z_2,$ see Theorem \[quotient\]. If $t$ denotes the generator of $\mathbb Z_2$ then the $\mathbb Z_2$ action on $\S^2\times T_0^n$ is given by $$t(v,z_1,\ldots,z_n)=(-v,\bar{z}_1,\ldots,\bar{z}_n),\ v\in \S^2, z_j\in \S^1$$ This action is fixed point free and so there is a two-fold covering $\S^2\times T^n_0\stackrel{p}{\to}M_n^+-\{x_0\}$ and a short exact sequence $$1\to \pi_1(\S^2\times T^n_0)\to\pi_1(M_n^+-\{x_0\})\to\Z_2\to 1$$ Let ${\bf n}$ denote the north pole of $\S^2.$ Then for base points in $\S^2\times T^n_0$ and $M_n^+-\{x_0\}$ we take $({\bf n},-1,\ldots,-1)=({\bf n},-\vec{1})$ and $[{\bf n},-1,\ldots,-1]=[{\bf n},-\vec{1}]$ respectively.
This sequence splits. To see this note that the composite $\S^2\to \S^2\times T^n_0 \to \S^2$ is the identity, where the first map is $ v\mapsto(v,-\vec{1})$ and the second is just the projection. Both maps are equivariant with respect to the $\Z_2$-actions, and therefore $ M_n^+-\{x_0\}$ retracts onto $\mathbb R P^2.$
First we consider the case $n=2.$ Choose $-1$ to be the base point in $\S^1.$ The above formula for the action of $\mathbb Z_2$ also defines a $\Z_2$ action on $\S^2\times(\S^1\vee \S^1).$ This action is fixed point free. The inclusion $\S^2\times(\S^1\vee \S^1)\subset \S^2\times \S^1\times \S^1$ is equivariant and there exists a $\Z_2$-equivariant strong deformation retract from $\S^2\times T^2_0$ onto $\S^2\times(\S^1\vee \S^1).$ Let $a_1,a_2$ be the generators $({\bf n},\S^1,-1)$ and $({\bf n},-1,\S^1)$ of $\pi_1(\S^2\times T^2_0)=\Z*\Z.$ See the Figure below.
The involution $t:\S^2\times T^2_0\to \S^2\times T^2_0$ induces isomorphisms $$\begin{array}{ccc}
\pi_1(\S^2\times(\S^1\vee \S^1),\{{\bf n},-1,-1\})&\stackrel{c}{\to}&
\pi_1(\S^2\times(\S^1\vee \S^1),\{{\bf s},-1,-1\})\\
\pi_1(\S^2\vee(\S^1\vee \S^1),\{{\bf n},-1,-1\})&\stackrel{c}{\to}&
\pi_1(\S^2\vee(\S^1\vee \S^1),\{{\bf n},-1,-1\})
\end{array}$$ where ${\bf s}=-{\bf n}$ is the south pole in $\S^2.$
We have the following commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
\S^2\vee_{{\bf n}}(\S^1\vee \S^1)\ar[d]^{i_{{\bf n}}}\ar[rr]^t & & \S^2\vee_{{\bf s}}(\S^1\vee \S^1)\ar[d]^{i_{{\bf s}}} \\
\S^2\times_{{\bf n}}(\S^1\vee \S^1)\ar[rr]^t\ar[rd]_p & & \S^2\times_{{\bf s}}(\S^1\vee \S^1)\ar[ld]^p \\
& M_2^+-\{x_0\} & }$$ where $i_{{\bf n}}$ and $i_{{\bf s}}$ are inclusions. Here the subscripts ${\bf n}$ and ${\bf s}$ refer to the north and south poles respectively, which we take to be base points of $\S^2$ in the one point unions. The inclusions $i_{\bf n},i_{\bf s}$ induce isomorphims on $\pi_1$ and therefore $p_*\pi_1(\S^2\vee_{\bf n}(\S^1\vee \S^1))=p_*\pi_1(\S^2\vee_{\bf s}(\S^1\vee \S^1)).$ Thus $t$ sends $a_1$ to the loop based at $s$ but with the opposite orientation (similarly for $a_2$). See the Figure below.
We now have $\pi_1(M_2^+-\{x_0\})=
<a_1,a_2,t\ |\ t^2=1, a_1^t=a_1^{-1}, a_2^t=a_2^{-1}>$.
For the computation of $\pi_1(M_n^+-\{ x_0\}),\ n\ge 3,$ note that the inclusion $T^n_0 \subset T^n$ induces an isomorphism on $\pi_1.$ Therefore $\pi_1(T^n_0)=<a_1,\ldots,a_n\ |\ [a_i,a_j]=1\ \forall\ i,j>.$ The various inclusions of $T_0^2$ into $T_0^n$ (corresponding to pairs of generators) show that the action of $t$ on the generators is still given by $a_i^t=a_i^{-1}.$ Thus $$\pi_1(M_n^+-x_0)=<a_1,\ldots,a_n,t\ |\ t^2=1,[a_i,a_j]=1, a_i^t=a_i^{-1}>,\
\mbox{ for $n\geq 3$.}$$ The final step in the calculation of $\pi_1(M_n^+)$ is to use van Kampen’s theorem. To do this let $U\subset \S^1$ be a small open connected neighbourhood of $1\in \S^1$ which is invariant under conjugation. Here small means $-1\not\in U$. Then $N_n=\S^2\times U^n/\sim$ is a contractible neighborhood of $x_0$ in $M_n^+.$ We apply van Kampen’s theorem to the situation $M_n^+={\displaystyle}(M_n^+-\{x_0\})\cup N_n.$
The intersection $N_n\cap(M_n^+-\{x_0\})$ is homotopy equivalent to $(\S^2\times\S^{n-1})/\Z_2$ where $\Z_2$ acts by multiplication by $-1$ on both factors. Therefore $\pi_1(N_n\cap(M_n^+-\{x_0\})) \cong\Z$ when $n =2$, and $\Z_2$ when $n\geq 3$. Thus we need to understand the homomorphism induced by the inclusion $N_n\cap(M_n^+-\{ x_0\} )\to M_n^+-\{ x_0\}$.
When $n=2$ the inclusion of $N_2\cap(M_2^+-\{x_0\})$ into $M_2^+-\{x_0\}$ induces the following commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
\Z\ar[r]\ar[d]^2 & \Z*\Z\ar[d] \\
\pi_1(N_2\cap(M_2^+-\{x_0\}))\ar[r]\ar[d] & \pi_1(M_2^+-\{x_0\})\ar[d] \\
\Z_2\ar[r]^= & \Z_2 }$$ where the map on top is the commutator map. So if the generator of $\pi_1(N_2\cap(M_2^+-\{x_0\}))$ is sent to $w\in\pi_1(M_2^+-\{x_0\})$, then $w^2=[a_1,a_2]$, and the image of $w$ in $\Z_2$ is $t$. Thus we can write $w=a_1^{n_1}a_2^{m_1}\cdots a_1^{n_r}a_2^{m_r}t$ with $n_i,m_i\in\Z$. Then $$w^2=a_1^{n_1}a_2^{m_1}\cdots a_1^{n_r}a_2^{m_r}a_1^{-n_1}a_2^{-m_1}\cdots a_1^{-n_r}a_2^{-m_r}=
a_1 a_2 a_1^{-1}a_2^{-1}$$ which occurs only if $r=1$ and $n_1=m_1=1$. It follows that $w=a_1a_2 t$. Thus $$\pi_1(M_2^+)=<a_1,a_2,t\ |\ t^2=1, a_1^t=a_1^{-1}, a_2^t=a_2^{-1}, a_1a_2 t=1>$$ and routine computations show that this is the Klein four group.
For $n\geq 3$ the inclusion map $N_n\cap(M_n^+-\{x_0\})\to M_n^+-\{x_0\}$ can be understood by looking at the following diagram $$\xymatrix{
\S^2\times \S^1\ar[rr]\ar[dd]\ar[rd] & & \S^2\times T^2_0\ar[dd]\ar[rd] & \\
& \S^2\times S^{n-1}\ar[rr]\ar[dd] & & \S^2\times T^n_0\ar[dd] \\
N_2\cap(M_2^+-\{x_0\})\ar[rr]\ar[rd] & & M_2^+-\{x_0\}\ar[rd] & \\
& N_n\cap(M_n^+-\{x_0\})\ar[rr] & & M_n^+-\{x_0\}
}$$ Note that the map $N_2\cap(M_2^+-\{x_0\})\to N_n\cap(M_n^+-\{x_0\})$ induces the canonical projection $\Z\to\Z_2$. A chase argument shows that the inclusion $N_n\cap(M_n^+-\{x_0\})\to M_n^+-\{x_0\}$ imposes the relation $a_1a_2t$ as well, and therefore $$\pi_1(M_n^+)=<a_1,\ldots,a_n,t\ |\ t^2=1,[a_i,a_j]=1, a_i^t=a_i^{-1}, a_1a_2 t=1>.$$ By performing some routine computations we see that this group is isomorphic to $\Z_2^n$. This completes the proof of Theorem \[mainth\] for $SO(3)$. The cases of $SU(2)$ and $U(2)$ follow from Remark \[cover\]. $\Box$
Since the map $\pi_1(\vee_n G)\to\pi_1(G^n)$ is an epimorphism, it follows that the inclusion maps $$M_n^+(G)\to G^n\hspace{.6cm}if\ \ G=SO(3)$$ $$M_n(G)\to G^n\hspace{.5cm}if\ \ G=SU(2),U(2)$$ are isomorphisms in $\pi_1$ for all $n\geq 1$. Recall that there is a map $Hom(\Gamma,G)\to Map_*(B\Gamma,BG)$, where $Map_*(B\Gamma,BG)$ is the space of pointed maps from the classifying space of $\Gamma$ into the classifying space of $G$. Let $Map_*^+(T^n,BG)$ be the component of the map induced by the trivial representation.
\[5.2\] The maps $$M_n^+(G)\to Map_*^+(T^n,BG)\hspace{.5cm}if\ \ G=SO(3)$$ $$M_n(G)\to Map_*^+(T^n,BG)\hspace{.5cm}if\ \ G=U(2)$$ are injective in $\pi_1$ for all $n\geq 1$.
By induction on $n$, with the case $n=1$ being trivial. Assume $n>1$, and note that there is a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
M_n^+(SO(3))\ar[r]\ar[d] & Map_*^+(B\pi_1(T^n),BSO(3))\ar[d] \\
Hom(\pi_1(T^{n-1}\vee \S^1),SO(3))\ar[r]\ar[d] & Map_*^+(B\pi_1(T^{n-1}\vee \S^1),BSO(3))\ar[d] \\
Hom(\pi_1(T^{n-1}),SO(3))\times SO(3)\ar[r] & Map_*^+(B\pi_1(T^{n-1}),BSO(3))\times SO(3) }$$ in which the bottom map is injective in $\pi_1$ by inductive hypothesis, the lower vertical maps are homeomorphisms, and the upper left vertical map is injective in $\pi_1$. Thus the map on top is also injective as wanted. The proof for $U(2)$ is the same.
*We have the following observations.*
1. The two-fold cover $\Z_2\to \S^3\times \S^3\to SO(4)$ allows us to study $Hom(\Z^n,SO(4))$. Let $M_n^+(SO(4))$ be the component covered by $Hom(\Z^n,\S^3\times \S^3)$. Since $Hom(\Z^n,\S^3\times \S^3)$ is homeomorphic to $Hom(\Z^n,\S^3)\times Hom(\Z^n,\S^3)$, it follows that $$\pi_1(M_n^+(SO(4)))=\Z_2^n$$
2. The space $Hom(\Z^2,SO(4))$ has two components. One is $M_2^+(SO(4)),$ which is covered by $\partial^{-1}_{SU(2)^2}(1,1)$, and the other is covered by $\partial^{-1}_{SU(2)^2}(-1,-1)$, where $\partial_{SU(2)^2}$ is the commutator map of $SU(2)\times SU(2)$. Recall $\partial^{-1}_{SU(2)}(-1)$ is homeomorphic to $SO(3)$ (see [@AM]), so $\partial^{-1}_{SU(2)^2}(-1,-1)$ is homeomorphic to $SO(3)\times SO(3)/\Z_2\times\Z_2$, where the group $\Z_2\times\Z_2$ acts by left diagonal multiplication when it is thought of as the subgroup of $SO(3)$ generated by the transformations $(x_1,x_2,x_3)\mapsto(x_1,-x_2,-x_3)$ and $(x_1,x_2,x_3)\mapsto(-x_1,x_2,-x_3)$.
3. Corollary \[5.2\] holds similarly for $SO(4)$, and trivially for $SU(2)$.
**Homological Computations**
============================
In this section we compute the $\Z_2$-cohomology of $M_n^+(SO(3))$. The $\Z_2$-cohomology of the other components of $M_n(SO(3))$ is well-known since these are all homeomorphic to $\S^3/Q_8$. To perform the computation we will use the description of $M_n^+(SO(3))$ that we saw in the proof of Theorem \[mainth\]. The ingredients we have to consider are the spectral sequence of the fibration $\S^2\times T^n_0\to(M_n^+-\{ x_0\})\to \R P^\infty$ whose $E_2$ terms is $$\Z_2[u]\otimes E(v)\otimes E(x_1,\ldots,x_n)/(x_1\cdots x_n)$$ with $deg(u)=(1,0)$, $deg(v)=(0,2)$ and $deg(x_i)=(0,1)$; and the spectral sequence of the fibration $\S^2\times\S^{n-1}\to N_n\cap (M_n^+-\{ x_0\})\to\R P^\infty$ whose $E_2$-term is $$\Z_2[u]\otimes E(v)\otimes E(w)$$ with $deg(u)=(1,0)$, $deg(v)=(0,2)$ and $deg(w)=(0,n-1)$. Note that in both cases $d_2(v)=u^2$, whereas $d_2(x_i)=0$ since $H^1(M_n^+-\{ x_0\},\Z_2)=\Z_2^{n+1}$. Therefore the first spectral sequence collapses at the third term. As $d_n(w)=u^n$ and $d_j(w)=0$ for $j\neq n$, the second spectral sequence collapses at the third term when $n=2$ and at the fourth term when $n\geq 3$.
The last step is to use the Mayer-Vietoris long exact sequence of the pair $(M_n^+-\{ x_0\},N_n)$ which yields the following: for $n=2,3$,
$$H^q(M_2^+(SO(3)),\Z_2)=\left\{\begin{array}{ccl}
\Z_2 & & q=0\\
\Z_2\oplus\Z_2 & & q=1\\
\Z_2\oplus\Z_2\oplus\Z_2 & & q=2\\
\Z_2\oplus\Z_2\oplus\Z_2 & & q=3\\
\Z_2 & & q=4\\
0 & & q\geq 5 \end{array}\right.$$
$$H^q(M_3^+(SO(3)),\Z_2)=\left\{\begin{array}{ccl}
\Z_2 & & q=0\\
\Z_2\oplus\Z_2\oplus\Z_2 & & q=1\\
\Z_2\oplus\Z_2\oplus\Z_2\oplus\Z_2\oplus\Z_2\oplus\Z_2 & & q=2\\
\Z_2\oplus\Z_2\oplus\Z_2\oplus\Z_2\oplus\Z_2\oplus\Z_2\oplus\Z_2 & & q=3\\
\Z_2\oplus\Z_2\oplus\Z_2\oplus\Z_2 & & q=4\\
\Z_2 & & q=5\\
0 & & q\geq 6 \end{array}\right.$$
whereas for $n\geq 4$,
$$H^q(M_n^+(SO(3)),\Z_2)=\left\{\begin{array}{ccl}
\Z_2 & & q=0\\
& & \\
\Z_2^n & & q=1\\
& & \\
\Z_2^{{n\choose 1}+{n\choose 2}} & & q=2\\
& & \\
{\displaystyle}\Z_2^{{n\choose q-2}+{n\choose q-1}+{n\choose q}} & & 3\leq q\leq n\\
& & \\
\Z_2^{{n\choose n-1}+1} & & q=n+1\\
& & \\
\Z_2 & & q=n+2 \\
& & \\
0 & & q\geq n+3 \end{array}\right.$$
So the Euler characteristic of $M_n^+(SO(3))$ is given by $$\chi(M_n^+(SO(3)))=\left\{
\begin{array}{ccl}
0 & & n=2\ or\ odd \\
& & \\
{\displaystyle}2+n(n-1)-{n\choose k-1}-{n\choose k}-{n\choose k+1} & & n=2k,\ \ k\geq 2
\end{array}\right.$$
[999]{}
[^1]: Supported by a Conacyt fellowship
[^2]: Research supported by NSERC Discovery grant A7218
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'An H-mode plasma state free of edge-localized mode (ELM), close to the L-H transition with clear density and temperature pedestal has been observed both at the Joint European Torus (JET) and at the ASDEX Upgrade (AUG) tokamaks usually identified by a low frequency (LFO, 1-2 kHz), m=1, n=0 oscillation of the magnetics and the modulation of pedestal profiles. The regime at JET is referred to as M-mode while at AUG as intermediate phase or I-phase. This contribution aims at a comparative analysis of these phenomena in terms of the density and temperature pedestal properties, the magnetic oscillations and symmetries. Lithium beam emission spectroscopy (Li-BES) and reflectometer measurements at JET and AUG show that the M-mode and the I-phase modulates the plasma edge density. A high frequency oscillation of the magnetics and the density at the pedestal is also associated with both the M-mode and the I-phase, and its power is modulated with the LFO frequency. The power modulation happens simultaneously in every Mirnov coil signal where it can be detected. The bursts of the magnetic signals and the density at the pedestal region are followed by the flattening of the density profile, and by a radially outward propagating density pulse in the scrape-off layer (SOL). The analysis of the helium line ratio spectroscopy (He-BES) signals at AUG revealed that the electron temperature is modulated in phase with the density, thus the I-phase modulates the pressure profile gradient. This analysis gave opportunity to compare Li-BES and He-BES density profiles at different locations suggesting a toroidal and poloidal symmetry of the density modulation. The presented results indicate that the regimes, the AUG I-phase and the JET M-mode, exhibit similar characteristics, which leads to the conclusion that the regimes are likely the same.'
address:
- '$^1$Wigner RCP, Budapest, Hungary'
- '$^2$Laboratorio Nacional de Fusión, CIEMAT, Madrid, Spain'
- '$^3$Consorzio RFX Padova, Italy'
- '$^4$CCFE, Abingdon, United Kingdom'
- '$^5$IPFN, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal'
- '$^6$MPI for Plasma Physics, Garching, Germany'
- '$^7$Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton, New Jersey 08543, USA'
- '$^8$Budapest University of Technology, Budapest, Hungary'
- '$^9$ORNL, Tennessee, USA'
author:
- 'D. I. Réfy$^{1}$, E. R. Solano$^{2}$, N. Vianello$^{3}$, S. Zoletnik$^{1}$, D. Dunai$^{1}$, B. Tál$^{1}$, M. Brix$^{4}$, R. Gomes$^{5}$, G. Birkenmeier$^{6}$, E. Wolfrum$^{6}$, F. Laggner$^{7}$, M. Griener$^{6}$, O. Asztalos$^{8}$, E. Delabie$^{9}$, ASDEX Upgrade Team, JET Contributors[^1], EUROfusion MST1[^2]'
bibliography:
- 'M-mode.bib'
title: 'Identity of the JET M-mode and the ASDEX Upgrade I-phase phenomena'
---
=4
[*Keywords*]{}: magnetic confinement, tokamak, L-H transition, I-phase, M-mode
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
A high confinement mode (H-mode) plasma state free of Type-I edge-localized modes (ELMs), close to the L-H transition with clear density pedestal has been observed both at the Joint European Torus (JET) and at the ASDEX Upgrade (AUG) tokamaks usually identified by a low frequency (1-2 kHz), m=1, n=0 oscillation (LFO) of the magnetics and the modulation of pedestal profiles. The observed axisymmetric magnetic oscillation has an odd parity across the mid-plane: it is magnetically similar to an up-down oscillation of the plasma. The plasma state is referred to as M-mode [@Solano2017] at JET while as intermediate phase (I-phase [@Conway2011][@Birkenmeier2016b][@Manz2016][@Medvedeva2017][@Cavedon2017]) at AUG.
Similar phenomena which exhibit oscillations between different phases, often called Limit Cycle Oscillations (LCOs), have been reported in various devices: COMPASS [@Grover2018], DIII-D [@Colchin2002][@Schmitz2014], EAST [@Xu2011][@Xu2014][@Xu2014b], HL-2A [@Xu2015], JFT-2M [@Kobayashi2014a] and TJ-II [@Estrada2015]. These appear close to the L-H transition and are considered as predator-prey dynamics in the flow - turbulence - profile system [@Schmitz2017][@Cheng2013].
The I-phase is probably not governed by predator-prey dynamics as was shown in reference [@Birkenmeier2016b] and [@Cavedon2017], however the closed cycles in the Lissajous plots between $\mathbf{E_{r}}$ and the density fluctuations during the early I-phase, shown in reference [@Medvedeva2017] indicates that this option cannot be excluded. The growing high frequency precursor in $\mathbf{\dot{B}_{r}}$ at AUG in reference [@Birkenmeier2016b] shows clear electromagnetic nature of the I-phase. The n=0, m=1 LFO of the magnetics can be the consequence of the currents in the SOL, which slightly modify the equilibrium, however, the poloidal Alfvén wave frequency scaling as shown in reference [@Solano2017] along with the stationary frequency of the mode suggests that an MHD wave is excited during the M-mode. The I-phase precursors are similar to Type-III ELM precursors, and the I-phase bursts are considered pre-mature ELMs in reference [@Birkenmeier2016b], however the I-phase frequency does not scale with heating power, while Type-III ELM frequency scales inversely with heating power. An alternative explanation for the $n_{e}$ low frequency oscillation was shown in reference [@Clairet2018] claiming that such modulation can be the consequence of tilted turbulent structures moving due to the $\mathbf{E \times B}$ flow, based on fast frequency swept X-mode reflectometer measurements both at JET and AUG. While the interpretation of the results is different from that we propose, namely that the flattening of the density profile can cause such reflectometer spectra, it has to be emphasized that the same pedestal dynamics is observed by an independent diagnostic at both machines. Beside these open questions there is a broad consensus that the M-mode and the I-phase are part of the H-mode due to their improved confinement properties and formation of the temperature and density pedestal.
While present fusion experiments can be operated considerably above the L-H transition power threshold, ITER probably will be operated with marginal heating power [@Martin2008]. The M-mode and the I-phase are present in such circumstances, and at least the AUG I-phase is present in every discharge with favorable ion $\mathbf{\nabla B}$ drift direction ($\mathbf{B \times \nabla B}$ pointing towards the X-point) and with an L-H transition. Considering that large ELMs must be avoided at ITER to preserve integrity of plasma facing components, an H-mode plasma regime without ELMs and with reasonable confinement would be an appropriate plasma operation scenario for ITER. No special techniques, like reversed magnetic field, high plasma rotation shear nor magnetic perturbation coils are needed to enter the M-mode or the I-phase which will be either impossible or very hard to make at ITER. Another important feature is that they emerge independently of the heating technique.
The appearance of such oscillations at the L-H transition at various machines with different heating methods and plasma parameters indicates that this might be a common, general phenomenon. A comparative analysis of the M-mode and the I-phase in terms of low and high frequency magnetic oscillations, high frequency oscillation power modulation, density and temperature pedestal properties and high frequency density oscillations is presented in this paper.
The paper is organized as follows. Section \[Sect.diag\] provides a brief description of the lithium beam emission spectroscopy (Li-BES, section \[Sect.Li-BES\]) systems at JET and AUG, and of the helium line ratio spectroscopy diagnostic (He-BES, section \[Sect.He-BES\]) at AUG. These diagnostics were used for the main part of the presented analysis beside of the Mirnov coils. Section \[Sect.dataset\] focuses on the properties of the analyzed discharges. The high frequency oscillations (HFO, section \[Sect.HFO\]) as well as the high frequency oscillation power modulation (HFO power modulation, section \[Sect.HFB\]) of the magnetic signals as the most general property of the phenomena, along with the toroidal symmetry properties of the LFO and the HFO (section \[Sect.modenumber\]) are discussed in section \[Sect.magnetic\]. The results of the $n_{e}$ profile oscillations studies are presented in section \[Sect.densLFO\], combined $n_{e}$ and the $T_{e}$ profile characterization is shown for AUG in section \[Sect.presLFO\], while the JET pedestal temperature fluctuations are investigated in section \[Sect.tempLFO\]. The high frequency density modulation properties of the modes are shown in section \[Sect.denshfb\], while the insights of the Li-BES fluctuation measurement interpretation and modeling can be found in \[App.fluct1\] and \[App.fluct2\]. The results are summarized in section \[Sect.summary\], indicating that the physics background of the M-mode and the I-phase are the same.
Utilized diagnostics \[Sect.diag\]
==================================
Lithium Beam Emission Spectroscopy \[Sect.Li-BES\]
--------------------------------------------------
Li-BES and reflectometer measurements at JET [@Solano2017] and AUG [@Birkenmeier2016b] show that the M-mode and the I-phase modulate the plasma edge density. The investigation of the density profile dynamics during these phenomena became possible with the upgraded Li-BES at both machines as the diagnostics are capable of density profile measurements up to the pedestal top with 0.5 - 1 cm spatial and 50 - 100 $\mu$s temporal resolution. The Li-BES technique is a routinely used diagnostic for electron density profile measurement at several plasma experiments [@Zoletnik2018], and works as follows. An accelerated atomic beam is injected into the plasma, where the beam atoms are excited and ionized by plasma particles. The ionization process results in a gradual loss of the atoms in the beam. The beam attenuation is such that the beam can penetrate only the edge of the plasma, thus Li-BES systems are used for electron density profile and fluctuation measurement of the outer plasma regions only, namely the plasma edge and scrape off layer (SOL). Spontaneous de-excitation of the beam atoms results in a characteristic photon emission which may be detected through an optical system. The distribution of the light emission along the beam (light profile) is measured by a detector system, from which the electron density distribution (density profile) is calculated [@Schweinzer1992][@Fischer2008]. While the same Li-BES technique was utilized at both machines, the two diagnostics have slightly different properties.
- The JET Li-BES system [@Refy2018] consists of a beam injector aligned vertically at the top of the tokamak, shooting downwards and a beam emission detection system. The observation range of the detection system can be set by a turnable mirror in the limiter shadow displaced toroidally from the beam, looking quasi parallel with the field lines. The beam emission is imaged on an array of 1 mm diameter optical fibers through a lens resulting in 6-10 mm spot size at the beam location, which defines the optical resolution of the system. The light from the fiber array is imaged on a 32 channel avalanche photo diode camera (APDCAM [@Dunai2010]) in an optical enclosure located in the diagnostic hall, sampling the filtered light emission with 500 kHz. The beam can be modulated up to 10 kHz, thus the background radiation can be subtracted on the 50 $\mu$s timescale. The relative calibration of the channels is done by matching the beam emission signal in the plasma measured simultaneously by a spectrometer. The spectrometer measures the same input fibers as the APDCAM, utilizes spectral background subtraction and residual gas shot calibration. The density profile is calculated by a Bayesian algorithm [@Fischer2008] from the background corrected and relatively calibrated beam emission signal.
- The AUG system [@Willensdorfer2014] consists of a beam injector aligned horizontally, shooting 30 cm above the mid-plane of the tokamak, and a beam emission detection system. The observation range is fixed, and defined by an array of lenses in an optical head displaced toroidally from the beam, looking quasi parallel with the field lines. Each elliptical lens images 6 $\times$ 12 mm of the beam on a circular fiber, which defines the optical resolution of the system. The light from each fiber is measured by a photo-multiplier after optical filtering around the Doppler shifted 670.8 nm Lithium line. The signal of the photo-multiplier is sampled with 200 kHz. The beam extraction can be modulated up to 250 Hz, and the background is subtracted on the 4 ms time scale accordingly, however, the modulation is operated most of the time the way, that the beam is on for 56 ms and off for 24 ms. The relative calibration of the channels is done by shooting into neutral gas where the beam emission is considered homogeneous along the beam, taking some beam attenuation into account. The density profile is calculated by a Bayesian algorithm [@Fischer2008] from the light profile.
Helium line ratio spectroscopy \[Sect.He-BES\]
----------------------------------------------
A new helium line ratio spectroscopy diagnostic (He-BES for brevity) is available [@Griener2018] at the AUG tokamak, measuring the SOL and the plasma edge electron density and electron temperature profile simultaneously with up to 900 kHz temporal and up to 3 mm spatial resolution. A thermal helium beam is injected about 15 cm below the mid-plane of the AUG tokamak, and the line emission of the helium atoms is imaged on a fiber array which is then measured by a polychromator system at 4 wavelengths. The background emission is monitored with the same system by chopping the gas injection. The temperature and the density value can be calculated from the singlet/triplet (s/t) and the singlet/singlet (s/s) line ratio map, since the s/t is mostly temperature, while the s/s is mostly density dependent [@Griener2018a].
Analyzed discharges \[Sect.dataset\]
====================================
![Overview of the analyzed JET discharge \#80951: a) ICRH heating power, b) total energy of the plasma, c) line integrated electron density from interferometer, blue - edge, red - core, d) divertor D$_\alpha$ radiation, e) spectrogram of the divertor D$_\alpha$ radiation signal, f) spectrogram of the poloidal magnetic field signal. The L-M/M-L transition times are indicated with a vertical red/blue dashed lines. \[fig:jet.over2\]](JET_80951_overview.jpg){width="\linewidth"}
![Overview of the analyzed JET discharge \#90482: a) ICRH heating power, b) total energy of the plasma, c) line integrated electron density from interferometer, blue - edge, red - core, d) divertor D$_\alpha$ radiation, e) spectrogram of the divertor D$_\alpha$ radiation signal, f) spectrogram of the poloidal magnetic field signal. The L-M/M-L transition times are indicated with a vertical red/blue dashed lines. The time window for analysis shown in section \[Sect.densLFO\] is indicated with a blue rectangle, while for section \[Sect.denshfb\] is indicated with a red rectangle. \[fig:jet.over\]](JET_90482_overview.jpg){width="\linewidth"}
![Overview of the analyzed AUG discharge \#29302. a) total applied power - NBI shine through - radiated power, b) total energy of the plasma, c) line integrated electron density from interferometer, blue - edge, red - core, d) divertor shunt current, e) spectrogram of the divertor shunt current signal, f) spectrogram of the poloidal magnetic field signal. The L-I/I-L transition times are indicated with a vertical red/blue dashed lines. The time window for analysis shown in section \[Sect.densLFO\] and in section \[Sect.denshfb\] is indicated with a blue rectangle. \[fig:aug.over1\]](AUG_29302_overview.jpg){width="\linewidth"}
![Overview of the analyzed AUG discharge \#35711. a) heating power (purple: total applied power - NBI shine through - radiated power) and NBI power (red) , b) total energy of the plasma, c) line integrated electron density from interferometer, blue - edge, red - core, d) divertor shunt current, e) spectrogram of the divertor shunt current signal, f) spectrogram of the poloidal magnetic field signal. The L-I/I-L transition times are indicated with a vertical red/blue dashed lines, while the time windows for ELM-free H-mode (purple), L-mode (green) and I-phase (blue) analysis time windows shown in section \[Sect.presLFO\] are indicated with rectangles. \[fig:aug.over2\]](35711_overview2.jpg){width="\linewidth"}
The analysis presented in this paper was done for JET pulse \#90482 and \#80951, AUG pulse \#29302 and \#35711. All discharges are lower single-null configuration with favourable ion $\nabla B$ drift directed towards the x-point. The main parameters of the discharges can be seen in figure \[fig:jet.over2\], \[fig:jet.over\], \[fig:aug.over1\] and \[fig:aug.over2\]. The L-M/M-L (JET) and the L-I/I-L (AUG) transition times are indicated with a vertical red/blue dashed lines in all figures.
The main parameters of JET pulse \#80951 were: $\big \langle n_e \big \rangle = 7 \times 10^{19} m^{-3}$, $B_{\phi} = 2.4 T$, $I_{p}= 2 MA$, $q_{95} \sim 3.7$. The fuelling rate was varied intentionally during the discharge for M-mode frequency scaling studies, and is reflected in the large, 1 second time scale oscillations of the total stored energy, electron density and D$_\alpha$ radiation. The ion cyclotron resonance heating (ICRH) power had a ramp to approach the L-M transition slowly as indicated in figure \[fig:jet.over2\] (a). The first L-M transition is indicated with a red dashed line, and took place at about 16 s. The improved confinement is reflected in the steeper increase of the total stored plasma energy (b), increase of the plasma density both in the core and in the edge (c), and in the drop of the divertor D$_\alpha$ radiation (d). The appearance of the M-mode can be traced by the low frequency modulation of the D$_\alpha$ radiation (e), indicating the periodically changing plasma wall interaction strength. Also, the typical low frequency oscillations of the poloidal magnetic field (f), measured above the low field side (LFS) mid-plane, appeared at the transition and continues for 10 s, interrupted by an L-mode between 17.6 - 17.9 s. This discharge is a good example to show the M-mode frequency scaling ($f_{M-mode}\sim v_{Alfven,\theta}=\frac{B_{\theta}}{\sqrt{\mu_{0}m_{i}n_{e}}}$ [@Solano2017] ) electron density dependence due to the large edge density variation over the discharge. This discharge is used for the HFO characterization in section \[Sect.HFO\].
JET pulse \#90482 was a dedicated M-mode discharge with $\big \langle n_e \big \rangle = 8.5 \times 10^{19} m^{-3}$, $B_{\phi} = 2.4 T$, $I_{p}= 2 MA$, $q_{95} \sim 3.7$. The ion cyclotron resonance heating (ICRH) power had a ramp to approach the L-M transition slowly as indicated in figure \[fig:jet.over\] (a). The L-M transition is indicated with a red dashed line, and took place at about 15.4 s. Subplots (b)-(e) show the same behaviour as for JET pulse \#80951. Also, the typical low frequency oscillations of the poloidal magnetic field (f), measured below the high field side (HFS) mid-plane, appeared at the transition and continues for more than 6.5 s, interrupted by a Tungsten ablation experiment which pushes the confinement back to low confinement mode (L-mode) for about 0.5 s. M-L transitions are indicated with blue dashed lines. The analyzed time interval shown in section \[Sect.densLFO\] is indicated with a blue rectangle covering the 15.4 - 15.95 s time range with approximately 600 M-mode periods. The analysis shown in section \[Sect.denshfb\] is indicated with a red rectangle covering the 15.4 - 19.0 s time range with about 4300 M-mode periods.
AUG pulse \#29302 (figure \[fig:aug.over1\]) was a dedicated fluctuation measurement programme with $\big \langle n_e \big \rangle = 3.1 \times 10^{19} m^{-3}$, $B_{\phi} = 2.5 T$, $I_{p}= 600 kA$, $q_{95} \sim 7$. The neutral beam heated (a) discharge had an L-I transition at 3.45 s, indicated by the red dashed line, I-H transition at 3.68 s and a back transition through a very short I-phase to L-mode at 5.44 s, indicated with a blue dashed line. The improved confinement is reflected in the increase of the total stored plasma energy (b), increase of the plasma density both in the core and in the edge (c), and in the drop of the divertor shunt current (d). The appearance of the I-phase can be traced by the low frequency (1.5 kHz) modulation of the divertor shunt current (e). Also, the typical low frequency oscillations of the poloidal magnetic field, measured on the HFS, below the divertor, can be followed in subplot (f). The time interval for analysis shown in section \[Sect.densLFO\] and \[Sect.denshfb\] is indicated with a blue rectangle, covering the 3.5 - 3.7 s time range with approximately 450 I-phase periods.
AUG pulse \#35711 (figure \[fig:aug.over2\]) was an L-H power threshold experiment with n = 2 magnetic perturbation (MP) at low $B_{\phi}$, with $\big \langle n_e \big \rangle = 4.6 \times 10^{19} m^{-3}$, $B_{\phi} = 1.8 T$, $I_{p}= 800 kA$, $q_{95} \sim 3.9$. A time interval prior to the application of the MP coils (1.9 s) was chosen for investigation. The I-phase appeared (indicated with a red dashed line) between 0.7 - 1.85 s when 1 MW blips of NBI heating was applied, and was interrupted twice by ELM-free H-mode parts between 1.5 - 1.7 s, both terminated by a type-I ELM, pushing the plasma back to I-phase. The back transition from I-phase to L-mode is indicated by a blue dashed line at 1.85 s, caused by the decrease of the heating power which was lowered continously from 1.5 s by shortening the NBI blips. The analyzed time intervals shown in section \[Sect.presLFO\] are indicated with rectangles: ELM-free H-mode (purple), L-mode (green) and I-phase (blue), the latter covering the 1.65 - 1.67 s time range with approximately 15 I-phase periods as indicated in figure \[fig:cond.averaged\](d) as well.
Magnetic structure characterization \[Sect.magnetic\]
=====================================================
High frequency oscillation (HFO) \[Sect.HFO\]
---------------------------------------------
While the low frequency oscillations (LFO) of the magnetics were thoroughly analyzed in previous works [@Solano2017][@Birkenmeier2016b], the high frequency oscillations (HFO) during the M-mode and the I-phase were not yet characterized in depth. Several bands of HFO exhibit similar temporal frequency evolution as that of the LFO. A modulation of the high frequency oscillation (10-250 kHz) power of the poloidal magnetic field is also detected during these phenomena. The HFO activity is present continuously in the magnetic signal during the L-mode, modulated during the M-mode and the I-phase, and suppressed during the developed H-mode, therefore the HFO power could be related to L-mode anomalous transport. A Type-III ELM precursor like oscillation of the radial magnetic field was detected at AUG as was shown in reference [@Birkenmeier2016b], while the poloidal field HFO power modulation was shown at JET in reference [@Vianello2015].
The above statements about the HFO can be followed in figure \[fig:JET.HFO\] for the JET (pulse \#80951) and in figure \[fig:AUG.HFO\] for the AUG (pulse \#35711) case. The external heating power (a), the edge electron density (b), the D$_\alpha$ (JET) and the divertor shunt current (AUG) (c), the spectrogram of the $\mathbf{\dot{B}_{pol}}$ above and below the mid-plane and in the low and in the high frequency range (d, e, f, g), the zoom of the HFO spectrograms (h, i) are shown for both discharges. The time intervals of the zoomed windows are indicated by green and a blue lines for the JET and the AUG case respectively.
Several bands of HFO activity (e, g) become stronger when the external heating (a) is turned on, and weakens when it is turned off. This effect is more emphasized for the JET case. In the heated L-mode part of the discharges, most of the HFO bands are present with stationary frequency. The L-M/M-L and the L-I/I-L transitions can be identified by the drop/rise of the D$_\alpha$ (\[fig:JET.HFO\]c), by the steeper increase/decrease of the edge density (b) signals, and also by the appearance of the LFO (d, f). The divertor shunt current signal (\[fig:AUG.HFO\]c) does not show a steep drop at the L-I transition due to the slowly ramped heating, however the I-L transition is clearly visible after a few dithering transitions at 1.85 s indicated by the approximately doubled signal amplitude. The frequency of the HFO bands (e, g) follow the changes of the LFO (d, f) frequency when the plasma is in the M-mode / I-phase. The modulation of the HFO activity can be followed in the subplots (h, i) which appears simultaneously in all coil signals.
{width="\linewidth"}
{width="\linewidth"}
High frequency oscillation power modulation \[Sect.HFB\]
--------------------------------------------------------
{width="\linewidth"}
The modulation of the HFO activity of the magnetic signals raises the question, if this modulation is present continuously during the M-mode and the I-phase. An analysis is carried out for both the JET (discharge \#90482) and the AUG (discharge \#29302) cases to show that in both machines the LFO and the HFO power modulation are correlated. The plots were produced with the FLIPP (Wigner RCP) and the NTI Wavelet Tools [@Pokol2019][@Pokol2013] (Budapest University of Technology) codes. The HFO power modulation signal is calculated by taking the square of the poloidal magnetic field signal after filtering with a 10-150 kHz band-pass digital finite impulse response (FIR) filter (indicated by the white rectangles in Figure \[fig:bpol.fluct\] (c) and (d)), which gives the time evolution of the HFO power in the signal. (A signal after similar processing can be seen in figure \[fig:cond.averaged\](d) for AUG discharge \#35711.) Figure \[fig:bpol.fluct\] shows the spectrogram of the magnetic signal in the low frequency (a, b) and the high frequency (c, d) range, and the spectrogram of the HFO power modulation (e, f) for the M-mode and the I-phase cases respectively. The time evolution of the LFO and the HFO power modulation frequency is identical, the signals also show high coherence in the low frequency range. This indicates that the HFO power modulation in the magnetic signals is present during the whole M-mode and the whole I-phase, and are closely coupled with the LFO. The relative phase of the HFO power modulation was found to be 0 between several coil pairs and numerous discharges for both the M-mode and the I-phase. This indicates that the HFO power modulation is happening simultaneously in all coil signals where it can be detected. These properties are observed on both machines, and these HFO power signals are used as reference signal in the further analysis.
Toroidal symmetry \[Sect.modenumber\]
-------------------------------------
{width="\linewidth"}
The toroidal symmetry estimation of the HFO was carried out for both machines. (The HFO poloidal symmetry estimation was attempted and turned out to be out of the scope of this paper.) Figure \[fig:modenumber\] summarizes the results of the analysis: upper row for JET while the lower the AUG. The mode number calculation is based on a fitting method in the toroidal and poloidal position - relative phase plane for each time-frequency domain. The color depth in figure \[fig:modenumber\] corresponds to the coherence level, while the color to the best mode number fit for each domain in the spectrograms. The plots were produced with the PySpecview (AUG) and the Spec Mode (JET) codes.
The toroidal mode number can be easily identified both in the low (a, c) and the high frequency (b, d) range for the frequency bands which follow the M-mode/I-phase frequency evolution. The results confirm the n=0 symmetry of the LFO, and suggests n=0 symmetry of the HFO both for the M-mode and the I-phase in the band close to 100 kHz.
Table \[table:magnetic\] summarizes the findings about the magnetic symmetries of the M-mode and the I-phase: the LFO is m=1, n=0; the HFO is n=0; HFO power modulation happens simultaneously in every coil signal where it can be detected.
[@cccc@]{} & **LFO** & **HFO** &\
**JET M-mode** & m=1, n=0 & n=0 & simultaneousy in every signal\
**AUG I-phase** & m=1, n=0 & n=0 & simultaneousy in every signal\
Density profile oscillations \[Sect.densLFO\]
=============================================
The density profile is calculated from Li-BES light emission profile data using a Bayesian algorithm [@Fischer2008] for JET (discharge \#90482) and for AUG (discharge \#29302). Modulation related to the studied phenomena is analyzed two ways to have a clear interpretation. The first approach can be seen in figure \[fig:pedgrad\_combined\] showing the time traces of a low frequency bandpass filtered (0.5 - 10 kHz) magnetic signal (LFO) in subfigure (a) and (b), the high frequency bandpass filtered (65 - 150 kHz and 10 - 150 kHz respectively) magnetic signal (HFO) in (c) and (d), the power of the high frequency bandpass filtered signal (HFO power) in (e) and (f) and the density pedestal gradient in (g) and (h) for the M-mode and for the I-phase respectively. The density gradient was evaluated as follows: the each density profile was fitted with a tangent hyperbolic function and the pedestal gradient was calculated as the pedestal height over the pedestal width. The pedestal gradient shows same periodicity as the other signals, the pedestal collapses after the HFO activity starts, but a statistical approach is necessary since the uncertainty of the measurement is comparable with the fluctuation amplitude caused by the phenomenon.
{width="\linewidth"}
To get a precise picture of the temporal ordering between the profile dynamics and the turbulence a statistical analysis has been carried out. The M-mode and the I-phase related density profile modulation is analyzed in terms of coherence spectra of a magnetic HFO power modulation signal as reference and the time evolution of the reconstructed density at different radial locations along the Li-BES beam path. Figure \[fig:dens.coherence\] shows the general density profile behavior of the M-mode on the left, I-phase on the right: the (a) and (b) figures show the coherence, the (c) and the (d) the average density profile while (e) and (f) the phase profile relative to the HFO power modulation. The coordinates are not translated to normalized poloidal flux coordinates to avoid the possible inaccuracies from the magnetic reconstruction, rather the physical coordinates are used: height above mid-plane coordinates for the JET, and mid-plane coordinates for AUG matching the beam injection directions. The top and the bottom of the pedestal is mostly modulated, as indicated by the two maxima in the coherence at these positions at the M-mode/I-phase frequency. The relative phase between the top and bottom of the pedestal fluctuation is $\pi$, while the middle of the pedestal is less affected, which indicates that the gradient is modulated, as was shown by the ultra-fast reflectometer as well in reference [@Medvedeva2017]. The relative fluctuation amplitude is about 10% at the pedestal top and 20% at the pedestal bottom in both cases (not shown in these figures, but has been calculated). The phase of the pedestal bottom density relative to the HFO power modulation of the magnetics is +0.3$\pi$ which means that the flattening of the pedestal is preceded by the HFO pulse in the magnetics by 120 $\mu$s. The negative (-0.7$\pi$) phase at the pedestal top represents the same: the minima of the pedestal top density during the flattening of the pedestal is preceded by the HFO activity maxima by 0.3$\pi$. A radially outward propagating density perturbation in the SOL is also related to the phenomena, indicated by the clear phase delay outwards in the SOL. Note, that these results are fairly similar for the M-mode and the I-phase.
{width="\linewidth"}
Temperature and density profile characterization at AUG \[Sect.presLFO\]
========================================================================
{width="\linewidth"}
Several plasma edge instabilities are excited above a critical pressure gradient, thus the question if the temperature profile is modulated and if in phase with the density raises naturally. The He-BES diagnostic at AUG measures the SOL and plasma edge temperature and density profile simultaneously (see section \[Sect.He-BES\]). The analysis was carried out at AUG (discharge \#35711, see section \[Sect.dataset\]).
(The analysis has been carried out on the electron cyclotron emission data at AUGs, but the edge channels were found to be affected by shine-through according to electron cyclotron forward modeling [@Vanovac2018][@Denk2018], thus no solid conclusions could have been drawn from that diagnostic.)
Conditionally averaged density profile from Li-BES (a), density profile from He-BES (b) and temperature profile from He-BES (c) as a function of $\rho_{pol}$ are shown in figure \[fig:cond.averaged\]. In this paper, $\rho_{pol}$ refers to the normalized poloidal magnetic flux coordinate. Each plot contains four profiles according to the time intervals in figure \[fig:aug.over2\]: L-mode (green), turbulent I-phase (red), quiescent I-phase (blue) and ELM-free H-mode (purple), the error-bars show the standard deviation of the data and the position values. The reference signal for the conditional averaging (d) is the high frequency band (50 - 250 kHz) power of a poloidal field coil signal, as calculated in section \[Sect.magnetic\], which can be considered as the turbulence amplitude. The time intervals for the conditional averaging is shown above the signal with ‘turbulent’ and ‘quiescent’ labels. The He-BES $T_{e}$ data is only plotted in a restricted radial range: the $T_{e}$ reconstruction out of a singlet and a triplet line fails in the $\rho_{pol} > 1.03$ region due to the applied static collisional radiative model [@Griener2018], which does not properly handle the dynamic population process of the triplet spin system of helium in low $n_{e}$ regions. This however does not affect the $n_{e}$ evaluation, as here only singlet lines are used. For $\rho_{pol} < 0.98$ the signal to noise ratio drops due to beam attenuation.
The $n_{e}$ profile gradient in the plasma edge region ($0.98 < \rho_{pol} < 1.0$) during the turbulent part of the I-phase is comparable to that of the L-mode, while during the quiescent part of the I-phase it is close to that of the ELM-free H-mode according to the Li-BES data. The steep density pedestal region is wider during the H-mode which results in higher pedestal top density compared to the quiescent part of the I-phase. The He-BES diagnostic located at a different toroidal and poloidal location, however indicates similar $n_{e}$ profile behavior which suggests a m=0, n=0 density modulation of the I-phase. The decreasing values of the $n_{e}$ and $T_{e}$ in the near SOL region ($1.0 < \rho_{pol} < 1.3$) indicate increasing confinement as investigating L-mode - turbulent I-phase - quiescent I-phase - H-mode profiles in sequence. The $T_{e}$ values in the near SOL during the quiescent I-phase and H-mode are significantly lower than during the turbulent I-phase and L-mode, indicating the H-mode confinement properties of the quiescent I-phase part. Finding a lower SOL temperature in H-mode than in L-mode needs some explanation, since the separatrix temperature in steady-state H-mode is higher compared to L-mode, considering H-modes are usually heated more than L-modes. The ELM-free H-mode part we used is highly transient, and the heating power did not change considerably through the transitions, thus the power deposited in the SOL will be defined by the energy loss from the confined region. This indeed reduced in ELM-free H-mode due to the transport barrier formation, resulting in a colder separatrix relative to the L-mode case. Also, it can be stated based on the He-BES data, that the $n_{e}$ and the $T_{e}$ profile is modulated in phase, that is the I-phase modulates the electron pressure gradient. It has to be noted, that the observations about the $n_{e}$ dynamics is very similar to that of the COMPASS LCO phenomenon as was shown in reference [@Grover2018].
Temperature profile oscillations at JET \[Sect.tempLFO\]
========================================================
The temperature profile fluctuations were investigated at JET analyzing the electron cyclotron emission (ECE) radiometer data for discharge \#94125. The pedestal top channels of the ECE data exhibit identical fluctuations as the divertor D$_\alpha$ and the poloidal magnetic field signal as can be seen in figure \[fig:jet.over3\] (e), (f) and (g). The pedestal top density was sufficiently high ($3 - 4 \times 10^{19} m^{-3}$) to exclude shine-through effects. The pedestal top electron temperature is modulated by the JET M-mode, however no conclusions can be drawn about the phase relative to the density, due to the low spatial resolution of the ECE and the uncertainty of the EFIT mapping.
![Overview of the analyzed JET discharge \#94125: a) ICRH heating power, b) total energy of the plasma, c) line integrated electron density from interferometer, blue - edge, red - core, d) divertor D$_\alpha$ radiation, e) spectrogram of the divertor D$_\alpha$ radiation signal, f) spectrogram of the poloidal magnetic field signal, g) spectrogram of the pedestal top temperature signal from the ECE diagnostic. The L-M/M-L transition times are indicated with a vertical red/blue dashed lines. \[fig:jet.over3\]](JET_94125_overview.jpg){width="\linewidth"}
Density HFO power modulation \[Sect.denshfb\]
=============================================
{width="\linewidth"}
The HFO power modulation of the magnetics raises the question if there is any detectable high frequency density modulation related to the M-mode and the I-phase. The below analysis show that the HFO is present in the density at the pedestal region.
The low signal to noise ratio (5 - 10) of JET and AUG Li-BES measurements does not allow us to directly detect the density fluctuations in the high frequency range since the spectra of the beam emission signals are dominated by noise above 50 kHz. However, the characteristic frequency of the HFO power modulation (see section \[Sect.magnetic\]) enables us to localize radially the HFO activity using correlation techniques. The HFO (10-50 kHz) power modulation calculation was carried out on the Li-BES light emission signals. The time range for the analysis was 15.4 - 19 s in the JET (discharge \#90482) and 3.5 - 3.7 s in the AUG (discharge \#29302) case as shown in figure \[fig:jet.over\].
Figure \[fig:light.hfb.coherence\] summarizes the results for the M-mode on the left, I-phase on the right: (a) and (b) show the coherence with the HFO power signal, (c) and (d) the average density profile, (e) and (f) the average light emission profile while (g) and (h) the phase profile relative to the HFO power signal of the magnetics in the frequency range of interest. Phase points with uncertainty higher than $\pi \over 2$ were omitted. The coherence plots show significant peaks at the M-mode and the I-phase frequency, considering the 0.09 and the 0.18 significance levels respectively. This means that the HFO power is locally modulated with the characteristic mode frequency. \[App.fluct1\] gives deeper insights about the Li-BES fluctuation measurement interpretation while \[App.fluct2\] about the Li-BES fluctuation response modeling efforts to support the statements of this section.
The AUG case is clear where the high coherence peak at the I-phase frequency is on the increasing edge of the light profile and located at the pedestal, between 2.13 - 2.14 m. In the JET case, the second peak (counting from the beam injection location which is on the right) between 1.39 - 1.42 m is on the falling edge of the light emission profile and is due to the beam attenuation effect as described in the appendix. The blind spot is between 1.43 - 1.45 m close to the light emission profile maxima. The first peak between 1.45 - 1.49 m is on the rising edge of the light profile and located at the pedestal region. Only this first peak corresponds to real density fluctuation, the second is due to beam effects (see \[App.fluct1\] and \[App.fluct2\]). The HFO power modulation of the Li-BES signal and of the electron density accordingly is localized in the pedestal region in both the JET and the AUG cases. The phase relative to the HFO power modulation of the magnetic signal is close to 0 implying that the bursts in the magnetics and in the density at the pedestal are simultaneous and are probably related to each other. Note, that these results are fairly similar for the M-mode and the I-phase.
Summary and discussion\[Sect.summary\]
======================================
In summary we conclude, that the M-mode and the I-phase have very similar properties in terms of density profile dynamics and magnetics signatures. The following observations during both phenomena have been made, based on the analysis of the Mirnov coil, the Li-BES and the ECE signals:
1. The low frequency oscillation (LFO) of the magnetic signals has m=1, n=0 symmetry. This was shown previously for the M-mode [@Solano2017] and for the I-phase [@Birkenmeier2016b].
2. A high frequency oscillation (HFO) of the magnetic signals is seen in broad frequency bands all the time during the L-mode, it is suppressed periodically during the M-mode and the I-phase and suppressed continously during the H-mode thus the HFO power could be related to L-mode anomalous transport.
3. The dominant frequency bands of the HFO of the magnetic signals show similar temporal evolution as the LFO frequency. The frequency scaling of the M-mode and the I-phase (see some discussion below) was out of the scope of this paper, thus it is a qualitative statement about the observation, that when the LFO frequency increases/decreases the dominant HFO frequency increases/decreases as well.
4. The HFO of the magnetic signals has n=0 symmetry in the band close to 100 kHz.
5. The HFO power of the magnetic signals is modulated with the LFO frequency, and the modulation appears simultaneously in all coil signals. The latter four points confirm prior speculation shown for the M-mode [@Vianello2015].
6. The HFO power of the $n_{e}$ is modulated with the LFO frequency at the pedestal region.
7. The HFO power modulation of the $n_{e}$ happens simultaneously with the HFO power modulation of the magnetic signals. The latter two point are entirely new results.
8. The $n_{e}$ profile flattens after the burst of the HFO in the density and the magnetics. This was shown for AUG in for example [@Cavedon2017] but the detailed profile dynamics is a new result for both JET and AUG.
9. The $T_{e}$ is modulated with the LFO frequency at the pedestal region.
10. The flattening of the $n_{e}$ profile is followed by an outward propagating density pulse in the SOL. The latter two points confirm prior results shown in [@Solano2017] for the M-mode and in [@Birkenmeier2016b],[@Cavedon2017] for the I-phase.
Additionally, a combined analysis of the He-BES and the Li-BES data was carried out during the I-phase at the AUG, investigating the $T_{e}$ and the $n_{e}$ profiles. This analysis confirmes previous results shown in for example [@Cavedon2017]. The following observations were made:
1. Both the $T_{e}$ and the $n_{e}$ profiles flatten after the burst in the HFO power of the magnetics and the density.
2. The $T_{e}$ and the $n_{e}$ profiles are modulated in phase in the near SOL, indicating that the electron pressure ($p_{e}$) gradient is modulated by the I-phase.
3. The $n_{e}$ profile is modulated in phase at different poloidal and toroidal locations suggesting toroidal and poloidal symmetry of the density modulation.
The growth of the turbulence amplitude in the pedestal region along with HFO activity in the magnetics refers to MHD mode de-stabilization, which is followed by the degradation of the confinement and the flattening of the pressure profile. The HFO activity stops due to the lack of drive likely from the free-energy in the profile gradients, the pressure pedestal builds back up, and the cycle starts over. This observation leads to the conjecture that the I-phase and the M-mode are not governed by predator-prey dynamics, since the confinement improvement through zonal flow generation would be expected to happen after the phase with high turbulence activity. This is clearly not the case here. This is in understanding with the prior work documented on AUG in reference [@Cavedon2017] and is not in contradiction with the results in reference [@Medvedeva2017] since our results are based on averaged data in stationary I-phase.
Another puzzling question to be clarified in upcoming works is the difference in the frequency scaling of the M-mode and I-phase, in particular [@Solano2017] claims that the M-mode frequency does not scale with the ion sound speed while [@Birkenmeier2016b] finds that the frequency of the I-phase depends on the temperature. As to our understanding, the differences in frequency scaling can be related to the speed of pedestal formation, which could be quite different in the fast transient I-phase evaluated at AUG and in the almost steady M-modes evaluated at JET.
It is also clear, that both phenomena exhibit electromagnetic nature since the LFO, the HFO and the HFO power modulation of the magnetics and the density are coupled. Our analysis revealed that the M-mode phenomena at JET and the I-phase phenomena at AUG have very similar dynamics, thus their physical background is the same.
This work has been carried out within the framework of the EUROfusion Consortium and has received funding from the Euratom research and training programme 2014-2018 and 2019-2020 under grant agreement No 633053. The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the European Commission.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
Li-BES fluctuation measurement interpretation \[App.fluct1\]
============================================================
The interpretation of the results of section \[Sect.denshfb\] necessitates the review of the effects of the applied statistical methods and the Li-BES techniques. The noise modulation by light intensity modulation, the light emission response to density fluctuations and the spatial localization of the measurement are to be discussed.
- The low frequency light modulation causes light HFO power modulation as well, since the noise is proportional to the square root of the signal amplitude in case of quantities with Poisson statistics. This case, namely that the coherence peaks are caused by noise amplitude modulation can be excluded, since the light LFO and the light HFO power modulation are not in phase.
- The Li-BES light emission fluctuations are usually considered proportional to the local density fluctuations, however, the fluctuation response is gradually decreasing inwards the plasma [@Willensdorfer2014]. Reaching a point where the beam attenuation and excitation terms cancel each other, the beam emission has no response to density fluctuations, and is called the blind spot accordingly. Over that point the light response is negative to local density increase. Moreover, at any point along the beam path the beam carries information about all previous processes, e.g. density fluctuation at the beginning of the beam evolution causes negative response over this point through ionization losses. The gray rectangles indicate regions in figure \[fig:light.hfb.coherence\] where the results are not reliable due to this effect.
- The Li-BES systems measure the line emission of Lithium atoms that were excited by the plasma particles. The spontaneous decay of the valence electrons has a finite half life of approximately 27 ns which causes 2 cm spatial smearing of the light emission since the beam atoms are traveling in a 50 keV mono-energetic beam. If the collisional excitation and de-excitation processes from the observed line transition are taken into account, which are proportional to the local electron density, the smearing decreases as the beam penetrates into the higher density region. Therefore, the fluctuation response will be more localized at higher density as shown in reference [@Asztalos2017].
Li-BES fluctuation response modeling \[App.fluct2\]
===================================================
A fluctuation response simulation has been carried out with the RENATE BES simulator [@Guszejnov2012] to support the statement about the density perturbation localization for the JET case. The simulation places three dimensional density perturbations along the beam line step-wise, aligned with the magnetic field lines. Beam evolution calculation is performed on the updated density profile and the light profile is acquired. The detected photon current on each detector pixel and for each perturbation is calculated, accounting for the three dimensional observation system modeling [@Asztalos2017]. By subtracting the equilibrium light profile from the perturbed light profiles, the calculation gives the light response on each detector for a density perturbation at different locations. The result can be seen in figure \[fig:fluctresponse.renate\], and reads as follows. The contour plot shows the light response at a position indicated on the y axis for a density perturbation at a position indicated on the x axis. The positive response is red, the negative is blue. In our case, as can be seen in figure \[fig:light.hfb.coherence\](a), a positive response is located in the 1.45 - 1.49 m range (indicated with a red dashed rectangle here), while a negative response is located in the 1.39 - 1.42 m range (indicated with a blue dashed rectangle here). The location of the perturbation causing such response can be read from the plot, indicated with a green dashed rectangle, and falls in the pedestal region. The measured phase is 0 at both locations in figure \[fig:light.hfb.coherence\] which seems to be in contradiction with the expected $\pi$ phase jump due to the positive response at one while negative response at the other location implied by the modeling. In reality the HFO is in counter phase at the 2 locations, however we are investigating its power modulation which erases the phase information.
![Fluctuation response simulation: the contour plot shows the light response at a position indicated on the y axis for a density perturbation at a position indicated on the x axis both in height above mid-plane coordinate (same as for the JET case in figure \[fig:light.hfb.coherence\]). The regions of the observed positive and negative responses are indicated with red and blue dashed rectangles respectively. The region where a density perturbation causes the measured light fluctuation response is highlighted with a green rectangle. \[fig:fluctresponse.renate\]](90482_JET_55700_FRM_processed.jpg){width="10cm"}
[^1]: See the author list of “Overview of the JET preparation for Deuterium-Tritium Operation” by E. Joffrin et al. to be published in Nuclear Fusion Special issue: overview and summary reports from the 27th Fusion Energy Conference (Ahmedabad, India, 22-27 October 2018)
[^2]: See author list of “B. Labit et al 2019 Nucl. Fusion 59 086020 (https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ab2211)”
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Galaxy formation during the first billion years of our Universe remains a challenging problem at the forefront of astrophysical cosmology. Although these $z{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
\raise1pt\hbox{$>$}}}6$ galaxies are likely responsible for the last major phase change of our Universe, the epoch of reionization (EoR), detailed studies are possible only for relatively rare, bright objects. Characterizing the fainter galaxies which are more representative of the population as a whole is currently done mainly through their non-ionizing UV luminosity function (LF). Observing the faint end of the UV LFs is nevertheless challenging, and current estimates can differ by orders of magnitude.
Here we propose a methodology to combine disparate high-$z$ UV LF data sets in a Bayesian framework: Bayesian Data Averaging (BDA). Using a flexible, physically-motivated galaxy model, we compute the relative evidence of various $z=6$ UV LFs within the magnitude range $-20 \leq M_{\rm UV} \leq -15$ which is common to the data sets. Our model, based primarily on power-law scalings of the halo mass function, naturally penalizes systematically jagged data points as well as mis-estimated errors. We then use the relative evidence to weigh the posteriors obtained from disparate LF observations during the EoR, $6 \leq z \leq 10$. The resulting LFs suggest that the star formation rate density (SFRD) integrated down to a UV magnitude of -17 represent $60.9^{+11.3}_{-9.6}\%$ / $28.2^{+9.3}_{-10.1}\%$ / $5.7^{+4.5}_{-4.7}\%$ of the total SFRD at redshifts 6 / 10 / 15. The BDA framework we introduce enables galaxy models to leverage multiple, analogous observational data sets.
author:
- |
Nicolas J. F. Gillet,[^1] Andrei Mesinger and Jaehong Park.\
Scuola Normale Superiore, Piazza dei Cavalieri 7, I-56126 Pisa, Italy\
bibliography:
- 'bib.bib'
date: 'Accepted XXX. Received YYY; in original form ZZZ'
title: 'Combining high-$z$ galaxy luminosity functions with Bayesian evidence'
---
\[firstpage\]
galaxies: high-redshift - reionization - first stars - early Universe
Introduction {#Sec:Introduction}
============
The first billion years of the Universe remain a compelling cosmological mystery, mostly due to the fact that observations of this period remain challenging (e.g. @BarkanaLoeb2007 [@LoebFurlanetto2013; @MesingerBook2016; @Dayal2018]). One of the simplest and most powerful observations are the non-ionizing ($\sim$1500Å rest-frame) ultra-violet luminosity functions (UV LFs). These can be obtained with relatively straightforward broad-band photometric drop-out techniques [@Steidel1999] and are thus useful in constraining the abundance of galaxies too faint to be studied with spectroscopy.
Nevertheless, pushing the UV LFs towards the fainter galaxies which are the dominant population during the first billion years is quite difficult. Lensing magnification has been shown to be a powerful tool for this purpose; however, the systematics quickly become significant going towards magnification factors of beyond $\mu {\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
\raise1pt\hbox{$>$}}}10$ (e.g. @Bouwens17 [@Atek18]). Various observational estimates of the faint end of the LF (where the bulk of the galaxies lie) can disagree by orders of magnitude.
How do we choose which observational data set to use in constraining galaxy formation models? If each data set is analyzed independently, this would lead to parameter constraints for each observation, which must subsequently be combined somehow. Alternately, one could first combine the data sets in some fashion and then fit galaxy parameters to the [*combined*]{} data. Indeed, @Finkelstein2016 perform a joint fit to various observational data, using a Schecter function form (@Schechter1976; see also @Yue18). In this way, all data is combined agnostically.
In principle, one should be able to improve on this by applying some basic, prior knowledge of what the UV LFs [*should*]{} look like. For example, sharp discontinuities in the LF would be very difficult to explain physically and could be an indication of an unaccounted for systematic in the observations. The commonly used, empirically-motivated Schecter function is known to disagree with physically-motivated galaxy formation models at high redshifts, both in its shape and redshift evolution (e.g. @Jaacks2013 [@Behroozi2013; @Paardekooper2013; @Paardekooper2015; @Dayal2014; @OShea2015; @Yue16; @Liu2016; @Gnedin2016; @Ocvirk2016; @Ocvirk2018; @Wilkins2017; @Finlator2017; @Finlator2018; @Cowley2018; @Tacchella2018; @Rosdahl2018; @Ma2018; @Ma2019; @Yung19]). For example, [@Yue18] use a physical galaxy model, in addition to a Schecter function, to derive constraints on the presence of a faint-end turn-over in the LF, based on galaxy number counts at $z=6$.
[*Here we use a flexible galaxy model to combine disparate high-$z$ LF data sets in a Bayesian evidence-based framework*]{}. The parametrization of this model should encapsulate the general, physical trends we expect from high-$z$ LFs, while still being able to accommodate the unknown details of galaxy formation. We apply this Bayesian Data Averaging (BDA) framework to current observations, resulting in combined LF constraints even at redshifts and magnitudes not probed by current observations.
This paper is organized as follows. In §\[Sec:Combining different observations\] we describe the Bayesian Data Average method, demonstrating its use on toy LFs. In §\[Sec:The non ionizing Luminosity function at high redshift\] we introduce the observations and the analytic model used to discriminate between data sets. In §\[Sec:Results\] we apply BDA on the $z=6$ LFs, and we use the resulting weights to combine LF data across $z\sim6$–10, presenting the resulting “concordance” LFs. In §\[Sec:Conclusions\] we state our conclusions. Unless stated otherwise, we use comoving units, and assume the following $\Lambda$CDM cosmological parameters ($\Omega_m=0.3175$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.6825$, $h=0.6711$, $\Omega_b=0.049$, $n_s=0.9677$ and $\sigma_8=0.83$), consistent with the latest results from the [*Planck*]{} satellite [@Planckcosmo2018].
Combining different observations {#Sec:Combining different observations}
================================
Our methodology to combine the observed LFs is inspired by Bayesian Model Averaging (BMA; e.g. @Trotta2007 [@Parkinson2013]); however, we reverse “model” and “data”. Instead of comparing different models using a given observable, we compare different observables using a given model. This comparison is done with the Bayesian evidence, which allows us to weigh the relative posteriors from different observational data sets and combine them using this weight. We describe the procedure in detail below.
We note that alternative Bayesian methods have been proposed to combine data sets, taking advantage of Bayesian hierarchical modeling and/or hyper-parameters. A common approach is to add hyper-parameters to account for mis-estimated errors / systematics of each observation, which are then marginalized over to obtain the posterior of the desired quantities (e.g. @Lahav2000 [@Hobson2002; @MA2014; @Bernal2018]). Such an approach relies on knowing how to parametrize these uncertainties and the additional parameters make the likelihood calculation more expensive. The procedure we propose avoids this but at the cost of relying on a parametrization of the “truth”.
Below we briefly review BMA, before introducing our reversed application of it: BDA. We then demonstrate its use using toy models for LFs.
Bayes’ equation and model averaging {#Sec:Bayes' equation and model averaging}
-----------------------------------
Let $\mathcal{D}$ be a data catalog composed of several observational data sets and $\mathcal{M}$ an analytic model with parameters $\rm{\theta}$. Bayes’ theorem permits us to compute the posterior: the probability distribution of the parameters $\rm{\theta}$ given a specific data set $\mathcal{D}_i$: $$\rm{ P(\theta | \mathcal{D}_i) = \frac{P(\mathcal{D}_i | \theta) P(\theta)}{P(\mathcal{D}_i) = \int_{\theta} P(\mathcal{D}_i | \theta) P(\theta) d\theta } },
\label{Eq:BayesTheo}$$ where $\rm{ P(\theta) }$ is the prior on the parameters, $\rm{ P(\mathcal{D}_i | \theta) }$ is the likelihood (commonly based on $\chi^2$), and $\rm{ P(\mathcal{D}_i)}$ is probability of the data (also known as the evidence).
In general, the posterior is just the normalized likelihood distribution, weighted by the priors. The evidence is commonly used only as a normalization factor because one is interested in the relative probabilities across the parameter space of $\theta$. However, if one has various competing models, $\mathcal{M}_i$, then the relative evidence can be used to discriminate among them, answering the question: “which model is preferred by the data?”. Additionally, the evidence can be used to average over parameters common to the various models. This is referred to as Bayesian model averaging (BMA).
Bayesian Data Averaging {#Sec:Bayesian Data Averaging}
-----------------------
In this work, we invert “data” and “model”, asking the question: “which data set is preferred by our model?” Given a model $\rm{ \mathcal{M} }$, we can compute the relative evidence of the data sets: $$\rm{ P(\mathcal{D}_i | \mathcal{M} ) = \frac{P(\mathcal{D}_i)}{ \sum_j P(\mathcal{D}_j)} },
\label{Eq:relative_evidence}$$
Note that the term $\rm{ P(\mathcal{D}_i) }$ can also be written as $\rm{ P(\mathcal{M} | \mathcal{D}_i ) }$, with the prior on the data set $\pi{(\mathcal{D}_i) }$ taken to be uniform. This relative evidence can be used to compare the observational data sets between each other, given the model. We use the relative evidence from each data set as a weight of the resulting posterior for our model parameters: $$\rm{ P(\theta | \mathcal{D}, \mathcal{M}) = \sum_i P( \theta | \mathcal{D}_i ) \times P(\mathcal{D}_i | \mathcal{M} ) },
\label{Eq:BDA_combining}$$ Where $\rm{ P(\theta | \mathcal{D}, \mathcal{M} )}$ is the final constrained posterior distribution. The corresponding “concordance” LF is then obtained by sampling this combined posterior.
It is important to keep in mind that this procedure is model dependent. Ideally, one should choose a model with a parametrization capable of capturing the general trends we expect from the data, yet flexible enough to accommodate the large range of uncertainties. Conceptually, this is analogous to putting a (conservative) prior on what is expected from the observations. The model we use for this purpose is described in §\[Sec:Analytic model\].
Demonstration on toy models {#Sec:Demonstration on toy models}
---------------------------
{width="\columnwidth"} {width="\columnwidth"}\
{width="\columnwidth"} {width="\columnwidth"}
Here we illustrate the use of BDA, applied on toy LFs. Our mock LFs consist of nine points, generated by different methods of sampling a fiducial parameter combination (§\[Sec:Analytic model\]):
- Mock observation (A) was generated by sampling the expectation values from this model, assuming Gaussian errors with a standard deviation of 20%, for each magnitude bin. The reported errors on these points also have a standard deviation of 20%. Thus, the samples are consistent with the underlying model and the reported uncertainty corresponds to the true uncertainty. Hence, model (A) represents an accurate data set (c.f. top left panel in Fig. \[Fig:toy\_model\]).
<!-- -->
- Mock observation (B) was generated by sampling the same analytic model as (A), also taking Gaussian errors with a standard deviation of 20%. However, here the reported errors are underestimated to be only 10% (c.f. top right panel in Fig. \[Fig:toy\_model\]).
<!-- -->
- Mock observation (C) is statistically the same as (A) for the brightest six points; however, the faintest three data points are systematically offset from the underlying analytic model, showing an upturn for $M_{\rm{UV}}>-16$ of 15%, 30%, and 50%, respectively. This observation is illustrative of an unknown systematic in the data, which cannot be captured by our model (c.f. bottom left panel in Fig. \[Fig:toy\_model\])
We show the three mock data sets and 68% confidence interval (C.I.) on the posteriors in the first three panels of Fig. \[Fig:toy\_model\]. As expected, the posteriors of data set A and B are comparable, given that they only differ in the error estimates. However model C prefers a much steeper LF posterior. This is because our model does not allow for upturns, and so the last three points steepen the LF posterior, despite the fact that the first 6 points are statistically the same as for model A.
In the final panel, we show the combined LF posteriors, obtained after using the relative evidence to weight the posteriors of A, B and C (eq. \[Eq:BDA\_combining\]). The relative evidence from BDA is shown in the legend: 66%, 34%, $\rm{ 10^{-2} }$%, for data sets A, B and C respectively. BDA down-weighs the posterior of data set C quite strongly, and so it does not really contribute to the combined posterior. This “penalty” is due to our [*belief*]{} (qualified in terms of our analytic model; see Section \[Sec:Analytic model\]), that upturns in LFs are nonphysical.
Data set A provides the most constraining power, as the error bars of the data are estimated properly. BDA prefers A over B by a factor of two, even though the only difference between the two data sets is that the later data set underestimated the errors of its data points.[^2]
The non-ionizing Luminosity function at high redshift {#Sec:The non ionizing Luminosity function at high redshift}
=====================================================
We now wish to apply BDA on real LF observations. We first discuss the observational data sets we use, then our analytic model which is used to weigh them, before specifying how we compute the evidence.
Observations {#Sec:Observations}
------------
{width="\textwidth"}
![ Zoom-in on the ten $z=6$ LFs points that are common to all data-sets, and which we use when computing the BDA. []{data-label="Fig:OBS_zoom"}](OBS_zoom.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
In this study, four observational data sets of the high-$z$ LFs are used, from redshift 6 and above when available. In the rest of the paper we define “faint end” to be magnitudes fainter than $\rm{ -20 }$ (the dominant population we are interested in characterizing) and “ultra-faint end” to be magnitude fainter than $\rm{ -15 }$ for which lensing uncertainties increase dramatically (c.f. @Finkelstein2016 [@Bouwens17; @Atek18]). These four data sets are:
- The : consisting of the $z=6$ LF from [@Bouwens17], the $z=7$ and $8$ LFs from [@Bouwens15], and the $z=10$ LF from [@Oesch18]. The observations at $z=6$ are based on the four first clusters of the Hubble Frontier Field program (HFF): Abell 2744, MACS0416, MACS0717, and MACS1149.
- The : we take the reported LF from [@Atek18], adjusted according to their prescription to correspond to $z=6$. This data set used the six clusters of HFF: Abell 2744, MACS0416, MACS0717, MACS1149, AS1063 and A370 and in addition they use the bright part of the LF from [@Bouwens15].
- The : consisting of the $z=6$ and 8 LFs from [@Ishigaki18]. They use the four first HFF clusters, as well as the LF, extracted from blank fields from [@Bouwens15].
- The ): consisting of the $z=6$, 7, 8 LFs from Livermore (private communication; Finkelstein in prep). The LFs correspond to the observed data sets in [@Livermore17], but corrected for Eddington bias, which reduces the implied number densities, most notably at the faint end. These Eddington-bias adjusted LFs have also been used in [@Yung19]. They used the two first HFF clusters to derive the faint end LF: Abell 2744 and MACS0416.
We assume a minimum fractional uncertainty of 20% (in linear scale), as suggested in [@Bouwens17], increasing the error of all the data points if the reported error is smaller. Figure \[Fig:frise\_OBS\] presents these four data sets, at redshift 6, 7, 8 and 10 from left to right. As seen in the panels, the implied galaxy density can vary by orders of magnitude, especially in the ultra-faint end when lensing uncertainties such as completeness corrections dominate the systematics.
To compute the relative evidence as described above, we need data at the same magnitude and redshift bins. For this purpose, we use the ten points in the magnitude range $-20 \leq M_{\rm UV} \leq -15$ at $z=6$ (c.f. Fig. \[Fig:OBS\_zoom\]). The bright limit of this range is still faint enough to be relatively free from dust and AGN feedback, which are not accounted for in our model. Indeed the slope of the UV continuum $\beta$ seems to change around this value above redshift 6 (e.g. @Finkelstein12 [@Bouwens2014]), roughly consistent with simulation results which suggest that at fainter magnitudes the impact of dust starts becoming negligible (e.g. @Cullen2017 [@Wilkins2016; @Wilkins2017; @Ma2019], and AGN feedback can be neglected (e.g. @Wilkins2017 [@Yung19])[^3]. The faint limit, although in the lensing regime ($M_{\rm UV} {\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
\raise1pt\hbox{$>$}}}-17$) is sourced by relatively modest magnification factors, with correspondingly well-behaved uncertainties [@Finkelstein2016; @Bouwens17; @Atek18]. Most importantly, this range is common to all four data sets, which is necessary in order to compare their corresponding Bayesian evidence.
Analytic model {#Sec:Analytic model}
--------------
The analytic model, $\mathcal{M}$, used in this study is the same as in [@Park18]. This model characterizes UV LFs using five, fairly empirical parameters. It is physically motivated in the sense that it scales the LF from the halo mass function (HMF), assuming power-law scalings. Specifically, the typical stellar mass, $M_\ast$, of galaxies residing in halos of total mass, $M_{\rm h}$, is assumed to (on average) follow a power-law with arbitrary amplitude and power law index (c.f. @Behroozi2013 [@Behroozi2015]) : $$M_\ast(M_{\rm{h}}) = f_{*,10} \left( \frac{M_{\rm{h}}}{10^{10}\rm{M_{\odot}}} \right)^{\alpha_*} \left( \frac{ \Omega_{\rm{b}} } { \Omega_{\rm{m}} } \right) M_{\rm{h}}.$$
The typical star formation rate (SFR) in a given halo mass bin is taken to be the total stellar mass divided by some fraction of the Hubble time: $$\dot{M}_*(M_{\rm{h}},z) = \frac{M_*}{t_* H^{-1}(z)},$$
The SFR is then converted to a UV luminosity assuming a simple conversion factor: $$\dot{M_*}= \kappa_{\rm{UV}} \times L_{\rm{UV}},
\label{Eq:SFR_lum}$$ where $\kappa_{\rm{UV}}=1.15\times 10^{-28} \rm{M_{\odot}yr^{-1} / erg s^{-1} Hz^{-1}}$ (@Sun17; see also @Kennicutt1998 [@Madau2014; @Bouwens2012]) is determined by the IMF (and is degenerate with our SFR parameters) and the UV magnitude is computed from the UV luminosity: $${\rm{log_{10}}} (L_{\rm{UV}}) = 0.4 \times ( 51.63 - M_{\rm{UV}} ).$$
Star formation in low mass halos is suppressed via a “duty cycle”, motivated by inefficient gas accretion and/or strong feedback (e.g. @Okamoto2008 [@Sobacchi2013; @Sobacchi2014; @Dayal2014; @OShea2015; @Yue16; @Ocvirk2016; @Ocvirk2018]). Specifically, we assume that only a fraction $f_{\rm duty}$ of halos of mass $M_{\rm h}$ can host star-forming galaxies, with: $$f_{\rm{duty}} (M_{\rm{h}}) = {\rm{exp}} \left( - \frac{ M_{\rm{t}} }{ M_{\rm{h}} } \right).$$ Here, $M_{\rm{t}}$ is the characteristic halo mass scale below which star formation is inefficient. Our results are not very sensitive to the exact functional form of this duty cycle, since most of the observations probe galaxies inside more massive halos, as we shall see below.
Finally, the LF is computed from the halo mass function and the relation between the halo mass and the UV magnitude: $$\phi(M_{\rm{UV}}) = \left( f_{\rm{duty}}\frac{ {\rm{d}} n }{ {\rm{d}} M_{\rm{h}} } \right) \frac{ {\rm{d}} M_{\rm{h}} }{ {\rm{d}} M_{\rm{UV}} } .$$
The model has 4 free parameters $\theta$: $f_{\rm{*,10}}$, $\alpha_* $, $t_* $ and $M_{\rm{turn}}$. We refer the reader to [@Park18] for a detail analysis of the influence of each parameter on the luminosity function.
The important point for this study is that (i) this model is physically motivated: the galaxy density is directly linked to the dark matter halo density allowing us to penalize extreme LF shapes which are difficult to obtain from HMFs; and (ii) the model is flexible enough to fit reasonably well a large variety of observed luminosity functions as well as those from hydrodynamic cosmological simulations (see Appendix 1 in @Park18) and SAMs (Greig et al., in prep).
Computing the likelihood and the evidence {#Sec:Computing the likelihood and the evidence}
-----------------------------------------
Computing the evidence can be computationally challenging in high-dimensional parameter space (e.g @Trotta2008), since the likelihood has to be integrated over the whole space (c.f. the denominator of Eq. \[Eq:BayesTheo\]). To aid in this computation, here we calculate the likelihood on a “grid” of $4\times10^5$ points. This grid corresponds to 4 Latin Hyperbolic Samples (LHS) of 50.000 points each. The model LF is pre-computed at these points and can be quickly used to compute the likelihood for each observational data set.
For the likelihood calculation, we use the split-norm distribution to take into account the non-symmetric errors of most of the observational points (c.f. Appendix \[App:Split Norm\]). We choose to compute the likelihood by comparing the LF in logarithm scales (the conversion of the errors from linear to logarithmic scales is detailed in Appendix \[App:Conversion logarithm to linear scale of the errors\]).
The main advantage of this pre-computed grid sampling is that the calculation of the likelihood distribution is fast. It just takes a dozen minutes to obtain the likelihood distribution over 400000 points for each data set on a single core, while an MCMC with the same chain length could take days on several cores. We check that this approximation of the likelihood distribution is converged by comparing with the MCMC results from [@Park18], (c.f. Appendix \[App:Convergence test\]). We also check that the posterior is unchanged when computed using only half of the grid samples. The discreteness of the sampling results in some noticeable noisiness in the marginalized posteriors; however, the parameter estimation and the evidence is converged.
Results {#Sec:Results}
=======
[XXXX]{} (B+) & (I+) & (A+) & (L+)\
3.5 & 52.9 & 43.4 & 0.2\
{width="80.00000%"}
{width="\textwidth"}{width="\textwidth"}
![ 68% C.L. on the cosmic SFR density implied by our BDA LFs, integrated down to $M_{\rm{UV}}<-17$ (corresponding to SFR ${\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
\raise1pt\hbox{$>$}}}0.32\ \rm{M_{\odot}\ yr^{-1}}$ ([*green shaded area*]{}), as well as the total SFRD ([*red shaded area*]{}). The observational data sets have been homogenized by considering the same SFR-luminosity relation (Eq. \[Eq:SFR\_lum\]) and the same integration limit of -17 (data provided by Oesch priv. com. and published in @Oesch18). The derived SFRD for the two thresholds are given in the table \[Tab:SFRD\], as well as the completeness. The original data points are from @Bouwens2014 [@Bouwens2016; @McLeod2016; @Oesch2013; @Oesch2014; @Ishigaki18]. []{data-label="Fig:SFRD"}](SFRD_1sigma.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
[c|XXXXXXX]{} Redshifts & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9 & 10 & 12 & 15\
SFRD at $ M_{\rm{UV}} <-17 $ & $-1.72^{+0.12}_{-0.10}$ & $-2.01^{+0.07}_{-0.08}$ & $-2.32^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$ & $-2.66^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$ & $-3.02^{+0.08}_{-0.07}$ & $-3.82^{+0.14}_{-0.11}$ & $-5.20^{+0.23}_{-0.21}$\
SFRD total & $-1.49^{+0.07}_{-0.08}$ & $-1.71^{+0.08}_{-0.07}$ & $-1.96^{+0.11}_{-0.08}$ & $-2.21^{+0.15}_{-0.10}$ & $-2.47^{+0.19}_{-0.13}$ & $-3.04^{+0.24}_{-0.20}$ & $-4.00^{+0.38}_{-0.31}$\
SFRD completeness at $ M_{\rm{UV}} <-17 $ (in %) & $60.9^{+11.3}_{-9.6}$ & $52.6^{+11.0}_{-9.3}$ & $44.1^{+10.6}_{-9.2}$ & $36.0^{+10.3}_{-9.4}$ & $28.2^{+9.3}_{-10.1}$ & $16.0^{+7.4}_{-9.3}$ & $5.7^{+4.5}_{-4.7}$\
$50\%\ \rho_{\rm{UV}}\ (M_{\rm{UV}})$ & -17.3 & -17.0 & -16.7 & -16.3 & -16.0 & -15.5 & -14.6\
$90\%\ \rho_{\rm{UV}}\ (M_{\rm{UV}})$ & -12.8 & -13.5 & -13.7 & -13.8 & -13.7 & -13.2 & -12.2\
We apply BDA on the four data sets in order to compare them and create a combined LF. As explained above, the relative evidence is computed from the 10 data points in the magnitude range $\rm{[-20,-15]}$ at redshift 6 for each data set. These data are illustrated in Fig. \[Fig:OBS\_zoom\]. Note that the ultra-faint end, where the difference between observational teams is maximal, is not used for the relative evidence.
Table \[Tab:BDA\_evidence\] gives the resulting relative evidence of the data sets. The I+ and A+ data sets are preferred by our model compared to the two others. This preference is mostly due to the combination of (i) smoothness of the points over the reference range and (ii) small error[^4] bars which are still consistent with our parametric model. The L+ data-set is disfavored because it has a plateau at $M_{\rm UV}=$ -19.5 – -18.5 and a steepening at the faint end; these features are difficult to fit with our model which relies on smooth functions on top of the HMFs. B+ also has small relative evidence, mainly because of the non-monotonic feature at $M_{\rm UV}=$ -16, and the comparably large error bars at the bright end of the range.
We can now combine the posteriors of each individual data sets, weighted by this relative evidence (eq. \[Eq:BDA\_combining\]). We note that, although the relative weights are computed using only the ten LF points at $z=6$ common to every data set, [*each individual posterior is then re-computed using all the data available in the data set i.e. including the ultra-faint end and all redshifts (see Fig. \[Fig:all posterior\]).*]{} It is these posteriors resulting from all data points which are averaged using the relative weights in table \[Tab:BDA\_evidence\], resulting in the combined posteriors shown in Fig. \[Fig:posterior\]. To summarize, the weights are computed on comparable data, at redshift 6 in the magnitude range $\rm{[-20,-15]}$ and are applied on the posterior computed using all the data available. Therefore the combination does include all the observed data points.
There are several trends evident in Fig. \[Fig:posterior\]. Firstly, we note the degeneracy between $f_*$ and $t_*$, as the ratio of the two ($r_* = t_* / f_*$) is relevant for the LFs (see Appendix \[App:The ratio\]). Following @Park18, we use a linear prior over log($\rm{f_*}$) and $\rm{t_*}$; as a result, the later is not constrained, showing a flat distribution over the full range.
The double peak in the 1D marginalized posterior of $\rm{\alpha_*}$ comes from the fact that the two data sets driving the combined posteriors (A+ and I+) favor two different values for this slope of the $M_\ast$ – $M_{\rm h}$ relation (see Appendix \[App:Comparison of all posterior distributions\]). A+ in particular favors a steeper LF (smaller $\alpha_\ast)$, resulting in a marginalized one sigma constraint of $\alpha_\ast = \rm{0.2^{+0.09}_{-0.07}}$. This can be understood since the data points that are most constraining are those with the smallest errors. For A+ as for I+, the error is minimum at the bright end of the range we use (see Fig. \[Fig:OBS\_zoom\]), and for A+ these points have a steeper slope.
The combined marginalized posterior also shows some constraints on $\rm{M_t}$, which peaks at $\rm{9.39^{+0.23}_{-1.35}\ [log_{10}(M_{\odot})]}$. This peak is entirely driven by A+ ($\rm{9.55^{+0.13}_{-0.55}\ [log_{10}(M_{\odot})]}$), with all of the other data sets only providing an upper limit (see Fig. D1). However, the statistical significance of this peak is down-weighted by the BDA combined posteriors, resulting in only an upper limit on the turn-over scale (see also @Yue16, where they look for evidence of a feedback-induced turn over in the LF).
The combined luminosity functions {#Sec:The combined Luminosity Function}
---------------------------------
The posterior over the parameter space is sampled to obtain the corresponding constraints on the LFs. In Fig. \[Fig:BDA\_frise\] we present the LF constraints corresponding to the 68% C.L. range of the BDA posteriors [*blue shaded areas*]{}. One nice result from this procedure is the forecast of LFs at even higher redshifts at which we currently have no data (c.f. $z=15$ LFs in the rightmost panel); although we caution that as our model is mostly constrained by the $z=6$ points, these extensions to higher redshifts are even more model-dependent. We provide the numerical values for these LF constraints in tables \[Tab:LF678\], \[Tab:LF91012\] and \[Tab:LF15\].
In this figure, we also compare the BDA LFs with those resulting from a uniform weighing of the observational data sets, i.e. a simple average of each individual posterior, giving a relative weight of 25% to all data sets. The 68% C.L. of the LFs obtained through this simple averaging are shown with the orange shaded regions in Fig. \[Fig:BDA\_frise\]. Comparing the orange and the blue shaded regions, we see that the posteriors obtained with BDA are broader, allowing for a turn-over at brighter magnitudes. This is driven by the fact that the A+ data set, which is the only one showing evidence of a turn-over, has a larger relative contribution in the BDA posterior (43% compared to 25%). Specifically, we note that BDA LFs do not start to flatten or turn-over until [*at least*]{} $M_{\rm UV} {\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
\raise1pt\hbox{$>$}}}-14$ (1 $\sigma$). The corresponding scale is shifted fainter by 1 dex for the uniform weighted LFs, to $M_{\rm UV} {\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
\raise1pt\hbox{$>$}}}-13$.
We can also compare our BDA combined LFs to those presented in [@Yue18], who use redshift 6 blank field data from [@Bouwens15], complemented with their own lensed galaxy estimates obtained by taking a mean probability of the number of galaxies per bin implied by different lensing models. The resulting LFs are presented in terms of confidence limits, obtained by sampling a Schecter function modified to allow for a turn-over. Their LFs at the bright end of the range are in agreement with our BDA combined LFs; however, their 68% contours for magnitudes fainter than $M_{\rm UV} {\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
\raise1pt\hbox{$>$}}}-15$ are broader than the ones resulting from BDA.
The corresponding [*cumulative*]{} UV luminosity densities for the BDA LFs are shown in the bottom row of Fig. \[Fig:BDA\_frise\], with the dotted lines denoting 50% and 90% of the total UV luminosity density (see also the bottom two rows on table \[Tab:SFRD\]). At redshift 6, galaxies brighter than -17.3 (-12.8) contribute to 50% (90%) of the total UV luminosity. The 50% limit magnitude increases with redshift, increasing the contribution of fainter galaxies in the total UV budget. But at the same time, the 90% limit magnitude does not significantly evolve with redshift.
It is important to note that the distribution of the [*ionizing*]{} photon number density (relevant for reionization) is likely shifted even further towards fainter galaxies than the non-ionizing UV luminosity density. This is because the ionizing escape fraction is expected to increase towards smaller, fainter galaxies, in which it is easier for feedback to evacuate low column density channels facilitating the escape of ionizing photons ( e.g. @Razoumov2010 [@Yajima2011; @Ferrara2013; @Paardekooper2015; @Xu2016; @Kimm2017] ). Therefore, when it comes to the total ionizing photon budget, faint galaxies are likely even more important than implied by the 1500 Å CDFs shown in the bottom row of Fig. \[Fig:BDA\_frise\].
Star formation rate density {#Sec:Star formation rate density}
---------------------------
Finally, in Fig. \[Fig:SFRD\] we show the cosmic star formation rate density (SFRD) from the BDA LFs presented in the previous figure. The SFRD is shown for two integration limits, up to the magnitude of -17 (with 68% C.L. in blue) and integrating over the whole population (68% C.L. in orange). We see that the SFRD up to a magnitude limit of -17 is consistent with observational estimates over the corresponding range (homogenized to correspond to the same limit according to @Oesch18). However, accounting for star formation in fainter galaxies implies a less rapid decrease going towards higher redshifts. For example, the SFRD down to -17 drops by 3,5 dex going from redshifts 6–15, while the total SFRD only decreases by 2.5 dex over the same redshift interval.
We also quote the median and 68% C.L. in table \[Tab:SFRD\] for these two integration limits (two first rows) as well as the completeness expressed in percent of the total SFRD. At redshift 6, galaxies brighter than magnitude -17 account for 60% of the total SFRD. However, this completeness drops rapidly as we go deeper into the EoR and cosmic dawn, becoming only 6% at $z=15$.[^5]
Conclusions {#Sec:Conclusions}
===========
High redshift LFs provide an important constraint on galaxy formation in the first billion years of the Universe. However, the observations are very challenging, with some estimates disagreeing significantly. Here we present a simple framework, Bayesian Data Averaging (BDA), to combine different high-$z$ LF observations. The approach relies on a simple analytic model to encapsulate what we expect from LFs (i.e. smoothness and dependence on halo mass functions) while allowing flexibility to account for the unknown physics behind them.
We apply BDA on four data sets of high-$z$ (z $\geq$ 6), faint-end $M_{\rm UV}> -20$ LFs. The resulting posteriors are mostly driven by two of the four data sets, showing a corresponding bimodality in the implied $M_\ast$ – $M_{\rm halo}$ relation. The combined posterior also shows very weak evidence of a turn-over at faint magnitudes, driven entirely by one data set. [*JWST*]{} might prove instrumental in distinguishing between these data sets further.
We provide the BDA LFs corresponding to our combined posteriors, which could be used to constrain similar galaxy formation models. These LFs extend to high redshifts and faint objects, for which we currently have no data. They do however rely on our physical model parameters being able to characterize the true LFs. The approach we present can be applied to future data sets, as well as to other physical models, providing a framework for leveraging multiple LF datasets.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank R. Bouwens, S. Finkelstein, and H. Atek for valuable comments on a draft version of this work. We also thank R. Livermore for providing us with the unpublished, Eddington bias-corrected data points and P. Oesch for sharing with us the homogenized star formation rate density data points. This work was supported by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No 638809 – AIDA – PI: Mesinger). The results presented here reflect the authors’ views; the ERC is not responsible for their use. We thank contributors to SciPy[^6], Matplotlib[^7], pyDOE[^8], and the Python programming language[^9].
Split Norm {#App:Split Norm}
==========
To take into account the asymmetric errors provided in the observations we used the split norm distribution [@wallis2014]. It is just the concatenation of two half-normal distributions, re-normalized to ensure continuity at the origin:
$$\rm{ \mathcal{S}(x) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\rm{ A exp\left( -\frac{1}{2} \frac{(x-\mu)^2}{\sigma_1^2} \right), x\leq \mu, }\\
\rm{ A exp\left( -\frac{1}{2} \frac{(x-\mu)^2}{\sigma_2^2} \right), x\geq \mu, } \\
A = ( {\sqrt{2\pi} \left( \frac{\sigma_1+\sigma_2}{2} \right)^2 } )^{-1}
\end{array}
\right. }$$
![ Example of application of the split normal distribution. Two half normal distributions are shown in blue and orange with two different standard deviations (respectively 0.30 and 0.10). The corresponding split-norm distribution is shown in red. For comparison, we also show in green the normal distribution obtained using the average of the variance of the two half normal distributions (i.e. a standard deviation of $\sim$ 0.224).[]{data-label="Fig:splitNorm"}](splitnorm_pdf.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
For illustrative purposes, Fig. \[Fig:splitNorm\] presents two half normal distributions in blue and orange with two different standard deviations (respectively 0.30 and 0.10). The corresponding split-norm distribution is shown in red. For comparison, we also show in green the normal distribution obtained using the average of the variance of the two half normal distributions (i.e. a standard deviation of $\sim$ 0.224).
Conversion of logarithmic to linear scale for errors {#App:Conversion logarithm to linear scale of the errors}
====================================================
Some studies give the observed data points and errors in logarithmic base 10 while others do so in linear scale. In this study, we chose to work in logarithmic base 10. The transformation from linear to logarithmic scale for the errors are made as follows: $$\rm{ \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\rm{ \phi_{log} = log_{10}(\phi_{lin}), }\\
\rm{ \sigma_{log}^+ = log_{10}(\phi_{lin}+\sigma_{lin}^+) - log_{10}(\phi_{lin}), } \\
\rm{ \sigma_{log}^- = log_{10}(\phi_{lin}) - log_{10}(\phi_{lin}-\sigma_{lin}^-), }
\end{array}
\right. }$$ $$\rm{ \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\rm{ \phi_{lin} = 10^{\phi_{log}}, }\\
\rm{ \sigma_{lin}^+ = 10^{\phi_{log}+\sigma_{log}^+} - 10^{\phi_{log}}, } \\
\rm{ \sigma_{lin}^- = 10^{\phi_{log}} - 10^{\phi_{log}-\sigma_{log}^-}. }
\end{array}
\right. }$$
Note that symmetric errors in one scale become asymmetric in the other.
The ratio $\lowercase{t_* / f_*}$ {#App:The ratio}
=================================
{width="80.00000%"}
The model used in this study contains two parameters that are completely degenerate in predicting the LF. Although only the ratio $r_* = t_* / f_*$ is relevant for the LF, we explore the more general formulation by default in this work since EoR observations (or other data sets) can break this degeneracy (c.f. @Park18).
In Fig. \[Fig:posterior\_ratio\] we replace $f_*$ and $t_*$ by $r_*$ in the traditional corner plot of the posterior. It is the same posterior as presented in Fig. \[Fig:posterior\], i.e. it is derived from the BDA combination of the observations. This ratio is strongly constrained by the LFs observations, $\rm{log_{10}(r_*)=1.01_{-0.15}^{+0.06} }$. It is degenerate with $\alpha_*$ and also slightly with $M_{\rm{t}}$ at large values of the latter. It is also noticeable that the sampling noise is reduced, due to the reduction of the parameter space dimensionality.
Convergence test {#App:Convergence test}
================
In this study, the likelihood is estimated on a grid of points sampled by LHS (200000 points). To test the convergence of our estimation of the posterior distribution we compare it with the posterior distribution generated with on-the-fly MCMC sampling. Note that the MCMC chain also contains 200000 points and has converged. Fig. \[Fig:convergence\] presents the comparison of the marginalized posterior distributions obtained with the grid (red) and with MCMC (green). Both posteriors are generated using the B+ data set. The 2D contour is the marginalized one sigma. As expected, the marginalized distributions obtained using the grid sampling are noisier, but the final constraints are comparable. We note a slight shift on the estimation of the parameter $\rm{ \alpha_* }$, due mostly to the difference in the treatment of the error: for computational simplicity, the MCMC code used [@Park18] treats LF error bars as symmetric, while here we allow for asymmetry (see A1).
{width="\textwidth"}
Comparison of all posterior distributions {#App:Comparison of all posterior distributions}
=========================================
We compare the posterior distribution obtained with the four data set in Fig. \[Fig:all posterior\]. These are generated using all data points for data sets. While Fig. present the same comparison but only using the 10 data points at redshift 6 with -20 $\leq M_{\rm{UV}} \leq$ -15.
{width="\textwidth"}
{width="\textwidth"}
Comparison BDA and Average {#App:Comparison BDA and Average}
==========================
We compare the posterior distribution obtained with the BDA method with a simple average of all individual posterior. Fig. \[Fig:Comparison BDA AVG\] present in blue the BDA posterior and in orange the average posterior. There are two noticeable differences. The first is on the parameter $\alpha_*$, in the average case, the distribution has a more Gaussian shape. But this difference has no noticeable effect once projected on the LF space (c.f. Fig \[Fig:BDA\_frise\]). The second difference is the parameter $M_{\rm{t}}$: in the case of the average, it is just a lower limit. This effect is visible in the LF space (c.f. Fig. \[Fig:frise\_OBS\] and associated discussion).
{width="\textwidth"}
Tables of Luminosity Functions {#App:Tables of Luminosity Functions}
==============================
[XXXXXXXXXX]{} & & &\
$M_{\rm{UV}}$ & & $\sigma_{sup}$ & $\sigma_{inf}$ & & $\sigma_{sup}$ & $\sigma_{inf}$ & & $\sigma_{sup}$ &\
-20.11 & -3.26 & 0.15 & 0.12 & -3.57 & 0.15 & 0.13 & -3.95 & 0.17 & 0.14\
-19.77 & -3.09 & 0.12 & 0.10 & -3.38 & 0.12 & 0.10 & -3.73 & 0.13 & 0.11\
-19.43 & -2.92 & 0.09 & 0.08 & -3.20 & 0.10 & 0.08 & -3.53 & 0.10 & 0.09\
-19.09 & -2.77 & 0.08 & 0.07 & -3.02 & 0.08 & 0.07 & -3.33 & 0.08 & 0.08\
-18.75 & -2.61 & 0.07 & 0.06 & -2.86 & 0.07 & 0.07 & -3.14 & 0.08 & 0.08\
-18.41 & -2.47 & 0.06 & 0.06 & -2.69 & 0.07 & 0.07 & -2.96 & 0.07 & 0.09\
-18.07 & -2.32 & 0.07 & 0.07 & -2.53 & 0.07 & 0.09 & -2.79 & 0.09 & 0.09\
-17.73 & -2.19 & 0.07 & 0.08 & -2.38 & 0.08 & 0.10 & -2.62 & 0.09 & 0.11\
-17.39 & -2.05 & 0.09 & 0.09 & -2.23 & 0.10 & 0.11 & -2.45 & 0.11 & 0.12\
-17.05 & -1.92 & 0.10 & 0.11 & -2.09 & 0.11 & 0.12 & -2.30 & 0.13 & 0.14\
-16.71 & -1.79 & 0.11 & 0.12 & -1.95 & 0.12 & 0.13 & -2.15 & 0.14 & 0.14\
-16.37 & -1.67 & 0.12 & 0.12 & -1.82 & 0.13 & 0.14 & -2.01 & 0.15 & 0.15\
-16.03 & -1.56 & 0.12 & 0.13 & -1.70 & 0.14 & 0.14 & -1.88 & 0.15 & 0.16\
-15.69 & -1.45 & 0.13 & 0.14 & -1.59 & 0.14 & 0.15 & -1.76 & 0.16 & 0.16\
-15.35 & -1.36 & 0.14 & 0.14 & -1.49 & 0.14 & 0.16 & -1.66 & 0.16 & 0.17\
-15.01 & -1.27 & 0.14 & 0.15 & -1.40 & 0.15 & 0.17 & -1.56 & 0.17 & 0.19\
-14.67 & -1.19 & 0.15 & 0.17 & -1.32 & 0.17 & 0.18 & -1.47 & 0.20 & 0.19\
-14.33 & -1.12 & 0.19 & 0.18 & -1.25 & 0.22 & 0.19 & -1.40 & 0.26 & 0.21\
-13.99 & -1.06 & 0.24 & 0.20 & -1.17 & 0.28 & 0.22 & -1.32 & 0.32 & 0.25\
-13.65 & -0.99 & 0.31 & 0.23 & -1.11 & 0.35 & 0.28 & -1.25 & 0.41 & 0.30\
-13.31 & -0.94 & 0.40 & 0.27 & -1.05 & 0.45 & 0.32 & -1.19 & 0.50 & 0.37\
-12.97 & -0.89 & 0.45 & 0.37 & -1.00 & 0.53 & 0.42 & -1.14 & 0.56 & 0.52\
-12.63 & -0.84 & 0.55 & 0.48 & -0.96 & 0.61 & 0.57 & -1.10 & 0.71 & 0.64\
-12.29 & -0.82 & 0.65 & 0.63 & -0.94 & 0.74 & 0.73 & -1.08 & 0.81 & 0.87\
-11.95 & -0.81 & 0.76 & 0.83 & -0.93 & 0.88 & 0.96 & -1.09 & 0.95 & 1.14\
-11.61 & -0.83 & 0.89 & 1.10 & -0.97 & 0.98 & 1.32 & -1.14 & 1.10 & 1.51\
-11.27 & -0.88 & 1.07 & 1.41 & -1.05 & 1.17 & 1.71 & -1.24 & 1.30 & 1.97\
-10.93 & -0.99 & 1.27 & 1.84 & -1.19 & 1.41 & 2.18 & -1.41 & 1.54 & 2.56\
-10.59 & -1.16 & 1.47 & 2.42 & -1.40 & 1.64 & 2.87 & -1.65 & 1.81 & 3.32\
-10.25 & -1.40 & 1.72 & 3.18 & -1.68 & 1.93 & 3.75 & -1.99 & 2.19 & 4.30\
-9.91 & -1.72 & 2.08 & 4.10 & -2.07 & 2.35 & 4.84 & -2.44 & 2.61 & 5.59\
[XXXXXXXXXX]{} & & &\
$M_{\rm{UV}}$ & & $\sigma_{sup}$ & $\sigma_{inf}$ & & $\sigma_{sup}$ & $\sigma_{inf}$ & & $\sigma_{sup}$ &\
-20.11 & -4.37 & 0.18 & 0.14 & -4.84 & 0.19 & 0.16 & -5.90 & 0.21 & 0.17\
-19.77 & -4.13 & 0.14 & 0.12 & -4.57 & 0.15 & 0.12 & -5.58 & 0.16 & 0.15\
-19.43 & -3.90 & 0.11 & 0.09 & -4.31 & 0.12 & 0.10 & -5.27 & 0.13 & 0.13\
-19.09 & -3.68 & 0.09 & 0.09 & -4.07 & 0.11 & 0.09 & -4.97 & 0.12 & 0.12\
-18.75 & -3.47 & 0.09 & 0.09 & -3.84 & 0.10 & 0.10 & -4.69 & 0.12 & 0.14\
-18.41 & -3.27 & 0.09 & 0.10 & -3.62 & 0.10 & 0.11 & -4.42 & 0.14 & 0.14\
-18.07 & -3.08 & 0.10 & 0.11 & -3.40 & 0.11 & 0.13 & -4.17 & 0.14 & 0.17\
-17.73 & -2.89 & 0.12 & 0.12 & -3.20 & 0.13 & 0.14 & -3.92 & 0.17 & 0.19\
-17.39 & -2.71 & 0.13 & 0.13 & -3.01 & 0.16 & 0.15 & -3.69 & 0.20 & 0.19\
-17.05 & -2.54 & 0.14 & 0.16 & -2.82 & 0.17 & 0.17 & -3.47 & 0.21 & 0.21\
-16.71 & -2.38 & 0.16 & 0.16 & -2.64 & 0.18 & 0.18 & -3.26 & 0.21 & 0.22\
-16.37 & -2.23 & 0.17 & 0.17 & -2.48 & 0.18 & 0.19 & -3.07 & 0.22 & 0.23\
-16.03 & -2.09 & 0.16 & 0.18 & -2.33 & 0.18 & 0.20 & -2.89 & 0.23 & 0.23\
-15.69 & -1.96 & 0.17 & 0.18 & -2.19 & 0.18 & 0.20 & -2.74 & 0.22 & 0.24\
-15.35 & -1.85 & 0.18 & 0.18 & -2.08 & 0.19 & 0.20 & -2.61 & 0.22 & 0.25\
-15.01 & -1.75 & 0.19 & 0.20 & -1.97 & 0.21 & 0.22 & -2.49 & 0.24 & 0.27\
-14.67 & -1.66 & 0.23 & 0.22 & -1.87 & 0.26 & 0.23 & -2.38 & 0.33 & 0.27\
-14.33 & -1.58 & 0.29 & 0.24 & -1.78 & 0.32 & 0.26 & -2.27 & 0.39 & 0.31\
-13.99 & -1.50 & 0.36 & 0.28 & -1.70 & 0.40 & 0.31 & -2.17 & 0.48 & 0.39\
-13.65 & -1.42 & 0.46 & 0.33 & -1.62 & 0.53 & 0.35 & -2.09 & 0.63 & 0.43\
-13.31 & -1.36 & 0.55 & 0.43 & -1.55 & 0.61 & 0.47 & -2.01 & 0.71 & 0.59\
-12.97 & -1.30 & 0.64 & 0.57 & -1.50 & 0.71 & 0.64 & -1.95 & 0.84 & 0.79\
-12.63 & -1.27 & 0.75 & 0.76 & -1.46 & 0.83 & 0.85 & -1.92 & 1.01 & 1.02\
-12.29 & -1.25 & 0.90 & 0.99 & -1.45 & 1.00 & 1.09 & -1.91 & 1.17 & 1.35\
-11.95 & -1.27 & 1.03 & 1.32 & -1.48 & 1.12 & 1.49 & -1.95 & 1.33 & 1.81\
-11.61 & -1.34 & 1.23 & 1.71 & -1.56 & 1.35 & 1.92 & -2.06 & 1.56 & 2.37\
-11.27 & -1.46 & 1.47 & 2.21 & -1.71 & 1.58 & 2.49 & -2.26 & 1.84 & 3.08\
-10.93 & -1.66 & 1.70 & 2.90 & -1.93 & 1.86 & 3.25 & -2.53 & 2.16 & 4.01\
-10.59 & -1.94 & 1.99 & 3.80 & -2.25 & 2.18 & 4.27 & -2.92 & 2.60 & 5.18\
-10.25 & -2.32 & 2.42 & 4.89 & -2.68 & 2.64 & 5.49 & -3.43 & 3.07 & 6.68\
-9.91 & -2.82 & 2.88 & 6.31 & -3.21 & 3.15 & 7.00 & -4.00 & 3.63 & 8.20\
[XXXX]{} $M_{\rm{UV}}$ & $\phi$ & $\sigma_{sup}$ & $\sigma_{inf}$\
-20.11 & -7.82 & 0.25 & 0.20\
-19.77 & -7.39 & 0.21 & 0.17\
-19.43 & -6.98 & 0.17 & 0.17\
-19.09 & -6.60 & 0.16 & 0.17\
-18.75 & -6.23 & 0.16 & 0.19\
-18.41 & -5.88 & 0.18 & 0.22\
-18.07 & -5.55 & 0.21 & 0.24\
-17.73 & -5.24 & 0.25 & 0.25\
-17.39 & -4.94 & 0.26 & 0.28\
-17.05 & -4.66 & 0.27 & 0.30\
-16.71 & -4.40 & 0.30 & 0.29\
-16.37 & -4.16 & 0.29 & 0.31\
-16.03 & -3.94 & 0.29 & 0.31\
-15.69 & -3.76 & 0.28 & 0.31\
-15.35 & -3.60 & 0.28 & 0.32\
-15.01 & -3.45 & 0.32 & 0.35\
-14.67 & -3.32 & 0.43 & 0.34\
-14.33 & -3.18 & 0.52 & 0.39\
-13.99 & -3.06 & 0.62 & 0.49\
-13.65 & -2.96 & 0.79 & 0.56\
-13.31 & -2.86 & 0.91 & 0.75\
-12.97 & -2.79 & 1.08 & 0.98\
-12.63 & -2.75 & 1.25 & 1.32\
-12.29 & -2.75 & 1.42 & 1.76\
-11.95 & -2.81 & 1.65 & 2.33\
-11.61 & -2.97 & 1.97 & 3.00\
-11.27 & -3.21 & 2.26 & 3.95\
-10.93 & -3.58 & 2.63 & 5.18\
-10.59 & -4.06 & 3.17 & 6.61\
-10.25 & -4.60 & 3.69 & 8.16\
-9.91 & -5.10 & 4.17 & 9.38\
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: We repeat this experiment with 1000 different realizations, finding that data set A consistently contributes the most to the combined posterior, at the level of 70% on average.
[^3]: We test the impact of the bright end limit on our results by removing the brightest two magnitude bins and re-computing the posteriors. The resulting posteriors are consistent with our fiducial ones, with a somewhat broader PDF for the slope parameter, $\alpha_*$, due to the removal of points with comparably small errors. Thus we do not find evidence that the bright end limit changes the implied slope of the stellar mass to halo mass relation, and as a consequence that we would need additional parameters characterizing dust or AGN feedback. The relative evidence does change somewhat for this reduced data set, with 19% / 37% / 41.5% / 2.5% attributed to B+ / I+ / A+ / L+. This reflects the fact that the I+ data set has very small errors for those two bins, and the implies counts are consistent with our parametrization. Thus their removal shifts some of the corresponding relative evidence to B+. Selecting sub-samples of the data is, in any case, ad-hoc, so we use the largest range which is common to the data sets and over which our galaxy parametrization is reasonable.
[^4]: As demonstrated in §\[Sec:Demonstration on toy models\], errors which are too small are naturally penalized by BDA. We can however explicitly check if the data sets have underestimated errors by computing their $\chi^2$ to the corresponding ML model. The resulting $\chi^2$ are 2.5 / 3.7 / 0.9 / 1.7 for B+ / I+ / A+ and L+. Although A+ has the smallest chi-squared, it is consistent with a $\chi^2$ distribution with three effective degrees of freedom (like our model). I+ has the largest chi-squared (within 71% C.L. of the chi-squared distribution), which is even higher if one uses the quoted errors instead of the 20% minimum errors that we applied ($\chi^2$ of 5.9 at 88% C.L.). This is weakly suggestive that the errors in the I+ data set could be underestimated.
[^5]: The completeness is even lower at higher redshifts if there is a separate, transient population of molecularly-cooled galaxies. We expect these molecularly-cooled galaxies to have different properties compared with the galaxies we observe at $z{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
\raise1pt\hbox{$<$}}}10$ (e.g. @Wise2014 [@So2014]), and the framework we use here does not allow for disparate galaxy populations. We will return to this in future work, focused on the ultra-high redshifts in which such galaxies are expected to live.
[^6]: http://www.scipy.org
[^7]: http://www.matplotlib.sourceforge.net
[^8]: https://pythonhosted.org/pyDOE/
[^9]: http://www.python.org
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Coronal holes (CHs) are regions of open magnetic flux which are the source of high speed solar wind (HSSW) streams. To date, it is not clear which aspects of CHs are of most influence on the properties of the solar wind as it expands through the Heliosphere. Here, we study the relationship between CH properties extracted from AIA (Atmospheric Imaging Assembly) images using CHIMERA (Coronal Hole Identification via Multi-thermal Emission Recognition Algorithm) and HSSW measurements from ACE (Advanced Composition Explorer) at L1. For CH longitudinal widths $\Delta\theta_{CH}<$67$^{\circ}$, the peak SW velocity ($v_{max}$) is found to scale as $v_{max}~\approx~330.8~+~5.7~\Delta\theta_{CH}$ km s$^{-1}$. For larger longitudinal widths ($\Delta\theta_{CH}>$67$^{\circ}$), $v_{max}$ is found to tend to a constant value ($\sim$710 km s$^{-1}$). Furthermore, we find that the duration of HSSW streams ($\Delta t$) are directly related to the longitudinal width of CHs ($\Delta t_{SW}$ $\approx$ 0.09$\Delta\theta_{CH}$) and that their longitudinal expansion factor is $f_{SW}~\approx 1.2~\pm 0.1$. We also derive an expression for the coronal hole flux-tube expansion factor, $f_{FT}$, which varies as $f_{SW} \gtrsim f_{FT} \gtrsim 0.8$. These results enable us to estimate the peak speeds and durations of HSSW streams at L1 using the properties of CHs identified in the solar corona.'
author:
- 'Tadhg M. Garton'
- 'Sophie A. Murray'
- 'Peter T. Gallagher'
title: Expansion of High Speed Solar Wind Streams From Coronal Holes Through the Inner Heliosphere
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Coronal holes (CHs) are low density regions of open magnetic field which appear dark in EUV wavelengths and are known to be associated with the acceleration of high-speed solar wind (HSSW) streams [@Krieger73; @Cranmer02; @Tu05; @Cranmer09]. Due to their slow evolution, CHs can exist for a number of solar rotations, ranging in lifetime from months to years [@Timothy75; @Bohlin77; @deToma11; @Krista11]. This slow evolution allows for relatively precise forecasting of HSSW streams emanating from CHs, and their potential trajectory through interplanetary space to 1 AU [@Heinemann18].
The solar wind is a stream of charged particles, largely protons and electrons, traveling outward from the Sun toward the edge of the heliosphere. This stream is classified into slow and fast variants, the former with typical speeds and temperatures of $\sim$400 km s^-1^ and $\sim$10^5^ K at 1 AU respectively [@Marsch06], and the latter with speeds and temperatures of up to $\sim$780 km s^-1^ and $\sim$10^6^ K at 1 AU respectively [@Cranmer02]. The solar wind is of interest to operational space weather forecasters due to the potential damage it can cause to satellites through differential and bulk charging, and its association with geomagnetic storms and their impacts at Earth [@Boteler01; @Huttunen08; @Marshall12; @Blake16].
Empirical studies have shown that the properties of the HSSW, and hence their potential impacts, are largely governed by the properties of their originating CH regions [@Arge00; @Vrsnak07; @Rotter12]. Previous work has shown that HSSW velocity at 1AU is inversely proportional to the expansion of magnetic flux-tubes within the CH boundaries [@Levine77; @Wang91] and can be estimated for a given CH through the Wang-Sheely (WS) model [@Wang90]. Magnetic flux-tube expansion can be described by a two-dimensional unitless comparison of magnetic flux density between two surfaces known as the magnetic flux-tube expansion factor [@Wang97], as follows:
$$f(r,\theta)=\left(\frac{R_\odot}{r}\right)^{2}\frac{B_{r}(R_\odot,\theta_\odot,\phi_\odot)}{B_{r}(r,\theta,\phi)}
\label{eqn1}$$
In this case, the expansion factor, $f$, is described between the solar surface and the source surface at radial distance $r$ = 2.5 $R_\odot$, where $B_{r}$ describes the magnetic field for a given surface, and $\theta$ and $\phi$ define longitude and latitude position information along the magnetic fields lines. [@Pinto17] simplified this expansion factor to a dimensionless comparison of the area, $A$, occupied by a flux-tube at two surface heights, $r_{\odot}$ and $r$, as follows:
$$f=\frac{A_{r}}{A_{\odot}}\left(\frac{r_{\odot}}{r}\right)^{2}
\label{eqn2}$$
An alternate model for predicting HSSW speed proposed by [@Riley01] states that the SW velocity originating from a point within a CH boundary is positively correlated with the minimum Distance from the Coronal Hole Boundary (DCHB). This model has since been validated empirically from Ulysses measurements of polar CHs across 12 Carrington rotations by [@Riley03]. The WS and DCHB models have since been combined and improved to include real-time updating of an input magnetogram in the widely-used Wang-Sheeley-Arge (WSA) model [@Arge00; @Arge04; @Riley15].
Previous observational studies have confirmed the inverse correlation between solar wind speed and magnetic flux-tube expansion. Notably, [@Wang90] performed a 22-year examination of the relationship between the solar wind and the rate of flux-tube expansion in the corona, which confirmed this inverse relationship and concluded that the WS model can be used to reproduce the overall patterns of fast and slow wind. This study was expanded by [@Wang97] using direct measurements from the Ulysses spacecraft. From these measurements the range of potential expansion factors and their associated wind speeds were estimated, however it was observed that the expansion factor model often over predicted very fast wind near the ecliptic plane. [@Pinto16] used a global magnetohydrodynamic simulation to confirm the speed of solar wind depends on the geometry of the open magnetic flux-tubes through which it flows. These findings were further used in [@Pinto17] to derive a three-dimensional model of the structure of the solar wind. In recent times many studies have investigated the link between the solar wind and EUV images of the solar corona. [@Temmer07] investigated periodicity in the presence of CH areas at central meridian and rises in SW speed. [@Vrsnak07] analyzed the relationship between coronal hole area/positions and physical characteristics of the associated high speed stream.
Here, an analysis of the longitudinal solar wind expansion is performed for high speed solar wind streams traveling through interplanetary space. Measurements of originating CH properties are estimated with images from the Solar Dynamics Observatory Atmospheric Imaging Assembly [AIA; @Lemen12] and Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager [HMI; @Scherrer12] using the Coronal Hole Identification via Multi-thermal Emission Recognition Algorithm (CHIMERA; @Garton17 [-@Garton17]). For the first time these CHIMERA CH properties are compared with *in-situ* measurements of HSSW streams from the Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE; @Stone98 [-@Stone98]) at the L1 point. Specifically, comparisons are made between CH longitudinal width, observed when CHs are located at central meridian, and the duration of the HSSW stream produced as measured at L1, for the period 2016 to 2017. In this case of flux-tube expansion, the CH surface is defined to be inclusive of the magnetic fields caused by the interaction of the CH boundary to it’s surrounding plasma and the HSSW surface is defined to be inclusive of the tail end of the HSSW stream typically composed of material originating from the interaction of CH boundaries. From this correlation analysis it is possible to estimate the longitudinal component of the HSSW stream expansion through interplanetary space, as described in Section \[sec:meth\].
Observation and Analysis {#sec:meth}
========================
CHIMERA is an automatic CH identification and segmentation algorithm which extracts multiple property measurements from classified CH regions (see Figure \[fig:ch\]a), such as CH area, magnetic polarity, etc. The algorithm classifies these regions through a multi-thermal segmentation method, only accepting candidates that exhibit thermal and magnetic properties similar to that expected of a CH. Further details on the segmentation method can be found in [@Garton17]. Here, measurements of CH longitudinal width in degrees are extracted for CHs when their centroid is located closest to the central meridian. Analyzing values of CHs when centered at central meridian ensures a minimal loss of estimated width of extended CHs caused by occultation effects.
Since HSSW streams originating from CHs can vary in velocity from $\sim$400-800 km s$^{-1}$ [@Cranmer02], it can be assumed that the velocity of solar wind emitted within a CH boundary varies within this range [@Riley01; @Riley03]. This variation of emitted speed implies that the angular width of HSSW streams can be extended should a particularly fast stream of solar wind be followed by a relatively slow stream still located within the CH boundary. The solar wind emitted from the Eastern and Western boundaries of the central CH from Figure \[fig:ch\]a is simulated using the HELiophysics Integrated Observatory (HELIO; @PSuarez12 [-@PSuarez12]) ballistic model in Figure \[fig:ch\]b. The longitudinal component of solar wind expansion factor is derived in [@Krista12], and can be defined from this figure as:
$$f_{SW}=\frac{\Delta\theta_{SW}}{\Delta\theta_{CH}}
\label{eqn3}$$
The longitudinal width of the detected CH at 1R$_{\odot}$ is denoted by $\Delta\theta_{CH}$, while $\Delta\theta_{SW}$ indicates the longitudinal width of the HSSW at L1. For an expanding SW stream, $f>1.0$. Measurements of $\Delta\theta_{CH}$ are available through CHIMERA. Direct measurements of $\Delta\theta_{SW}$ are not currently possible, however it can be calculated from *in-situ* measurements of HSSW stream duration taken from ACE, $\Delta t_{SW}$, using the angular velocity, $\Delta\theta_{SW} = \omega_{\odot}\Delta t_{SW}$. The solar wind’s apparent angular velocity, $\omega_{\odot}$, is assumed to be equal to the synodic Carrington rotational velocity of the Sun. A comprehensive study by [@Oghrapishvili18] of CHs finds a variation of rotational velocities with latitude, with a plateau existing between $\pm$40$^{\circ}$. Here, only CHs associated with a measurable HSSW stream at L1 are analyzed, typically with some component of CH boundary existing within $\pm$40$^{\circ}$. Hence we assume a constant value of rotational velocity, $\sim$13.199$^{\circ}$day$^{-1}$. Hence, $f_{SW}$ was calculated using:
$$f_{SW}=\omega_{\odot}\frac{\Delta t_{SW}}{\Delta\theta_{CH}}
\label{eqn4}$$
Equation \[eqn4\] can be rearranged to form a relation between the measurable parameters $\Delta t_{SW}$ and $\Delta\theta_{CH}$ as follows:
$$\Delta t_{SW}=\frac{f_{SW}}{\omega_{\odot}}\Delta\theta_{CH}
\label{eqn4.1}$$
This relationship predicts the duration of upcoming HSSW streams from measurements of CH width at the central meridian, at 1R$_{\odot}$.
An example of ACE solar wind speed measurements for the month of January 2017 is shown in Figure \[meth\]. A line is fitted to the rising and declining phase of the stream in order to calculate the duration of a HSSW stream originating from a single CH. The intersections of these linear fits with the mean background slow solar wind speed for a given month, 337.4 km s$^{-1}$ in January 2017, defines the start time ($t_{i}$) of the HSSW streams arrival at L1 and end time ($t_{f}$) of the HSSW streams interaction at L1. The difference between the start and end times of the stream is then calculated as, $\Delta~t_{SW}~=~t_{f}~-~t_{i}$. This method of calculating $\Delta t_{SW}$ removes potential errors caused by overlapping HSSW streams originating from closely-clustered CHs. This method estimates the behavior of the solar wind in the absence of perturbations caused by other solar features. An example of this occurrence is visible in Figure \[meth\] between 2017 January 2-5, where two peaks in solar wind velocity exist. These peaks are due to two detected CH regions located near to the large CH at central meridian, as shown in Figure \[fig:ch\]a.
By comparing the measurements of HSSW duration and width of their respective CHs, it is possible to draw a correlation and extract an estimation of the longitudinal expansion that HSSW streams undergo between their origin on the solar surface and their detection at L1.
Results {#sec:res}
=======
A comparison of CH width and associated SW peak velocity for CHs detected by CHIMERA at disk center during 2016 and 2017 is displayed in Figure \[comp\]a. Here, significant outliers are highlighted in red. These outliers are caused by irregularly shaped, extended CHs in the instance of non-polar CHs, diamonds, and by a possible near miss caused by a high latitude CH in the polar CH instance, square. Two linear relations between CH width and peak SW velocity are drawn. For CH regions of width $\lesssim$70$^{\circ}$ a relation of $v_{max}~\approx~330.8(\pm16.6)~+~5.7(\pm0.5)~\Delta\theta_{CH}$ is fit. This relation tapers off above $\approx70^{\circ}$ to a near constant speed of $\sim$710 km s$^{-1}$, with a standard deviation of $\sim$50 km s$^{-1}$. The intersection of these two regimes occurs at $\sim$67$^{\circ}~\pm$ 11$^{\circ}$.
CH width and HSSW stream duration are compared in Figure \[comp\]b. Here, colour represents the peak SW speeds for the CH and ranges from purple, $\sim$400 km s$^{-1}$, to yellow, $\sim$700 km s$^{-1}$. Symbol shape describes CH topology, with squares representing CHs that link to either magnetic pole and diamonds represent non-polar related CH regions. The strong correlation between width and duration is demonstrated by the best fit line $\Delta t_{SW}$(Days) $\approx~0.09~\pm~0.01~\Delta\theta_{CH}$(Deg), with a high $R^{2}$ value of 0.884. This high $R^{2}$ value may be due to 2016 having a larger number of very extended CHs than is typical. This relation enables the prediction of the durations of HSSW streams at Earth. Figure \[comp\] was replicated for area-based estimations from which a similar trend to Figure \[comp\]a was found for the observed dates, with a slightly better fit, however more outliers were apparent in the equivalent Figure \[comp\]b when comparing to duration. From the slope of this best fit linear relation and Equation \[eqn4.1\] it is possible to estimate the average longitudinal solar wind expansion factor using:
$$\frac{f_{SW}}{\omega_{\odot}}=0.09\pm0.01
\label{eqn5}$$
Assuming this angular velocity is equal to that of the synodic Carrington rotation, 13.199$^{\circ}$day$^{-1}$, a general longitudinal expansion factor of $f_{SW}=1.2\pm0.1$ is obtained. This value implies HSSW streams will expand longitudinally while traveling through interplanetary space.
Due to the varying velocity profile across a CH, this calculation of $f_{SW}$ includes an additional component caused by the extra time for the relatively slower solar wind emitted from the eastern boundary of the CH to reach L1. This effect can be seen in Figure \[fderiv\] where the leading boundary of the HSSW reaches a distance of $R_{F}$, while the trailing boundary only reaches a boundary of $R_{S}$ such that $R_{S}=R_{F}(v_{S}/v_{F})$, where $v_{F}$ and $v_{S}$ are the velocities of the solar wind at the leading and trailing boundaries respectively. By correcting for this velocity variation across the HSSW stream, it is possible to estimate the longitudinal expansion of the CH flux-tube from the corona to L1 as follows:
$$f_{FT}^{long}=\frac{\Delta\theta_{FT}}{\Delta\theta_{CH}}=\frac{\Delta\theta_{SW}-\Delta\theta_{rot}}{\Delta\theta_{CH}}
\label{f-deriv-1}$$
where $\Delta\theta_{rot}$ can be calculated from Figure \[fderiv\] as the angle the Sun has rotated in the time taken for the slow boundary to reach a distance $R_{F}$ traveling radially from $R_{S}$, $\Delta\theta_{rot}=\omega_{\odot}R_{F}[(1/v_{S})-(1/v_{F})]$ and $\Delta\theta_{SW}$ can be expressed as $f_{SW}\Delta\theta_{CH}$. Hence, $f_{FT}^{long}$ can be written as:
$$f_{FT}^{long}=f_{SW}-\frac{\omega_{\odot}R_{F}}{\Delta\theta_{CH}}\left(\frac{1}{v_{S}}-\frac{1}{v_{F}}\right)
\label{f-deriv-2}$$
Furthermore, it is possible to estimate the width expansion of the overall open magnetic field of the coronal hole, which will henceforth be referred to as the coronal hole flux-tube expansion factor ($f_{FT}$):
$$f_{FT}=\frac{L_{FT}}{r}\left(\frac{r_{CH}}{l_{CH}}\right)=\frac{1}{\Delta\theta_{CH}}\int_{0}^{L_{FT}}\frac{dL_{FT}}{r}
\label{f-deriv-3}$$
where the length $L_{FT}$ is approximated as a segment of a spiral such that:
$$f_{FT}=\frac{1}{\Delta\theta_{CH}}\int_{0}^{\Delta\theta_{FT}}\frac{\sqrt{r^{2}+(\partial r/\partial\theta)^2}}{r}d\theta
\label{f-deriv-4}$$
The radius of a given spiral changes as a function of $\theta$, in this case calculated from Figure \[fderiv\] as:
$$r=R_{S}+\frac{(R_{F}-R_{S})}{\Delta\theta_{FT}}\theta
\label{f-deriv-5}$$
Hence, Equation \[f-deriv-4\] can be simplified to:
$$f_{FT}=\frac{1}{\Delta\theta_{CH}}\int_{0}^{\Delta\theta_{FT}}\sqrt{1+\left(\frac{\Delta v}{v_{S}\Delta\theta_{FT}+\theta\Delta v}\right)^{2}}d\theta
\label{f-deriv-6}$$
where $\Delta v$ is the difference of velocities between the leading and trailing HSSW stream boundary, ($v_{F}-v_{S}$). Integrating gives the general equation for the coronal hole flux-tube expansion factor as:
$$f_{FT}=\frac{\alpha-\beta}{\Delta v\Delta\theta_{CH}}+\frac{1}{2\Delta\theta_{CH}}ln\left(\frac{[\beta+\Delta v][\alpha-\Delta v]}{[\beta-\Delta v][\alpha+\Delta v]}\right)
\label{f-deriv-7}$$
where
$$\alpha=\sqrt{(v_{F}\Delta\theta_{FT})^{2}+\Delta v^{2}}
\label{f-deriv-8}$$
$$\beta=\sqrt{(v_{S}\Delta\theta_{FT})^{2}+\Delta v^{2}}
\label{f-deriv-9}$$
where $\Delta\theta_{FT}$ is the angular width of the flux-tube ($\Delta\theta_{FT}=\Delta\theta_{SW}-\Delta\theta_{rot}$). From these derivations it is possible to estimate the range of possible expansion factors. From empirical measurements $f_{SW}$ will remain at 1.2 regardless of CH width. $f_{FT}^{long}$ will range from 1.2 for small CHs to ${\sim}0.5$ for $\Delta\theta_{CH}\approx60^{\circ}$. Above $\Delta\theta_{CH}\approx60^{\circ}$, $f_{FT}^{long}$ tends towards a constant value of 1.
$f_{FT}$ is undefined for ${\Delta}v=0$, however, due to the correlation between ${\Delta}v$ and $\Delta\theta_{CH}$, ${\Delta}v$ is zero only when $\Delta\theta_{CH}=0$, i.e., when no CH is present. Hence, Equations \[f-deriv-7\]-\[f-deriv-9\] only apply when both ${\Delta}v>0$ and $\Delta\theta_{CH}>0$, i.e., when a CH is present. $f_{FT}$ approaches a value of 1.2 for very small CHs, $\lim_{\Delta\theta_{CH}{\to}0} f_{FT}(\Delta\theta_{CH})=1.2$, and as $\Delta\theta_{CH}$ increases to a small width CH (${\sim}20^{\circ}$), $f_{FT}$ approaches a value of ${\sim}0.8$. Above this CH width, values of $f_{FT}$ tend towards ${\sim}1$.
Discussion and Conclusions {#sec:conc}
==========================
Here, the relationship between CH width, a CH property made available by the CHIMERA algorithm, and the properties of the associated solar wind measured at L1 by the ACE satellite has been investigated. The results show that a positive correlation exists between the peak SW speed of HSSW stream and the width of their originating CHs for widths $\lesssim$67$^{\circ}$. Variations from a direct correlation are due to the HSSW speed being related to the area of CH regions, which varies independently from longitudinal width, and possible near misses of HSSW streams. Furthermore, other CH properties likely have a further contribution to the solar wind speed. Above $\sim67^{\circ}$ width the peak SW velocity appears to become constant at $\sim$710 km s$^{-1}$ regardless of CH width, with a standard deviation of $\sim$50 km s$^{-1}$. These speeds are consistent with the theory of HSSW streams emanating from CH regions by [@Cranmer09]. Furthermore, this relation is similar to the relation between HSSW velocity and distance from a coronal boundary found by [@Riley03].
From the strong correlation of HSSW stream duration to CH width in Figure \[comp\]b it is clear these properties are fundamentally linked. Hence it is possible to predict the duration of an incoming stream of HSSW using the best fit linear relation, $\Delta t_{SW}~=~0.09(\pm0.01)~\Delta\theta_{CH}~+~0.38(\pm0.37)$. Combined with empirical measurements, such as in [@Vrsnak07], and the expanded study by [@Verbanac11], a prediction of the start and end time of a HSSW streams interaction with Earth is possible.
From these measurements of CH width and stream duration we calculate an average longitudinal solar wind expansion factor of 1.2 $\pm$ 0.1. This value implies the HSSW always expands longitudinally from 1$R_{\odot}$ to 1AU. This consistent expansion is likely a composite of the HSSW flux-tube expanding and an increased longitudinal width caused by differing arrival times of the leading and trailing boundaries at 1AU. By correcting for this variation in arrival times, it is possible to estimate the projected longitudinal expansion of the HSSW flux-tube at $R_{F}$ from Equation \[f-deriv-2\], which ranges from $f_{SW}~\gtrsim~f_{FT}^{long}~\gtrsim~0.5$. Then, by approximating the structure of the flux-tube as a spiral, it is possible to estimate the coronal hole flux-tube expansion factor from Equations \[f-deriv-6\] and \[f-deriv-7\], which ranges from $f_{SW}~\gtrsim~f_{FT}~\gtrsim~0.8$. These values of flux-tube expansion are very low compared to empirical area flux-tube expansion values found by [@Wang97] of ${<}3.5$ to ${>}18$, or modeled values by [@Pinto17] from 1 to $\sim$100. This discrepancy is likely due to the focus here on the longitudinal flux-tube expansions and the potential of flux-tubes expanding non-uniformly in the longitudinal and latitudinal directions. Furthermore, previous studies have focused on the expansion of flux-tubes originating in polar CH regions or the expansion of individual magnetic funnels within a CH boundary, as in the @Pinto17 work. This work instead averages the expansion factors of all magnetic funnels within the CHs anywhere on the solar disk that correlates with geomagnetic storm activity.
These average values of $f_{SW}$ determined here are useful for operational space weather forecasting efforts, for the first time enabling a prediction of the duration and max speeds of HSSW streams and the expansion of the HSSW flux-tubes merely from an estimation of longitudinal width of CH regions. These results demonstrate an example of the potential connections that can be discovered between CHs and the solar wind using the new automated CHIMERA method.
T. M. G. is supported by a Government of Ireland Studentship from the Irish Research Council (IRC). S. A. M. is supported by the Irish Research Council Postdoctoral Fellowship Programme and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research award number FA9550-17-1-039. Images used for this research are constructed from images courtesy of NASA/SDO and the AIA, EVE, and HMI science teams. We thank the ACE SWEPAM instrument team and the ACE Science Center for providing the ACE data. We thank the anonymous referee for their constructive suggestions to improve the manuscript.
natexlab\#1[\#1]{}\[1\][[\#1](#1)]{}
, C. N., [Luhmann]{}, J. G., [Odstrcil]{}, D., [Schrijver]{}, C. J., & [Li]{}, Y. 2004, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 66, 1295
, C. N., & [Pizzo]{}, V. J. 2000, , 105, 10465
, S. P., [Gallagher]{}, P. T., [McCauley]{}, J., [et al.]{} 2016, Space Weather, 14, 1136
, J. D. 1977, , 51, 377
, D. H. 2001, Washington DC American Geophysical Union Geophysical Monograph Series, 125, 347
, S. R. 2002, , 101, 229
Cranmer, S. R. 2009, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 6, 3
, G. 2011, , 274, 195
, T. M., [Gallagher]{}, P. T., & [Murray]{}, S. A. 2017, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1711.11476
, S. G., [Temmer]{}, M., [Hofmeister]{}, S. J., [Veronig]{}, A. M., & [Vennerstr[ø]{}m]{}, S. 2018, , 861, 151
, K. E. J., [Kilpua]{}, S. P., [Pulkkinen]{}, A., [Viljanen]{}, A., & [Tanskanen]{}, E. 2008, Space Weather, 6, S10002
, A. S., [Timothy]{}, A. F., & [Roelof]{}, E. C. 1973, , 29, 505
, L. D. 2012, PhD thesis, PhD Thesis, 2012
, L. D., [Gallagher]{}, P. T., & [Bloomfield]{}, D. S. 2011, , 731, L26
, J. R., [Title]{}, A. M., [Akin]{}, D. J., [et al.]{} 2012, , 275, 17
, R. H., [Altschuler]{}, M. D., & [Harvey]{}, J. W. 1977, , 82, 1061
, E. 2006, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 3, 1
, R. A., [Dalzell]{}, M., [Waters]{}, C. L., [Goldthorpe]{}, P., & [Smith]{}, E. A. 2012, Space Weather, 10, S08003
, N. B., [Bagashvili]{}, S. R., [Maghradze]{}, D. A., [et al.]{} 2018, Advances in Space Research, 61, 3039
, D., [Maloney]{}, S. A., [Higgins]{}, P. A., [et al.]{} 2012, , 280, 603
, R. F., [Brun]{}, A. S., & [Rouillard]{}, A. P. 2016, , 592, A65
, R. F., & [Rouillard]{}, A. P. 2017, , 838, 89
, P., [Linker]{}, J. A., & [Arge]{}, C. N. 2015, Space Weather, 13, 154
, P., [Linker]{}, J. A., & [Miki[ć]{}]{}, Z. 2001, , 106, 15889
, P., [Mikic]{}, Z., [Linker]{}, J., & [Zurbuchen]{}, T. H. 2003, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 679, Solar Wind Ten, ed. M. [Velli]{}, R. [Bruno]{}, F. [Malara]{}, & B. [Bucci]{}, 79–82
, T., [Veronig]{}, A. M., [Temmer]{}, M., & [Vr[š]{}nak]{}, B. 2012, , 281, 793
, P. H., [Schou]{}, J., [Bush]{}, R. I., [et al.]{} 2012, , 275, 207
, E. C., [Frandsen]{}, A. M., [Mewaldt]{}, R. A., [et al.]{} 1998, , 86, 1
, M., [Vr[š]{}nak]{}, B., & [Veronig]{}, A. M. 2007, , 241, 371
, A. F., [Krieger]{}, A. S., & [Vaiana]{}, G. S. 1975, , 42, 135
, C.-Y., [Zhou]{}, C., [Marsch]{}, E., [et al.]{} 2005, Science, 308, 519
, G., [Vr[š]{}nak]{}, B., [Veronig]{}, A., & [Temmer]{}, M. 2011, , 526, A20
, B., [Temmer]{}, M., & [Veronig]{}, A. M. 2007, , 240, 315
, Y.-M., & [Sheeley]{}, Jr., N. R. 1990, , 355, 726
Wang, Y.-M., & [Sheeley]{}, Jr., N. R. 1991, , 372, L45
, Y.-M., [Sheeley]{}, Jr., N. R., [Phillips]{}, J. L., & [Goldstein]{}, B. E. 1997, , 488, L51
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper considers a $K$-cell multiple access channel with inter-symbol interference. The primary finding of this paper is that, without instantaneous channel state information at the transmitters (CSIT), the sum degrees-of-freedom (DoF) of the considered channel is $\frac{\beta -1}{\beta}K$ with $\beta \geq 2$ when the number of users per cell is sufficiently large, where $\beta$ is the ratio of the maximum channel-impulse-response (CIR) length of desired links to that of interfering links in each cell. Our finding implies that even without instantaneous CSIT, *interference-free DoF per cell* is achievable as $\beta$ approaches infinity with a sufficiently large number of users per cell. This achievability is shown by a blind interference management method that exploits the relativity in delay spreads between desired and interfering links. In this method, all inter-cell-interference signals are aligned to the same direction by using a discrete-Fourier-transform-based precoding with cyclic prefix that only depends on the number of CIR taps. Using this method, we also characterize the achievable sum rate of the considered channel, in a closed-form expression.'
author:
- 'Yo-Seb Jeon, Namyoon Lee, and Ravi Tandon [^1] [^2] [^3]'
title:
-
- 'Degrees of Freedom and Achievable Rate of Wide-Band Multi-cell Multiple Access Channels With No CSIT'
---
Multiple access channel (MAC), interfering MAC, inter-symbol interference (ISI), blind interference management.
Introduction
============
multiple access channel (MAC) with inter-symbol interference captures the communication scenario in which multiple uplink users per cell communicate with their associated base stations (BSs) by utilizing the same time and frequency resources across both the users and the BSs. The spectral efficiency of this channel is fundamentally limited by three different types of interference:
- Inter-cell interference (ICI), which arises from simultaneous transmissions of users in neighboring cells;
- Inter-user-interference (IUI), which is caused by simultaneous transmissions of multiple users in the same cell; and
- Inter-symbol-interference (ISI), which occurs by the relativity between the transmit signal’s bandwidth and the coherence bandwidth of a wireless channel.
Orthogonal frequency division multiple access (OFDMA) is the most well-known approach to mitigate both IUI and ISI in the multi-cell systems [@OFDM:66; @Weinstein:71; @Bingham:90]. The key idea of OFDMA is to decompose a wideband (frequency-selective) channel into multiple orthogonal narrowband (frequency-flat) subchannels, each with no ISI. By allocating non-overlapping sets of subchannels to the users in a cell, each user is able to send information data without suffering from ISI and IUI in the cell. For instance, in a two-user MAC with ISI, which captures a single-cell uplink communication scenario, the capacity has been characterized by finding an optimal power allocation strategy across the subchannels [@Verdu:93; @Wong:99; @Rhee_Cioffi:00]. These approaches, however, still suffer from ICI, which is a major hindrance towards increasing the spectral efficiency in multi-cell scenarios.
Multi-cell cooperation has been considered as an effective solution to manage ICI problems for future cellular networks where BSs are densely deployed and small cells overlap heavily with macrocells [@Gesbert:10; @Lee_Sayana:11; @Clerckx_Kim:13]. The common idea of multi-cell cooperation is to form a BS cluster, which allows the information exchange among the BSs within the cluster, in order to jointly eliminate ICI. When multiple BSs in a cluster perfectly share the received uplink signals and channel state information (CSI) with each other via capacity-unlimited backhaul links, it is theoretically possible to eliminate ICI completely within the cluster. One problem with implementing multi-cell cooperation is that cooperation of an entire network is not feasible considering the prohibited cost to establish high-capacity backhaul links. As a practical solution, one could define multiple sets of BSs, multiple BS clusters, over an entire network, in which the BSs in a cluster are connected by high-capacity backhaul links. In this case, users (or BSs) outside the cluster are sources of interference, and this poses a fundamental limit to multi-cell cooperation even with capacity-unlimited backhaul links per cluster. Another problem of multi-cell cooperation is that the amount of information that can be exchanged among BSs could be restricted due to capacity-limited backhual links. This possibly leads to the severe spectral efficiency loss that is caused by residual ICI.
Among multi-cell cooperation strategies, coordinated beamforming provides a good tradeoff between the overheads for the information exchange and the gains on the spectral efficiency because this strategy only requires CSI exchange among the BSs in the same cluster [@Dahrouj_Yu:10; @Lee_Heath:15]. Interference alignment (IA) is a representative coordinated beamforming method, which aligns ICI in a subspace so that the signal dimension occupied by interference is confined [@Cadambe_Jafar:08]. For example, in a single-input-single-output (SISO) interference channel, IA has shown to be an optimal strategy in the sense of sum degrees-of-freedom (DoF) that characterizes the approximate sum-spectral efficiency in a high signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR) regime [@Cadambe_Jafar:08]. The concept of IA has also been extended to multi-cell MACs (or interfering MACs) in single antenna settings [@Suh_Tse:08; @Cadambe_Jafar:09] and multiple antenna settings [@Kim_Love:11; @Lee_Shin:12; @Yang_Paulraj:13]. One remarkable result is that, by an uplink IA method, the sum-DoF of $K$ is asymptotically achievable in the $K$-cell SISO MAC as the number of uplink users per cell approaches infinity [@Suh_Tse:08; @Cadambe_Jafar:09; @Chaaban:11]. The common requirement of prior works in [@Cadambe_Jafar:08; @Suh_Tse:08; @Cadambe_Jafar:09; @Chaaban:11; @Kim_Love:11; @Lee_Shin:12; @Yang_Paulraj:13] is global and perfect CSI at a transmitter (CSIT), which is a major obstacle in implementing these IA methods in practice.
Recently, IA techniques using limited CSIT have extensively developed for various scenarios such as delayed CSIT [@Maddah-Ali:12], mixed CSIT [@Gou_Jafar:12], alternating CSIT [@Lee_Heath:12; @Lee_Heath:14; @Tandon:13], one-bit CSIT [@Jafar_Index_coding], and no CSIT [@Vaze:12; @Vaze:12-2] (see the references therein [@Maddah-Ali:12; @Gou_Jafar:12; @Lee_Heath:12; @Lee_Heath:14; @Tandon:13; @Jafar_Index_coding; @Vaze:12; @Vaze:12-2; @Jafar:10]). Representatively, blind IA introduced by [@Wang_Jafar:11; @Jafar:12; @Jafar_Armada:15] has been considered as a practical IA technique when using limited CSIT. An attractive feature of blind IA is that it only requires to know autocorrelation functions of the channels in both time and frequency domains. This technique, however, heavily relies on the existence of the certain structure of channel coherence patterns, which may not be applicable for practical wireless environments in general.
All the aforementioned multi-cell cooperation strategies have focused on the mitigation of ICI under the premise of perfect IUI and ISI cancellation by OFDMA. Recently, a blind interference management method has been proposed for the $K$-user SISO interference channel with ISI [@Lee:16]. The key idea of this method is to exploit the relativity of multi-path-channel lengths between desired and interfering links. This channel relativity allows the ICI alignment with discrete Fourier transform (DFT)-based precoding that needs no CSIT. One remarkable result in [@Lee:16] is that, without instantaneous CSIT, the sum-DoF of the $K$-user interference channel can be made to scale linearly with the number of communication pairs $K$, under some conditions on ISI channels.
In this paper, we consider the $K$-cell SISO MAC with ISI, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:Model\]. Continuing in the same spirit with [@Lee:16], we attempt to characterize the sum-DoF of the multi-cell MAC with ISI in the absence of CSIT. Our major contribution is to demonstrate that, without instantaneous CSIT, the sum-DoF of the considered channel is $$\begin{aligned}
\left(1 - \frac{L_{\rm I}}{L_{\rm D}}\right)K,\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ provided that the number of users per cell is larger than $L_{\rm D}-L_{\rm I}$ with $L_{\rm D} \geq 2L_{\rm I}$, where $L_{\rm D}$ and $L_{\rm I}$ are the maximum channel-impulse-response (CIR) lengths of desired and ICI links in each cell, respectively. Our result implies that *interference-free DoF per cell* (i.e., sum-DoF of $K$) is achievable as $\frac{L_{{\rm D}}}{L_{\rm I}}$ approaches infinity with a sufficiently large number of users per cell. This result extends the sum-DoF result in [@Lee:16], where the sum-DoF of $\frac{K}{2}$ is shown to be achievable without CSIT when each BS communicates with a single user. Therefore, our result also shows that communicating with multiple users in a cell provides a significant DoF gain compared to the single-user case, even in the absence of CSIT.
To demonstrate our result, we modify the blind interference management method in [@Lee:16]. The underlying idea of this method is to exploit the relativity in delay spreads between desired and ICI links. Specifically, by adding the cyclic prefix at transmitters (users) with an appropriate length and by removing it at receivers (BS), we create non-circulant matrices for the desired link, while generating circulant channel matrices for the ICI links. This relativity in the matrix structure allows us to align all the ICI signals to the same direction by using a DFT-based precoding even in the absence of instantaneous CSIT, whereas making the desired signals spread over the entire signal dimensions. As a result, all ICI can be simply canceled by using linear receive beamforming that does not depend on channel realizations. After the ICI cancellation, each BS reliably decodes data symbols sent from the associated users by eliminating the remaining IUI and ISI perfectly, based on local CSI at a receiver (CSIR).
### Notation {#notation .unnumbered}
Upper-case and lower-case boldface letters denote matrices and column vectors, respectively. $\mathbb{E}[\cdot]$ is the statistical expectation, $\text{Pr}(\cdot)$ is the probability, $(\cdot)^\top$ is the transpose, $(\cdot)^H$ is the conjugate transpose, $\lceil \cdot \rceil$ is the ceiling function, $\lfloor \cdot \rfloor$ is the floor function, and $(x)^+ = \max\{x, 0\}$. $\mathbf{I}_{m}$ is an $m\times m$ identity matrix, $\mathbf{1}_{m\times n}$ is an $m\times n$ all-one matrix, and $\mathbf{0}_{m\times n}$ is an $m$ by $n$ all-zero matrix. $|\cdot|$ has three different meanings: $|a|$ denotes the absolute value of a scalar $a$; $|\mathcal{A}|$ denotes the cardinality of a set $\mathcal{A}$; and $|{\bf A}|$ denotes the determinant of a matrix ${\bf A}$,
System Model
============
We consider a $K$-cell SISO MAC with ISI, where $U_k$ uplink users attempt to access a BS in cell $k$ for $k\in \mathcal{K}\triangleq \{1,2,\ldots,K\}$, by using the common time-frequency resources. We denote $\mathcal{U}_k$ as the index set of users associated with the $k$-th BS. Let $(k,u)$ be the user index denoting the $u$-th user in cell $k$. We assume that all users and BSs are equipped with a single antenna. The CIR between a user (a transmitter) and a BS (a receiver) is represented by a finite number of channel taps. We denote the CIR between user $(i,u)$ and the $k$-th BS by $\{h_{i,u}^k[\ell]\}_{\ell=0}^{L_{k,i}-1}$, where $h_{i,u}^k[\ell]$ is the $\ell$-th tap of the CIR, and $L_{k,i}$ is the number of the CIR taps. This length is typically defined as $L_{k,i} \triangleq \left\lceil T^{{\rm D},k}_{i,u} W_{\rm BW} \right\rceil$, where $W_{\rm BW}$ is the transmission bandwidth of the system, and $T^{{\rm D},k}_{i,u}$ is the delay spread of the wireless channel from user $(i,u)$ to the $k$-th BS.
We assume a block-fading channel model in which CIR taps are time-invariant during each block transmission. We also assume that each CIR tap, $h_{i,u}^k[\ell]$, is independently drawn from a continuous distribution for all $\ell \in \{1,\ldots,L_{k,i}\}$, $u \in \mathcal{U}_i$, and $i,k \in \mathcal{K}$. For example, in a rich-scattering propagation environment, CIR taps can be modeled as circularly symmetric complex Gaussian random variables.
Let $x_{k,u}[n]$ be the transmitted signal of user $(k,u)$ at time slot $n$ with the power constraint of $\mathbb{E}[|x_{k,u}[n]|^2]=P$. Then the received signal of the $k$-th BS at time slot $n$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:received}
y_k[n]= \sum_{i=1}^K\sum_{u=1}^{U_i}\sum_{\ell=0}^{L_{k,i}-1}h_{i,u}^k[\ell]x_{i,u}[n-\ell]+ z_k[n],\end{aligned}$$ where $z_k[n]$ is noise at the $k$-th BS in time slot $n$. We assume that $z_k[n]$ is independent and identically distributed (IID) circularly symmetric complex Gaussian random variable with zero mean and variance $\sigma^2$, i.e., $\mathcal{CN}(0,\sigma^2)$.
Throughout the paper, we assume no instantaneous CSIT, implying that all users (transmitters) do not have any knowledge of CIR taps $\{h_{i,u}^k[\ell]\}_{\ell=0}^{L_{k,i}-1}$ for $i\neq k$ and $i,k \in \mathcal{K}$. Furthermore, we assume that each BS is available to access knowledge of CSI between itself and the associated users in the cell, i.e., $\{h_{k,u}^k[\ell]\}_{\ell=0}^{L_{k,k}-1}$ for $k \in \mathcal{K}$. This is referred to as local CSIR. Note that local CSIR is necessary to perform coherent detection at the BSs.
[**Definition (Sum degrees of freedom):**]{} User $(k,u)$ sends an independent message $m_{k,u}$ to the associated BS during $T$ time slots. In this case, the rate of user $(k,u)$ is given by $R_{k,u}(P)=\frac{\log_2 |m_{k,u}|}{T}$. The rate $\sum_{u=1}^{U_k}R_{k,u}(P)$ is *achievable* if the $k$-th BS is able to decode the transmitted messages from the associating users with an arbitrarily-small error probability by choosing a sufficiently large $T$. Then the *sum-DoF*, which characterizes an approximate sum-spectral efficiency of the system at high SNR, is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
d_{\Sigma} & = \lim_{{P}\rightarrow \infty}\frac{\sum_{k=1}^{K} \sum_{u=1}^{U_k} R_{k,u}\left( P\right)}{\log\left({P}\right)}.\end{aligned}$$
Blind Interference Management\
using Channel Structural Relativity
===================================
In this section, using a simple example scenario, we present the key concept of the proposed interference management method that exploits channel structural relativity. The generalization of this method will be presented in the sequel, to derive our main result.
Consider a $K$-cell MAC with two users per cell. We assume a symmetric ISI case in which the channel-length of the desired links is four, i.e., $L_{k,k} =L_{\rm D}=4$ for $u\in \mathcal{U}_k$, while that of the ICI links is two, i.e., $L_{k,i} =L_{\rm I}=2$ for $u \in \mathcal{U}_i$, $i\neq k$, and $i, k\in\mathcal{K}\triangleq \{1,2,\ldots,K\}$. In this scenario, we show that it is possible to reliably decode total $2K$ data symbols with four time slots, i.e., $d_{\Sigma}=\frac{2K}{4}=\frac{K}{2}$, without CSIT. The principal idea of the proposed interference management method is to exploit relativity in delay spreads between desired and ICI links to align all ICI signals to the same direction without instantaneous CSIT.
Let all users use a common precoding vector ${\bf f}_1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}[1,1,1]^{\top}$ to send a data symbol. Then the precoded signal vector of user $(k,u)$, $\bar{\bf x}_{k,u} \in \mathbb{C}^3$, is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ex1:precoded}
\bar{\bf x}_{k,u} = \big[\begin{array}{ccc}
{x}_{k,u}[1], & {x}_{k,u}[2], & {x}_{k,u}[3]
\end{array}\big]^{\top} = {\bf f}_1 s_{k,u}.\end{aligned}$$ By adding the cyclic prefix with the length of $L_{\rm I}-1 = 1$ to $\bar{\bf x}_{k,u}$ in , the transmitted signal vector of user $(k,u)$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ex1:transmitted}
{\bf x}_{k,u}
&= \left[{\bf \bar x}_{k,u}^{\rm cp}, ~ {\bf \bar x}_{k,u} \right]^{\top} = \left[ {x}_{k,u}[3], {x}_{k,u}[1] , {x}_{k,u}[2] , {x}_{k,u}[3] \right]^{\top}.\end{aligned}$$ According to the above transmission strategy, every user uses four time slots to send one data symbol. The received signal vector of the $k$-th BS during four time slots are given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ex1:received}
&\underbrace{\left[\begin{array}{c}
{y}_{k}[1] \\ {y}_{k}[2] \\ {y}_{k}[3] \\ {y}_{k}[4] \\
\end{array}\right]}_{{\bf y}_k}
= \sum_{u=1}^2 \underbrace{\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
{h}_{k,u}^k[0] \!&\! 0 \!&\! 0 \!&\! 0 \\
{h}_{k,u}^k[1] \!&\! {h}_{k,u}^k[0] \!&\! 0 \!&\! 0 \\
{h}_{k,u}^k[2] \!&\! {h}_{k,u}^k[1] \!&\! {h}_{k,u}^k[0] \!&\! 0 \\
{h}_{k,u}^k[3] \!&\! {h}_{k,u}^k[2] \!&\! {h}_{k,u}^k[1] \!&\! {h}_{k,u}^k[0] \\
\end{array}\right]}_{{\bf H}_{k,u}^k} {\bf x}_{k,u}
\nonumber \\
&\qquad + \sum_{i\neq k}^K \sum_{u=1}^2 \underbrace{\left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
{h}_{i,u}^k[0] \!&\! 0 \!&\! 0 \!&\! 0 \\
{h}_{i,u}^k[1] \!&\! {h}_{i,u}^k[0] \!&\! 0 \!&\! 0 \\
0 \!&\! {h}_{i,u}^k[1] \!&\! {h}_{i,u}^k[0] \!&\! 0 \\
0 \!&\! 0 \!&\! {h}_{i,u}^k[1] \!&\! {h}_{i,u}^k[0] \\
\end{array}
\right] }_{{\bf H}_{i,u}^k}
{\bf x}_{i,u}
+ \underbrace{\left[\begin{array}{c}
{z}_{k}[1] \\ {z}_{k}[2] \\ {z}_{k}[3] \\ {z}_{k}[4]
\end{array} \right]}_{{\bf z}_{k}}.\end{aligned}$$ After removing the cyclic prefix from ${\bf y}_k$ in , the received signal vector of the $k$-th BS is obtained as
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ex1:cp_remove}
&\underbrace{\left[\begin{array}{c}
{y}_{k}[2] \\ {y}_{k}[3] \\ {y}_{k}[4] \\
\end{array}\right]}_{{\bf \bar y}_k}
= \sum_{u=1}^2 \underbrace{\left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
{h}_{k,u}^k[0] \!&\! 0 \!&\! {h}_{k,u}^k[1] \\
{h}_{k,u}^k[1] \!&\! {h}_{k,u}^k[0] \!&\! {h}_{k,u}^k[2] \\
{h}_{k,u}^k[2] \!&\! {h}_{k,u}^k[1] \!&\! {h}_{k,u}^k[0] {+} {h}_{k,u}^k[3] \\
\end{array}
\right]}_{{\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^k} {\bf \bar x}_{k,u}
\nonumber \\
&\qquad + \sum_{i\neq k}^K \sum_{u=1}^2 \underbrace{\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
{h}_{i,u}^k[0] \!&\! 0 \!&\! {h}_{i,u}^k[1] \\
{h}_{i,u}^k[1] \!&\! {h}_{i,u}^k[0] \!&\! 0 \\
0 \!&\! {h}_{i,u}^k[1] \!&\! {h}_{i,u}^k[0] \\
\end{array}
\right] }_{{\bf \bar H}_{i,u}^k}
{\bf \bar x}_{i,u}
+ \underbrace{\left[\begin{array}{c}
{z}_{k}[2] \\ {z}_{k}[3] \\ {z}_{k}[4]
\end{array} \right]}_{{\bf \bar z}_{k}}.\end{aligned}$$ An important observation in is that all interference channel matrices ${\bf \bar H}_{i,u}^k$ for $i\neq k$ become circulant. Meanwhile, desired channel matrices ${\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^k$ can be expressed as a superposition of circulant and noncirculant matrices as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ex1:cp_remove_cir}
{\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^k = \underbrace{\left[\!\begin{array}{ccc}
{h}_{k,u}^k[0] \!&\! {h}_{k,u}^k[2] \!&\! {h}_{k,u}^k[1] \\
{h}_{k,u}^k[1] \!&\! {h}_{k,u}^k[0] \!&\! {h}_{k,u}^k[2] \\
{h}_{k,u}^k[2] \!&\! {h}_{k,u}^k[1] \!&\! {h}_{k,u}^k[0] \\
\end{array}
\!\right]}_{{\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{{\rm C}}}
+ \underbrace{\left[\!
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 \!&\! -{h}_{k,u}^k[2] \!\!&\!\! 0 \\
0 \!&\! 0 \!\!&\!\! 0 \\
0 \!&\! 0 \!\!&\!\! {h}_{k,u}^k[3] \\
\end{array}
\!\right]}_{{\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{{\rm NC}}}.\end{aligned}$$ Since a circulant matrix is diagonalized by DFT matrix, we can rewrite $ {\bf \bar H}_{i,u}^k$ in and ${\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{{\rm C}}$ in as $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf \bar H}_{i,u}^k
=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
{\bf f}_1 & {\bf f}_2 & {\bf f}_3
\end{array}\right]
\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
\lambda_{i,u,1}^k \!\!&\!\! 0 \!\!&\!\! 0 \\
0 \!\!&\!\! \lambda_{i,u,2}^k \!\!&\!\! 0 \\
0 \!\!&\!\! 0 \!\!&\!\! \lambda_{i,u,3}^k \\
\end{array}\right]
\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
{\bf f}_1 & {\bf f}_2 & {\bf f}_3
\end{array}\right]^H,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm C}
=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
{\bf f}_1 & {\bf f}_2 & {\bf f}_3
\end{array}\right]
\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
\lambda_{k,u,1}^{\rm C} \!\!&\!\! 0 \!\!&\!\! 0 \\
0 \!\!&\!\! \lambda_{i,u,2}^{\rm C} \!\!&\!\! 0 \\
0 \!\!&\!\! 0 \!\!&\!\! \lambda_{i,u,3}^{\rm C} \\
\end{array}\right]
\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
{\bf f}_1 & {\bf f}_2 & {\bf f}_3
\end{array}\right]^H,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bf f}_n$ is the $n$-th column of 3-point IDFT matrix, and $\lambda_{i,u,n}^k$ and $\lambda_{k,u,1}^{\rm C}$ denote the $n$-th eigenvalues of ${\bf \bar H}_{i,u}^k$ and ${\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm C}$ associated with an eigenvector ${\bf f}_n$, respectively. As shown in , all users use the same precoding vector ${\bf f}_1$ when sending the data symbol, so the received signal vector ${\bf \bar y}_k$ is rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ex1:cp_remove2}
&{\bf \bar y}_k
= \sum_{u=1}^{2}{\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^k{\bf f}_1s_{k,u} + \sum_{i\neq k}\sum_{u=1}^{2}{\bf \bar H}_{i,u}^k{\bf f}_1s_{i,u}
+ {\bf \bar z}_{k} \nonumber \\
&\!\!= \sum_{u=1}^{2}{\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm NC}{\bf f}_1s_{k,u}
+ \left\{\sum_{u=1}^{2}\lambda_{k,u,1}^{\rm C}s_{k,u} + \sum_{i\neq k}\sum_{u=1}^{2} \lambda_{i,u,1}^{k} s_{i,u} \right\}{\bf f}_1
+ {\bf \bar z}_{k}.\end{aligned}$$ From , one can easily see that all ICI signals from other-cell users are aligned in the same direction of ${\bf f}_1$. Therefore, it is possible to eliminate all the aligned ICI signals by multiplying an orthogonal projection matrix ${\bf W}= \left[{\bf f}_2, {\bf f}_3\right]^H$ to ${\bf \bar y}_k$. After the ICI cancellation, an effective received signal vector is obtained as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ex1:effreceived}
{\bf \tilde y}_k
&= {\bf W} {\bf \bar y}_k
= \sum_{u=1}^{2} {\bf W}{\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm NC}{\bf f}_1s_{k,u} + {\bf W}{\bf\bar z}_{k} = \underbrace{\left[\begin{array}{cc}
{\bf f}_2^H{\bf \bar H}_{k,1}^{\rm NC}{\bf f}_1 & {\bf f}_2^H{\bf \bar H}_{k,2}^{\rm NC}{\bf f}_1 \\
{\bf f}_3^H{\bf \bar H}_{k,1}^{\rm NC}{\bf f}_1 & {\bf f}_3^H{\bf \bar H}_{k,2}^{\rm NC}{\bf f}_1 \\
\end{array}\right]}_{\tilde{\bf H}_k}
\underbrace{\left[\begin{array}{c}
s_{k,1} \\ s_{k,2}
\end{array}\right]}_{{\bf s}_k}
+ \underbrace{\left[\begin{array}{c}
{\bf f}_2^H{\bf\bar z}_{k} \\ {\bf f}_3^H{\bf\bar z}_{k}
\end{array}\right]}_{\tilde{\bf z}_k}.\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ex1:effreceived}
{\bf \tilde y}_k
&= {\bf W} {\bf \bar y}_k
= \sum_{u=1}^{2} {\bf W}{\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm NC}{\bf f}_1s_{k,u} + {\bf W}{\bf\bar z}_{k} \nonumber \\
&= \underbrace{\left[\begin{array}{cc}
{\bf f}_2^H{\bf \bar H}_{k,1}^{\rm NC}{\bf f}_1 & {\bf f}_2^H{\bf \bar H}_{k,2}^{\rm NC}{\bf f}_1 \\
{\bf f}_3^H{\bf \bar H}_{k,1}^{\rm NC}{\bf f}_1 & {\bf f}_3^H{\bf \bar H}_{k,2}^{\rm NC}{\bf f}_1 \\
\end{array}\right]}_{\tilde{\bf H}_k}
\underbrace{\left[\begin{array}{c}
s_{k,1} \\ s_{k,2}
\end{array}\right]}_{{\bf s}_k}
+ \underbrace{\left[\begin{array}{c}
{\bf f}_2^H{\bf\bar z}_{k} \\ {\bf f}_3^H{\bf\bar z}_{k}
\end{array}\right]}_{\tilde{\bf z}_k}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that this effective received signal only contains the desired signals from the users in the own cell. The effective channel matrix $\tilde{\bf H}_k$ in is decomposed as $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\bf H}_k = -\frac{1}{3} \left[\begin{array}{cc}
1 ~& \frac{1}{2}-\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}j \\
1 ~& \frac{1}{2}+\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}j \\
\end{array}\right]
\left[\begin{array}{cc}
{h}_{k,1}^k[2] & {h}_{k,2}^k[2] \\
{h}_{k,1}^k[3] & {h}_{k,2}^k[3] \\
\end{array}\right].
\end{aligned}$$ From the above decomposition, we can easily show that $\text{rank}(\tilde{\bf H}_k)=2$ with probability one as $h_{k,u}^k[\ell]$ is independently drawn from a continuous distribution. Consequently, the data symbols sent from the two users, $s_{k,1}$ and $s_{k,2}$, are decodable at the $k$-thy BS by applying maximum-likelihood detection (MLD) or zero-forcing detection (ZFD) methods. Since four time slots are used to deliver $2K$ independent data symbols, the sum-DoF is given by $d_{\Sigma}=\frac{K}{2}$.
[**Remark 1 (The design of precoding vectors and projection matrices):**]{} One of important observations is that the proposed interference management method does not require instantaneous CSIT in the design of precoding vectors. As shown in the example, by judiciously choosing the length of the cyclic prefix, all channel matrices of ICI links become circulant. Therefore, to align ICI signals, we simply select an eigenvector of the circulant matrix (i.e., a column vector of the IDFT matrix) as the common precoding vector ${\bf f}_1$ regardless of channel realizations. This allows us to cancel ICI signals with no CSIT: By constructing orthogonal projection matrix ${\bf W}$ that are solely determined by ${\bf f}_1$, all the ICI signals are perfectly removed. After the ICI cancellation, each BS is able to decode data symbols sent from the associated users only using local CSIR.
Main Result
===========
In this section, by generalizing the concept of the blind interference management method introduced in Section III, we establish the following result.
\[Theorem1\] Consider a $K$-cell MAC with ISI, each cell with $U_k$ uplink users. Let $L_{\rm I} = \max_k\max_{i\neq k}L_{k,i}$ and $L_{\rm D} = \max_k L_{k,k}$. The achievable sum-DoF of this channel without instantaneous CSIT is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:thm1:sumDoF}
d^{\rm MAC}_{\Sigma} = \max\left\{ \sum_{k=1}^K \frac{ \min \left\{U_kM_k,(L_{k,k}-L_{\rm I})^+\right\} }
{ \max\left\{ L_{\rm D} - L_{\rm I} + \max_k M_k, L_{\rm I}\right\}+L_{\rm I}-1},
1 \right\},
\end{aligned}$$ where $M_k = \max\left\{\left\lfloor\frac{L_{k,k}-L_{\rm I}}{U_k}\right\rfloor, 1\right\}$.
In this proof, we only focus on the case that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=1}^K \! \frac{ \min \left\{U_kM_k,(L_{k,k}-L_{\rm I})^+\right\} }
{ \max\left\{ L_{\rm D} - L_{\rm I} + \max_k M_k, L_{\rm I}\right\}+L_{\rm I}-1} > 1,
\end{aligned}$$ because otherwise, the trivial sum-DoF of one is achievable by using time-division multiple access (TDMA) among the BSs with OFDMA in each cell.
**Block transmission strategy:** The key idea of this proof is similar to [@Lee:16] using a block transmission method. We start by presenting a block transmission strategy that consists of $B$ subblock transmissions.
During the block transmission in cell $k$, only $U_k^\prime \leq U_k$ users are active and each active user sends $M_k$ data symbols for each subblock. Specifically, we determine $M_k$ and $U_k^\prime$ as follows:
- When $U_k \leq L_{k,k}-L_{\rm I}$, we choose $U_k^\prime = U_K$ and $M_k = \left\lfloor\frac{L_{k,k}-L_{\rm I}}{U_k}\right\rfloor$, which implies that all the users transmit the $M_k$ data symbols.
- When $0 < L_{k,k}-L_{\rm I} < U_k$, we choose $U_k^\prime = L_{k,k}-L_{\rm I}$ and $M_k = 1$, which implies that randomly selected $U_k^\prime $ users among $U_k$ users transmit a single data symbol.
- When $L_{k,k}-L_{\rm I} \leq 0$, we choose $U_k^\prime = 0$ and $M_k = 0$, which implies that none of the users transmit data symbols.
Each subblock transmission consists of ${\bar N}=N + L_{\rm I}-1$ time slots, where $N =\max\{L_{\rm D}-L_{\rm I}+M_{\rm D}, L_{\rm I}\}$ and $M_{\rm D} = \max_k \{M_k\}$. After transmitting $B$ subblocks, we append $\max\{L_{\rm D},L_{\rm I}\}-1$ zeros at the end of the transmission block, to avoid inter-block interference between two subsequent block transmissions. Therefore, the total number of time slots needed for a single block transmission is $T=B{\bar N} + \max\{L_{\rm D},L_{\rm I}\}-1$.
During the subblock transmission, each user $(k,u)$ transmits $M_k$ data symbols using a DFT-based precoding with cyclic fix. Let ${\bf s}_{k,u}^b=[s_{k,u,1}^b,s_{k,u,2}^b,\cdots,s_{k,u,M_k}^b] \in \mathbb{C}^{M_k}$ be the data symbol vector of user $(k,u)$ transmitted during the $b$-th subblock transmission. User $(k,u)$ uses a precoding matrix ${\bf F}_{k} = [{\bf f}_1,{\bf f}_2,\ldots,{\bf f}_{M_k}]\in\mathbb{C}^{N \times M_k}$ to send the data symbol vector ${\bf s}_{k,u}^b$, so the precoded data symbol vector, namely ${\bf \bar x}^b_{k,u}\in \mathbb{C}^{N}$, is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:precoded}
{\bf \bar x}^b_{k,u} &= \Big[x_{k,u}[(b-1){\bar N}+1], \cdots, x_{k,u}[(b-1){\bar N}+N]\Big]^{\!\top} = {\bf F}_k {\bf s}_{k,u}^b = \sum_{m=1}^{M_k} {\bf f}_{m}s_{k,u,m}^b,
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:precoded}
{\bf \bar x}^b_{k,u} &= \Big[x_{k,u}[(b-1){\bar N}+1], \cdots, x_{k,u}[(b-1){\bar N}+N]\Big]^{\!\top} \nonumber\\
&= {\bf F}_k {\bf s}_{k,u}^b = \sum_{m=1}^{M_k} {\bf f}_{m}s_{k,u,m}^b,
\end{aligned}$$ for $u \in \mathcal{U}_k$, $k \in \mathcal{K}$, and $b\in\{1,2,\ldots,B\}$. We add a cyclic prefix with length $L_{{\rm I}}-1$ to ${\bf \bar x}_{k,u}^{b}$ and thus generate the transmitted signal vector: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:transmitted}
{\bf x}_{k,u}^b = \left[{\bf \bar x}_{k,u}^{b,{\rm cp}}, ~ {\bf \bar x}_{k,u}^{b} \right]^{\!\top} \in \mathbb{C}^{\bar N},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf \bar x}_{k,u}^{b,{\rm cp}} = \left[x_{k,u}[(b{-}1){\bar N}+N-L_{\rm I}+2], \cdots, x_{k,u}[(b{-}1){\bar N}+N]\right]^{\!\top}.
\end{aligned}$$
From the above strategy, the signal vector of user $(k,u)$ transmitted during a single block transmission is $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf x}_{k,u} = \Big[\left({\bf x}_{k,u}^{1}\right)^{\!\top}\!\!,\left({\bf x}_{k,u}^{2}\right)^{\!\top}\!\!,\cdots,\left({\bf x}_{k,u}^{B}\right)^{\!\top}\!\!,\!\!\!
\underbrace{0,\ldots,0}_{\max\{L_{\rm D},L_{\rm I}\}-1}\!\!\!\!\! \Big]^{\!\top}.\end{aligned}$$
**Received signal representation:** We specify received signals at the BS during each subblock transmission. From , the received signal of the $k$-th BS at time slot $n$ of the $b$-th subblock transmission is represented as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:received_b}
y_{k}[(b-1){\bar N} + n]
= &\sum_{u=1}^{U_k^\prime}\sum_{\ell=0}^{L_{k,k}-1} h_{k,u}^k[\ell]x_{k,u}[(b-1){\bar N} + n -\ell] \nonumber \\
& + \sum_{i=1,i\neq k}^{K} \sum_{u=1}^{U_i^\prime} \sum_{\ell=0}^{L_{k,i}-1} h_{i,u}^k [\ell]x_{i,u}[(b-1){\bar N}+n-\ell] + z_k[(b-1){\bar N} + n],\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:received_b}
&y_{k}[(b-1){\bar N} + n]
= \sum_{u=1}^{U_k^\prime}\sum_{\ell=0}^{L_{k,k}-1} h_{k,u}^k[\ell]x_{k,u}[(b-1){\bar N} + n -\ell] \nonumber \\
&\qquad\qquad~~~ + \sum_{i=1,i\neq k}^{K} \sum_{u=1}^{U_i^\prime} \sum_{\ell=0}^{L_{k,i}-1} h_{i,u}^k [\ell]x_{i,u}[(b-1){\bar N}+n-\ell] \nonumber \\
&\qquad\qquad~~~ + z_k[(b-1){\bar N} + n],\end{aligned}$$ for $n\in\{1,2,\ldots, {\bar N}\}$ and $b\in\{1,2,\ldots, B\}$. After discarding the cyclic prefix of length $L_{\rm I}-1$, the received signal vector of the $k$-th BS during the $b$-th subblock transmission, namely ${\bf \bar y}_k^b \in\mathbb{C}^N$, is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:cp_remove}
{\bf \bar y}_k^b
&= \Big[y_k[(b-1){\bar N}+L_{\rm I}],\cdots,y_k[(b-1){\bar N}+{\bar N}] \Big]^{\!\top} \nonumber \\
&= \sum_{u=1}^{U_k^\prime}{\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{k}{\bf \bar x}^b_{k,u}
+ \sum_{i=1,i\neq k}^K\sum_{u=1}^{U_i^\prime} {\bf \bar H}_{i,u}^{k}{\bf \bar x}^b_{i,u} + {\bf \bar z}_k^b
= \sum_{u=1}^{U_k^\prime}{\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^k {\bf F}_{k} {\bf s}_{k,u}^b
+ \sum_{i=1,i\neq k}^K\sum_{u=1}^{U_i^\prime} {\bf \bar H}_{i,u}^k {\bf F}_{k} {\bf s}_{i,u}^b + {\bf \bar z}_k^b,
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:cp_remove}
{\bf \bar y}_k^b
&= \Big[y_k[(b-1){\bar N}+L_{\rm I}],\cdots,y_k[(b-1){\bar N}+{\bar N}] \Big]^{\!\top} \nonumber \\
&= \sum_{u=1}^{U_k^\prime}{\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{k}{\bf \bar x}^b_{k,u}
+ \sum_{i=1,i\neq k}^K\sum_{u=1}^{U_i^\prime} {\bf \bar H}_{i,u}^{k}{\bf \bar x}^b_{i,u} + {\bf \bar z}_k^b \nonumber \\
&= \sum_{u=1}^{U_k^\prime}{\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^k {\bf F}_{k} {\bf s}_{k,u}^b
+ \sum_{i=1,i\neq k}^K\sum_{u=1}^{U_i^\prime} {\bf \bar H}_{i,u}^k {\bf F}_{k} {\bf s}_{i,u}^b + {\bf \bar z}_k^b,
\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bf \bar H}_{i,u}^{k} \in \mathbb{C}^{N\times N}$ is a matrix representation of the convolution involved with ${\bf \bar x}^b_{i,u}$, and ${\bf \bar z}_k^b= \big[z_k[(b{-}1){\bar N}+L_{\rm I}],\cdots,z_k[(b{-}1){\bar N}+{\bar N} \big]^{\!\top} \in\mathbb{C}^N$ is the noise vector received by ${\bf \bar y}_k^b$.
For the ease of exposition, we define ${\rm Circ}({\bf c})$ as an $n$ by $n$ circulant matrix when its first column is ${\bf c} \in \mathbb{C}^n$. Using this notation, the channel matrix of the ICI link between user $(i,u)$ and the $k$-th BS for $i\neq k$ is represented as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:interferenceH}
{\bf \bar H}_{i,u}^{k} = {\rm Circ}\Big( \Big[{h}_{i,u}^k[0],\cdots,{h}_{i,u}^k[L_{k,i}{-}1],\underbrace{0,\ldots,0}_{N-L_{k,i}} \Big] \Big).
\end{aligned}$$ Whereas, the channel matrix of the desired link between user $(k,u)$ and the $k$-th BS is decomposed into two matrices: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:desiredH}
{\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{k} = {\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm C} + {\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm NC},
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:circulantH}
{\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm C} =
{\rm Circ}\Big( \Big[{h}_{k,u}^k[0],\cdots,{h}_{k,u}^k[N_{k,u}^\prime{-}1],\underbrace{0,\ldots,0}_{(N-L_{k,k})^+} \Big] \Big),
\end{aligned}$$ with $N_{k}^\prime = \min\{L_{k,k},N\}$, and ${\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm NC}$ has the form of $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:noncirculantH}
{\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm NC} = \left[\begin{array}{cc}
-{\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm upp} & {\bf 0}_{(N-L_{\rm I}+1) \times (L_{\rm I}-1)} \\
{\bf 0}_{(L_{\rm I}-1) \times (N-L_{\rm I}+1)} & {\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm low} \\
\end{array}\right].
\end{aligned}$$ In , ${\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm upp} \in \mathbb{C}^{(N-L_{\rm I}+1) \times (N-L_{\rm I}+1)}$ and ${\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm low}\in \mathbb{C}^{(L_{\rm I}-1) \times (L_{\rm I}-1)}$ are upper and lower toeplitz matrices defined in (see the top of the page).
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:toepH}
{\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm upp} = \left[\begin{array}{cccccc}
0 &~~\cdots~~ & 0 &\!\!\! h_{k,u}^k[N_{k}^\prime{-}1] &\!\! \cdots &\!\! h_{k,u}^k[L_{\rm I}] \\
\vdots & 0 & ~ &\!\!\! 0 &\!\! \ddots &\!\! \vdots \\
\vdots & ~ & \ddots &\!\!\! ~ &\!\! \ddots &\!\! h_{k,u}^k[N_{k}^\prime{-}1] \\
\vdots & ~ & ~ &\!\!\! \ddots &\!\! ~ &\!\! 0 \\
\vdots & ~ & ~ &\!\!\! ~ &\!\! \ddots &\!\! \vdots \\
0 & 0 & \cdots &\!\!\! \cdots &\!\! \cdots &\!\! 0 \\
\end{array}\right]~~\text{and}~~
{\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm low} = \left[\begin{array}{cccccc}
h_{k,u}^k[N] \!\!\!\!\!\!&\!\!\!\!\!\! 0 & \cdots &\!\!\! \cdots \!\!\!& \cdots & 0 \\
\vdots \!\!\!\!\!\!&\!\!\!\!\!\! h_{k,u}^k[N] & 0 &\!\!\! ~ \!\!\!& ~ & \vdots \\
h_{k,u}^k[L_{k,k}{-}1] \!\!\!\!\!\!&\!\!\!\!\!\! ~ & \ddots &\!\!\! \ddots \!\!\!& ~ & \vdots \\
0 \!\!\!\!\!\!&\!\!\!\!\!\! \ddots & ~ &\!\!\! \ddots \!\!\!& \ddots & \vdots \\
\vdots \!\!\!\!\!\!&\!\!\!\!\!\! \ddots & \ddots &\!\!\! ~ \!\!\!& \ddots & 0 \\
0 \!\!\!\!\!\!&\!\!\!\!\!\! \cdots & 0 &\!\!\! h_{k,u}^k[L_{k,k}{-}1] \!\!\!& \cdots & h_{k,u}^k[N] \\
\end{array}\right].
\end{aligned}$$
Note that when $N\geq L_{k,k}$, ${\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm low} = {\bf 0}_{(L_{\rm I}-1) \times (L_{\rm I}-1)}$ by the definition of .
Plugging into , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:cp_remove2}
{\bf \bar y}_k^b
= &\sum_{u=1}^{U_k^\prime} \left({\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm NC} + {\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm C} \right){\bf F}_{k} {\bf s}_{k,u}^b
+ \sum_{i=1,i\neq k}^K\sum_{u=1}^{U_i^\prime} {\bf \bar H}_{i,u}^k{\bf F}_{k} {\bf s}_{i,u}^b + {\bf \bar z}_k^b,
$$ for $k\in \mathcal{K}$ and $b\in\{1,2,\ldots, B\}$. As seen in and , the channel matrices of ICI links are circulant matrices, while the channel matrices of desired links are the superposition of circulant and non-circulant matrices. This difference is due to the fact that the cyclic-prefix length is selected as $ L_{\rm I}-1$ such that $L_{k,i}-1 \leq L_{\rm I}-1 < L_{k,k}-1$ for $i\neq k$ and $i,k\in\mathcal{K}$. The use of the cyclic prefix with this specific length creates *the structural relativity of the channel matrices between desired links and ICI links.*
**Inter-cell-interference cancellation:** We explain a ICI cancellation method that harnesses the relativity in the matrix structure between desired and ICI links. We start by providing a lemma that is essential for our proof.
\[Lemma1\] A circulant matrix ${\bf C}\in\mathbb{C}^{n\times n}$ is decomposed as $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf C}= {\bf F}{\bm \Lambda}{\bf F}^H,
\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bf F}=[{\bf f}_1,{\bf f}_2,\ldots,{\bf f}_n]\in\mathbb{C}^{n\times n}$ is the $n$-point IDFT matrix whose $k$-th column vector is defined as ${\bf f}_{k}=\frac{1}{\sqrt {n}}\left[1,\omega^{k-1},\omega^{2(k-1)},\ldots ,\omega^{(n-1)(k-1)}\right]^H$, with $\omega=\exp \left({-j\frac {2\pi}{n}}\right)$ for $k=\{1,2,\ldots ,n\}$.
See [@Golub:96].
As seen in and , the channel matrices of ICI links are circulant. Therefore, from Lemma \[Lemma1\], the columns of the precoding matrix ${\bf F}_{k}$ are the eigenvectors of these ICI channel matrices. This implies that all the ICI signals in are aligned in the subspace formed by ${\bf F}_{k}$, i.e., $\text{span}\left( {\bf \bar H}_{i,u}^k{\bf F}_{k} \right) = \text{span}\left({\bf F}_{k}\right)$ for $i\neq k$ and $i,k\in \mathcal{K}$. As a result, we can eliminate all the ICI signals by projecting ${\bf \bar y}_k^b$ in onto the orthogonal subspace of ${\bf F}_{k}$. To this end, we use a receive combining matrix defined as ${\bf W} = \big[{\bf f}_{M_{\rm D}+1},\cdots,{\bf f}_{N} \big]^H \in\mathbb{C}^{(N-M_{\rm D}) \times N}$. Then the effective received signal vector of the $k$-th BS during the $b$-th subblock transmission, namely ${\bf \tilde y}_k^b \in \mathbb{C}^{N-M_{\rm D}}$, is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:effreceived}
{\bf \tilde y}_k^b
&= {\bf W}{\bf \bar y}_k^b
= \sum_{u=1}^{U_k^\prime} {\bf W}{\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm NC}{\bf F}_{k} {\bf s}_{k,u}^b + {\bf W}{\bf \bar z}_k^b,
\end{aligned}$$ for $k\in \mathcal{K}$ and $b\in\{1,2,\ldots, B\}$, Now, the effective received signal vector in only contains the transmitted signals from the associating users without ICI.
**Decodability of subblock data:** To accomplish our proof, we show the decodability of the data symbols in each subblock transmission. First, we find the equivalent representation of in which an effective channel is represented as a MIMO channel; then show that this effective channel matrix has full rank.
To simplify the expression in , we define an effective channel matrix ${\tilde{\bf H}_k} \in \mathbb{C}^{(N-M_{\rm D})\times U_k^\prime M_k}$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:effchannel}
\tilde{\bf H}_k
= \left[\begin{array}{c}
{\bf W}{\bf \bar H}_{k,1}^{\rm NC}{\bf F}_{k},~{\bf W}{\bf \bar H}_{k,2}^{\rm NC}{\bf F}_{k},~\cdots,~{\bf W}{\bf \bar H}_{k,U_k^\prime}^{\rm NC}{\bf F}_k \\
\end{array}\right].
\end{aligned}$$ Then the effective received signal vector in simplifies to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:effreceived2}
{\bf \tilde y}_k^b = \tilde{\bf H}_k{\bf s}_k^b + \tilde{\bf z}_k^b,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bf s}_k^b = \big[{\bf s}_{k,1}^b,{\bf s}_{k,2}^b, \cdots,{\bf s}_{k,U_k^\prime}^b \big]^{\top}\in \mathbb{C}^{U_k^\prime M_k}$ is the total data symbol vector received at the $k$-th BS during the $b$-th subblock transmission, and ${\bf \tilde z}_k^b={\bf W}{\bf \bar z}_k^b \in \mathbb{C}^{N-M_{\rm D}}$ is an effective noise vector. Note that the distribution of ${\bf \tilde z}_k^b$ is invariant with ${\bf \bar z}_k^b$ because ${\bf W}$ is a unitary transformation matrix.
Since the expression in is equivalent to a simple MIMO system, to guarantee the decodability of ${\bf s}_k^b$ in , we only need to show whether the rank of $\tilde{\bf H}_k$ equals $U_k^\prime M_k$ which is the number of data symbols sent by the users in cell $k$. The following lemma essentially shows our decodability result.
\[Lemma2\] The rank of $\tilde{\bf H}_k$ defined in is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lem2:cond}
{\rm rank}\left(\tilde{\bf H}_k\right) = U_k^\prime M_k,~~\text{for}~~k \in \mathcal{K}.
\end{aligned}$$
See Appendix A.
Lemma \[Lemma2\] implies that for sufficiently large SNR, all $U_k^\prime M_k$ data symbols in ${\bf s}_k^b$ can be reliably decoded. For example, we can apply MLD or ZFD methods to detect ${\bf s}_k^b$ from .
**Inter-subblock-interference cancellation:** We have shown that $U_k^\prime M_k$ data symbols are decodable for each subblock transmission, by assuming that there is no inter-subblock interference (ISBI). Unfortunately, ISBI between two subsequent subblocks is unpreventable because the length of the cyclic prefix is shorter than the number of CIR taps for desired links. Thus, a cancellation method of ISBI is needed for multiple subblock transmissions.
After discarding $\max\{L_{\rm D},L_{\rm I}\}-1$ zeros at the end of the transmission block, we concatenate the received vectors from all subblock transmissions. Then, when ignoring noise, the total input-output relationship during an entire block transmission is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:totalblock}
\left[ \begin{array}{c}
{\bf \tilde y}_k^1 \\ {\bf \tilde y}_k^2 \\ \vdots \\ {\bf \tilde y}_k^{B} \\
\end{array}\right]
&= \left[\begin{array}{ccccc}
\tilde{\bf H}_k & {\bf 0}^{\rm sub} & \cdots & \cdots & {\bf 0}^{\rm sub} \\
\tilde{\bf H}_k^{\rm sub} & \tilde{\bf H}_k & \ddots & \ddots & \vdots \\
{\bf 0}^{\rm sub} & \tilde{\bf H}_k^{\rm sub} & \ddots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\vdots & \ddots & \ddots & \tilde{\bf H}_k & {\bf 0}^{\rm sub} \\
{\bf 0}^{\rm sub} & \cdots & {\bf 0}^{\rm sub} & \tilde{\bf H}_k^{\rm sub} & \tilde{\bf H}_k \\
\end{array}\right]
\left[\begin{array}{c}
{\bf s}_k^1 \\ {\bf s}_k^2 \\ \vdots \\ {\bf s}_k^{B} \\
\end{array}\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{\bf H}_{k}^{\rm sub}\in \mathbb{C}^{(N-M_{\rm D})\times U_k^\prime M_k}$ is the effective channel matrix for ISBI at the $k$-th BS, and ${\bf 0}^{\rm sub}= {\bf 0}_{(N-M_{\rm D})\times U_k^\prime M_k}$. By the definition, one can easily verify that $\tilde{\bf H}_{k}^{\rm sub}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:IBIchannel}
\tilde{\bf H}_k^{\rm sub} = \left[\begin{array}{c}
{\bf W}{\bf \bar H}_{k,1}^{\rm sub}{\bf F}_{k},{\bf W}{\bf \bar H}_{k,2}^{\rm sub}{\bf F}_{k}, \cdots, {\bf W}{\bf \bar H}_{k,U_k^\prime}^{\rm sub}{\bf F}_{k} \\
\end{array}\right].\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm sub} \in \mathbb{C}^{N\times N}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm sub} = \left[\begin{array}{cc}
{\bf 0}_{(N-L_{\rm I}+1) \times (L_{\rm I}-1)} & {\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm upp}\Big|_{N_{k}^\prime=L_{k,k}} \\
{\bf 0}_{(L_{\rm I}-1) \times (L_{\rm I}-1)} & {\bf 0}_{(L_{\rm I}-1) \times (N-L_{\rm I}+1)} \\
\end{array}\right].\end{aligned}$$ At the first subblock transmission, there is no ISBI, i.e., ${\bf \tilde y}_k^1= \tilde{\bf H}_k{\bf s}_k^1+{\bf \tilde z}_k^1$, so the symbol vector ${\bf s}_k^1$ is reliably decodable for a sufficiently large SNR value. At the $b$-th subblock transmission for $b\geq 2$, under the premise that ${\bf s}_k^{b-1}$ is reliably decodable, it is possible to decode ${\bf s}_k^b$ by subtracting the effect of ${\bf s}_k^{b-1}$ from the received signal ${\bf \tilde y}_k^b$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:subtract_block}
{\bf \tilde y}_k^b - \tilde{\bf H}_k^{\rm sub}{\bf s}_k^{b-1} = \tilde{\bf H}_k{\bf s}_k^b +{\bf \tilde z}_k^b.\end{aligned}$$ One practical concern with this successive interference cancellation method is that, when SNR is low, it may suffer from error propagation. Nevertheless, this approach is sufficient to show the DoF result in the high SNR regime.
**Achievable sum-DoF calculation:** Applying the above ISBI cancellation strategy over $B$ subblocks recursively, the $k$-th BS is capable of decoding $B$ data symbol vectors ${\bf s}_k^1, {\bf s}_k^2, \ldots, {\bf s}_k^{B}$, with $T = B{\bar N}+L_{\rm D}-1$ time slots. For sufficiently large coherence time, $B$ can be taken to be infinity, so the achievable DoF of the $k$-th BS is $$\begin{aligned}
d_k = \lim_{B\rightarrow \infty}\frac{BU_k^\prime M_k}{B(N+L_{\rm I}-1)+\max\{L_{\rm D},L_{\rm I}\}-1} =\frac{U_k^\prime M_k}{N+L_{\rm I}-1}. \label{eq:final}\end{aligned}$$ By plugging $N =\max\left\{L_{\rm D}-L_{\rm I}+M_{\rm D},L_{\rm I}\right\}$ to , we arrive at the expression in Theorem \[Theorem1\].
Theorem \[Theorem1\] shows the achievable sum-DoF for a general ISI condition, yet it is unwieldy to provide a clear intuition in the result. Considering a symmetric ISI scenario, we simplify Theorem \[Theorem1\] to the following Corollary:
([**Symmetric ISI condition**]{})\[Corollary1\] Consider a $K$-cell MAC with symmetric ISI, i.e., $L_{k,k} = L_{{\rm D}}$ and $L_{k,i}= L_{\rm I}$ for $i\neq k$ and $i, k \in\mathcal{K}$. When the number of users per cell is larger than $L_{{\rm D}}-L_{\rm I}$ with $L_{\rm D}\geq 2L_{\rm I}$, the achievable sum-DoF of the considered channel is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:cor1:sumDoF}
d^{\rm MAC}_{\Sigma} = \left(1-\frac{L_{\rm I}}{L_{\rm D}} \right)K \rightarrow K, ~~\text{as}~~\frac{L_{\rm D}}{L_{\rm I}} \rightarrow \infty.
\end{aligned}$$
Suppose that $L_{k,k} = L_{{\rm D}}$ and $L_{k,i}= L_{\rm I}$ for $i\neq k$ and $i, k \in\mathcal{K}$. If $U_k \geq L_{{\rm D}}-L_{\rm I}$ for $k\in\mathcal{K}$ with $L_{\rm D}\geq 2L_{\rm I}$, from , the achievable sum-DoF is obtained as in .
Corollary \[Corollary1\] implies that *interference-free DoF per cell* is asymptotically achievable even without CSIT, as the ratio of the maximum CIR length of desired links to that of ICI links approaches infinity with a sufficiently large number of users per cell. Particularly when the ICI links have the small delay spread, the condition required to achieve $K$ sum-DoF can be further relaxed. For example, if all ICI links are line-of-sight channels, i.e., $L_{\rm I}=1$, the equation in becomes $$\begin{aligned}
d^{\rm MAC}_{\Sigma} = \frac{L_{\rm D}-1} {L_{\rm D}}K.
\end{aligned}$$ In this case, nearly $K$ sum-DoF is achievable even when both the number of users and the maximum CIR length of desired links are not so large.
With the proposed interference management method, it is also possible to characterize the achievable sum-spectral efficiency in a closed form, which is given in the following Corollary:
([**Achievable sum-spectral efficiency**]{})\[Corollary2\] Consider a $K$-cell MAC with ISI, each cell with $U_k^\prime$ active uplink users that transmit $M_k$ data symbols respectively. Let $\tilde{\bf H}_k = {\bf Q}_{k}{\bf R}_{k}$ be the QR decomposition of the effective channel matrix $\tilde{\bf H}_k$ in , where ${\bf Q}_{k}\in\mathbb{C}^{(N-M_{\rm D}) \times U_k^\prime M_k }$ is a semi-unitary matrix such that ${\bf Q}_{k}^H{\bf Q}_{k} = {\bf I}_{U_k^\prime M_k}$, and ${\bf R}_{k}\in\mathbb{C}^{U_k^\prime M_k \times U_k^\prime M_k}$ is an upper-triangular matrix with positive diagonal elements. Then the achievable sum-spectral efficiency of this channel without instantaneous CSIT is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:cor2:rate}
\sum_{k=1}^{K}\sum_{m=1}^{U_k^\prime M_k} \frac{ \log_2\left(1+\frac{N}{M_k}|r_{k,m}|^2\rho\right)}{N+L_{\rm I}-1},
\end{aligned}$$ where $r_{k,m}$ is the $m$-th diagonal element of ${\bf R}_{k}$ and ${\rho}=\frac{P}{\sigma^2}$ is SNR.
Applying the QR decomposition [@Golub:96], the effective channel matrix $\tilde{\bf H}_k$ in can be decomposed as $\tilde{\bf H}_k = {\bf Q}_{k}{\bf R}_{k}$, where ${\bf Q}_{k}\in\mathbb{C}^{(N-M_{\rm D}) \times U_k^\prime M_k }$ is a semi-unitary matrix such that ${\bf Q}_{k}^H{\bf Q}_{k} = {\bf I}_{U_k^\prime M_k}$, and ${\bf R}_{k}\in\mathbb{C}^{U_k^\prime M_k \times U_k^\prime M_k}$ is an upper-triangular matrix with positive diagonal elements. By plugging the QR decomposition of $\tilde{\bf H}_k$ to , the effective received signal of the $k$-th BS during the $b$-th subblock transmission is rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:subtract_block2}
{\bf \tilde y}_k^b - \tilde{\bf H}_k^{\rm sub}{\bf s}_k^{b-1} &= \tilde{\bf H}_k{\bf s}_k^b + {\bf \tilde z}_k^b
={\bf Q}_{k}{\bf R}_{k} {\bf s}_{k}^b + {\bf \tilde z}_k^b.
\end{aligned}$$ Under the premise that each user uses the Gaussian signaling, the achievable rate at the $k$-th BS sent over $T=B(N+L_{\rm I}-1)+L_{\rm D}-1$ time slots by zero-forcing successive-interference cancellation is computed as $$\begin{aligned}
R_k= \sum_{m=1}^{U_k^\prime M_k}\frac{ B \log_2\left(1+\tilde{\rho}_k|r_{k,m}|^2\right)}{B(N+L_{\rm I}-1)+L_{\rm D}-1},\end{aligned}$$ where $r_{k,m}$ is the $m$-th diagonal element of ${\bf R}_{k}$ and $\tilde{\rho}_k$ is an effective SNR in . With the power constraint of $\mathbb{E}[|x_{k,u}[n]|^2]=P$, the effective SNR is given by $\tilde{\rho}_k=\frac{NP}{ M_k\sigma^2}$ because $\mathbb{E}[\|{\bf F}_{k}{\bf s}_{k,u}^{b} \|^2]=NP$ for $u \in \mathcal{U}_k$. Then the achievable sum-spectral efficiency is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{B\rightarrow \infty}\sum_{k=1}^KR_k = \sum_{k=1}^{K}\sum_{m=1}^{U_k^\prime M_k} \frac{ \log_2\left(1+\tilde{\rho}_k|r_{k,m}|^2\right)}{N+L_{\rm I}-1}, \label{eq:rates_with_no_CSIT}\end{aligned}$$ as $B$ tends to infinity; this completes the proof.
![Comparison of sum-spectral efficiency between TDMA-OFDMA and the proposed interference management method for different $K$. We set $B=10$, $L_{k,k}=L_{\rm D}=8$, $L_{k,i}=L_{\rm I}=2$, and $U_{k}=U=3$ for $i\neq k$ and $i,k\in \mathcal{K}$. Each CIR tap, $h_{i,u}^k[\ell]$, is drawn from $\mathcal{CN}(0,1)$ for all $\ell \in \{1,\ldots,L_{k,i}\}$, $u \in \{1,\ldots,U_i^\prime\}$, and $i,k \in \mathcal{K}$.[]{data-label="fig:SE"}](Fig_simul_SE.eps){width="3.1in"}
Corollary \[Corollary2\] is useful to gauge the performance benefit of the proposed method in a low SNR regime. As a numerical example, Fig. \[fig:SE\] shows that the ergodic sum-spectral efficiency of the proposed interference management method increases linearly with $K$, so the proposed method outperforms TDMA-OFDMA in all SNR regimes when $K > 1$.
The concept of the blind interference management with matrix structuring has originally been proposed in the context of a $K$-cell interference channel with ISI [@Lee:16], where the achievable sum-DoF with the symmetric ISI condition has shown to be $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:dof_IC}
d^{\rm IC}_{\Sigma} = K \frac{L_{{\rm D}} - L_{\rm I}} {\max\left\{2L_{\rm D}-L_{\rm I}-1, 2L_{\rm I}-1 \right\}}\rightarrow \frac{K}{2},
~\text{as}~ \frac{L_{\rm D}}{L_{\rm I}} \rightarrow \infty.
\end{aligned}$$ From , we can easily see that the achievable sum-DoF for interfering MAC is twice higher than that attained in the interference channel, in an asymptotic sense.
Discussions
===========
For simplicity, the proposed interference management method has been presented under the assumption that the delay spread of the desired links is larger than the maximum delay spread of ICI links, i.e., $L_{k,k} > L_{\rm I}$, and all the channel values are non-zeros, i.e., $h_{i,u}^k[\ell]\neq 0$ for $\ell\in\{1,2,\ldots, L_{k,i}\}$, $u\in\mathcal{U}_i$, and $i,k\in\mathcal{K}$. This assumption may not be hold in some wireless environments because it ignores the propagation delay between the desired and interfering signals.
In this section, we discuss how to modify the proposed interference management method for two different cases: 1) $L_{\rm D} > L_{\rm I}$ and 2) $L_{\rm D} \leq L_{\rm I}$, considering the relative propagation delay between the desired and ICI links.
Effect of Propagation Delay when $L_{\rm D} > L_{\rm I}$
--------------------------------------------------------
When propagation delay for ICI link exists as depicted in Fig. \[fig:extension\](b), the sum-DoF can be further improved by exploiting ICI-free signals during the delay. In what follows, we demonstrate this improvement by using an illustrative example.
Consider a $K$-cell MAC with three users per cell when $L_{k,k} =L_{\rm D}=5$ for $u\in \mathcal{U}_k$ and $L_{k,i} =L_{\rm I}=4$ for $u \in \mathcal{U}_i$, $i\neq k$, and $i, k\in\mathcal{K}$. Let $L_{\rm I,d}$ be the number of CIR taps during ICI delay offset, then $L_{\rm I}^{\rm eff} = L_{\rm I}- L_{\rm I,d}$ becomes the effective (actual) number of CIR taps for ICI links in a system. With this notation, we consider a delayed-ICI case with $L_{\rm I}^{\rm eff} = 2$, i.e., $h_{i,u}^k[0]=h_{i,u}^k[1]=0$ for $u \in \mathcal{U}_i$, $i\neq k$, and $i, k\in\mathcal{K}$. The considered scenario is depicted in Fig. \[fig:extension\](b). In this scenario, we will show that each BS reliably decodes three data symbols with seven time slots, i.e., $d_{\Sigma}=\frac{3K}{7}$, by using the proposed interference management method with a minor modification.
Using the transmission strategy of the proposed interference management method, suppose that all users use the first column of the $4$-point IDFT matrix to convey one data symbol, i.e., ${\bf \bar x}_{k,u} = {\bf f}_1 s_{k,u} \in \mathbb{C}^{4}$, where ${\bf f}_1 = 0.5[1,1,1,1]^{\top}$. The transmitted signal vector is generated by adding the cyclic prefix with the length of $L_{\rm I}-1 = 3$ to $\bar{\bf x}_{k,u}$. Then the received signal vector at the $k$-th BS during seven time slots is given as in (see the top of the page).
It can be seen in that the received signal vector is divided into two types of signals: *ICI-free* and *ICI-corrupted* signals. In this example, the first two received signals ($y_k[1]$ and $y_k[2]$) correspond to ICI-free signals, while the remaining five received signals correspond to ICI-corrupted signals. Our goal is to harness these ICI-free signals to increase the rank of the effective channel matrix ${\bf \tilde H}_{k}$. This can be achieved by multiplying a first-stage receive combining matrix defined as $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf W}_{\rm 1} = \left[\!\begin{array}{ccccccc}
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{array}\!\right],\end{aligned}$$ to the received signal vector. Note that this multiplication also substitutes the process for discarding the cyclic prefix. The received signal after multiplying ${\bf W}_{1}$ is represented in (see the top of the page). As seen in , ${\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm C}$ and ${\bf \bar H}_{i,u}^k$ for $i\neq k$ are circulant matrices, while ${\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm NC}$ is a non-circulant one.
Therefore, we are able to eliminate all ICI signals by using a second-stage receive combining matrix ${\bf W}_2 = [{\bf f}_2,{\bf f}_3,{\bf f}_4]^H$, where ${\bf f}_2=0.5[1, j , -1, j]^{\top}$, ${\bf f}_3=0.5[1, -1 , 1, -1]^{\top}$, and ${\bf f}_4=0.5 [1, -j , -1, j]^{\top}$. Then the effective received signal ${\bf \tilde y}$ after the receive combining is obtained as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ex2:effreceived}
&{\bf \tilde y}_k
= {\bf W}_2{\bf \bar y}_k
= \sum_{u=1}^{3} {\bf W}_2{\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm NC}{\bf f}_{1}s_{k,u} + {\bf W}_2{\bf \bar z}_k
= \underbrace{\left[\!\begin{array}{ccc}
\frac{-1{-}j}{4} \!& \frac{-1}{4} & \frac{-1}{4} \\
0 \!& \frac{1}{4} & \frac{-1}{4} \\
\frac{-1{+}j}{4} \!& \frac{j}{4} & \frac{-1}{4} \\
\end{array}\!\right]
\left[\!\begin{array}{ccc}
{h}_{k,1}^k[0] \!&\! {h}_{k,2}^k[0] \!&\! {h}_{k,3}^k[0] \\
{h}_{k,1}^k[1] \!&\! {h}_{k,2}^k[1] \!&\! {h}_{k,3}^k[1] \\
{h}_{k,1}^k[4] \!&\! {h}_{k,2}^k[4] \!&\! {h}_{k,3}^k[4] \\
\end{array}\!\right]}_{{\bf \tilde H}_k}
\underbrace{\left[\!\begin{array}{c}
s_{k,1} \\ s_{k,2} \\ s_{k,3}
\end{array}\!\right]}_{{\bf s}_k} + \tilde{\bf z}_k,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ex2:effreceived}
&{\bf \tilde y}_k
= {\bf W}_2{\bf \bar y}_k
= \sum_{u=1}^{3} {\bf W}_2{\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm NC}{\bf f}_{1}s_{k,u} + {\bf W}_2{\bf \bar z}_k \nonumber \\
&= \underbrace{-\frac{1}{4}\left[\!\begin{array}{ccc}
1{+}j \!& 1 & 1 \\
0 \!& -1 & 1 \\
1{-}j \!& 1 & 1 \\
\end{array}\!\right]
\left[\!\begin{array}{ccc}
{h}_{k,1}^k[0] \!&\! {h}_{k,2}^k[0] \!&\! {h}_{k,3}^k[0] \\
{h}_{k,1}^k[1] \!&\! {h}_{k,2}^k[1] \!&\! {h}_{k,3}^k[1] \\
{h}_{k,1}^k[4] \!&\! {h}_{k,2}^k[4] \!&\! {h}_{k,3}^k[4] \\
\end{array}\!\right]}_{{\bf \tilde H}_k}
\underbrace{\left[\!\begin{array}{c}
s_{k,1} \\ s_{k,2} \\ s_{k,3}
\end{array}\!\right]}_{{\bf s}_k} + \tilde{\bf z}_k,\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{\bf z}_k = {\bf W}_2{\bf \bar z}_k$. Note that ${\bf \tilde H}_k$ in is a full rank matrix because $h_{k,j}^k[\ell]$ is independently drawn from a continuous distribution. As a result, it is possible to reliably decode all three data symbols in ${{\bf s}_k}$ at the $k$-th BS, i.e., $d_{\Sigma}=\frac{3K}{7}$.
This result is a remarkable gain compared to that attained by the proposed method without considering the delay offset, given as $d_{\Sigma}^{\rm MAC}=K\frac{L_{\rm D}-L_{\rm I}}{\max\left\{L_{\rm D},2L_{\rm I}-1\right\}} = \frac{K}{7}$ in Corollary 1. This DoF gain stems from the additional use of ICI-free received signals during the ICI delay offset, which essentially increases the rank of the effective channel matrix after the ICI cancellation.
Effect of Propagation Delay When $L_{\rm D} \leq L_{\rm I}$
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case of $L_{\rm D} \leq L_{\rm I}$, Theorem 1 implies that without CSIT, only the trivial sum-DoF of 1 is achievable for the $K$-cell MAC with ISI. Nevertheless, it is still possible to apply the proposed interference management method to obtain a spectral efficiency gain instead. The basic idea is to consider a fraction of ICI signals as an *effective ICI* signals, while treating the remaining ICI signals as additional noise. For example, we can treat the last $L_{\rm I}-L_{\rm D}$ CIR taps of ICI links as noise, so that we can apply the modified interference management method presented in the previous subsection. In the following, we demonstrate this approximation method by using an illustrative example. Consider a $K$-cell MAC with three users per cell when $L_{k,k} =L_{\rm D}=5$ for $u\in \mathcal{U}_k$ and $L_{k,i} =L_{\rm I}=7$ for $u \in \mathcal{U}_i$, $i\neq k$, and $i, k\in\mathcal{K}$. Suppose that there exist the delay-offset of three time slots for all ICI links, i.e., $L_{\rm I,d}=3$. We intentionally treat the last two CIR taps of ICI links as noise. Then the number of considered CIR taps of ICI links is given by $L_{\rm I}^\prime = 5$, and consequently, $L_{\rm I}^{\rm eff} = L_{\rm I}^\prime - L_{\rm I,d} = 2$. The considered scenario is depicted in Fig. \[fig:extension\](c). In this scenario, we will show that the effect of residual ICI signals are negligible in some practical wireless environments.
Using the transmission strategy of the proposed interference management method, suppose that all users use the first column of the $5$-point IDFT matrix to convey one data symbol, i.e., ${\bf \bar x}_{k,u} = {\bf f}_1 s_{k,u} \in \mathbb{C}^{5}$, where ${\bf f}_i$ is the $i$-th column of 5-point IDFT matrix. The transmitted signal vector is generated by adding the cyclic prefix with the length of $L_{\rm I}^\prime -1 = 4$ to $\bar{\bf x}_{k,u}$. As in Example 2, we use the first-stage receive combining matrix defined as $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf W}_{\rm 1} = \left[\!\begin{array}{ccccccccc}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{array}\!\right],\end{aligned}$$ and also use ${\bf W}_{\rm 2} =\left[{\bf f}_2,{\bf f}_3,{\bf f}_4,{\bf f}_5\right]^H$ as the second-stage receive combining matrix. Then the effective received signal ${\bf \tilde y}\in \mathbb{C}^4$ after the receive combining is obtained as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ex3:effreceived}
&{\bf \tilde y}_k
= {\bf W}_2{\bf W}_1{\bf y}_k = \sum_{u=1}^{3} {\bf W}_2{\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm NC}{\bf f}_{1}s_{k,u} +
\sum_{i\neq k} \sum_{u=1}^{3} {\bf W}_2{\bf \bar H}_{k,i,u}^{\rm NC}{\bf f}_{1}s_{i,u} + {\bf W}_2{\bf W}_1{\bf z}_k,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ex3:effreceived}
&{\bf \tilde y}_k
= {\bf W}_2{\bf W}_1{\bf y}_k \nonumber \\
&= \sum_{u=1}^{3} {\bf W}_2{\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm NC}{\bf f}_{1}s_{k,u} +
\sum_{i\neq k} \sum_{u=1}^{3} {\bf W}_2{\bf \bar H}_{k,i,u}^{\rm NC}{\bf f}_{1}s_{i,u} + {\bf W}_2{\bf W}_1{\bf z}_k,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bf \bar H}_{k,i,u}^{\rm NC}$ is the non-circulant part of ${\bf \bar H}_{i,u}^{k}$. Unlike in , some ICI signals are remained in the effective received signal due to the ignored CIR taps of ICI links.
To clarify the characteristic of the remaining ICI signals, we specify each CIR tap by considering the distance-based large-scale fading and the exponentially-decaying power-delay profile (PDP). Let $\alpha$ be the path-loss exponent, $\beta_{k,i}$ be a constant that determines the rate of a power reduction in PDP of the wireless channel between the user in cell $i$ and the $k$-th BS. Then the $\ell$-th tap of the CIR between user $(i,u)$ and the $k$-th BS is modeled as $h_{i,u}^k[\ell] = \sqrt{P_0}d_{k,i,u}^{-\frac{\alpha}{2}}\check{h}_{i,u}^k[\ell]$, where $\sqrt{P_0}$ is the reference path loss at $1$ meter, $d_{k,i,u}$ is the distance (in meters) between user $(i,u)$ and the $k$-th BS, $\check{h}_{i,u}^k[\ell]$ is IID as $\mathcal{CN}(0,\gamma_{k,i,\ell})$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ex3:PDP}
\gamma_{k,i,\ell} =
\begin{cases}
\frac{{\rm e}^{-\ell\beta_{k,k}}}{\sum_{\ell=0}^{L_{\rm D}-1}{\rm e}^{-\ell\beta_{k,k}}}, &k=i~~\text{and}~~ 0 \leq \ell \leq L_{\rm D}-1, \\
\frac{{\rm e}^{-\ell\beta_{k,i}}}{\sum_{\ell=L_{{\rm I,d}}}^{L_{\rm I}-1}{\rm e}^{-\ell\beta_{k,i}}}, &k\neq i ~~\text{and}~~ L_{\rm I,d} \leq \ell \leq L_{\rm I}-1, \\
0, & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ Based on this model, the effective received signal in is rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ex3:effreceived2}
{\bf \tilde y}_k
= &\sqrt{{P}_0}\sum_{u=1}^{3} d_{k,k,u}^{-\frac{\alpha}{2}} {\bf W}_2\check{\bf H}_{k,u}^{k}{\bf f}_{1}s_{k,u} -\sqrt{{P}_0}\sum_{i\neq k} \sum_{u=1}^{3} d_{k,i,u}^{-\frac{\alpha}{2}}{\bf W}_2\check{\bf H}_{i,u}^{k}{\bf f}_{1}s_{i,u} + {\bf W}_2{\bf W}_1{\bf z}_k,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ex3:effreceived2}
{\bf \tilde y}_k
= &\sqrt{{P}_0}\sum_{u=1}^{3} d_{k,k,u}^{-\frac{\alpha}{2}} {\bf W}_2\check{\bf H}_{k,u}^{k}{\bf f}_{1}s_{k,u} \nonumber \\
&-\sqrt{{P}_0}\sum_{i\neq k} \sum_{u=1}^{3} d_{k,i,u}^{-\frac{\alpha}{2}}{\bf W}_2\check{\bf H}_{i,u}^{k}{\bf f}_{1}s_{i,u} + {\bf W}_2{\bf W}_1{\bf z}_k,\end{aligned}$$ where
for $i\neq k$ and $i,k\in\mathcal{K}$. As can be seen in , the effect of the remaining ICI signals is negligible if $d_{k,i,u^\prime}^{\frac{\alpha}{2}} \gg d_{k,k,u}^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}$ for $u \in \mathcal{U}_k$, $u^\prime \in \mathcal{U}_i$, $i\neq k$, and $i,k \in \mathcal{K}$. This corresponds to the case that each user is far from cell edge or the path-loss exponent is high. Furthermore, the magnitude of the remaining ICI signals exponentially decreases as $\beta_{k,i}$ increases for $i\neq k$, and $i,k \in \mathcal{K}$. Therefore, in such cases, each BS can effectively decode all three signals by applying well-known detection methods such as MLD and ZFD.
![Ergodic spectral efficiencies per cell of the proposed interference management method and OFDMA for different distances ($D_{\rm user}$) between a BS and each user. We consider 7-cell deployment, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:Deploy\], in which $D_{\rm site} = 300$ m. We plot the performance of the center cell. We set $\alpha=3.5$, $P_0=-80$ dB, and $\beta_{k,i}=0.5$ for $i,k\in\mathcal{K}$. Total transmission power at the user is set to be $23$ dBm, and the noise power is set to be $-174$ dBm/Hz. Other simulation parameters are specified in Example 3.[]{data-label="fig:Ex3"}](Fig_simul_Ex3.eps){width="3.1in"}
![Illustration of 7-cell deployment scenario with three users per cell.[]{data-label="fig:Deploy"}](Fig_Deploy.eps){width="3.1in"}
In Fig. \[fig:Ex3\], we also validate the effectiveness of the interference management strategy presented in the above example by simulations. In this simulation, we assume that each user uses the Gaussian signaling, so the achievable spectral efficiency at the $k$-th BS sent over $T = B{\bar N} + L_{\rm I}-1$ time slots is computed as $$\begin{aligned}
R_k= \frac{B}{T}\log_2\left|{\bf I}_5 + \left(\sum_{i\neq k}{\bf \tilde H}_{k,i}^{\rm int}({\bf \tilde H}_{k,i}^{\rm int})^H + {\bf W}_2{\bf W}_1 {\bf W}_1^H{\bf W}_2^H\right)^{-1}{\bf \tilde H}_{k}{\bf \tilde H}_{k}^H \right|,\end{aligned}$$
where ${\bf \tilde H}_{k} = {\bf W_2}\left[{\bf \bar H}_{k,1}^{\rm NC}{\bf f}_{1},{\bf \bar H}_{k,2}^{\rm NC}{\bf f}_{1},{\bf \bar H}_{k,3}^{\rm NC}{\bf f}_{1}\right]$, and ${\bf \tilde H}_{k,i}^{\rm int} = {\bf W_2}\left[{\bf \bar H}_{k,i,1}^{\rm NC}{\bf f}_{1},{\bf \bar H}_{k,i,2}^{\rm NC}{\bf f}_{1},{\bf \bar H}_{k,i,3}^{\rm NC}{\bf f}_{1}\right]$. Fig. \[fig:Ex3\] shows that when ICI is dominant, the proposed interference management method outperforms OFDMA. This implies that the proposed interference management method effectively mitigates ICI even if we ignore some CIR taps of ICI links. Whereas, when the users are close to the BS, ICI is no longer a dominant factor, so the spectral efficiency of the proposed interference management method becomes lower than that of OFDMA which treats ICI as noise. From this numerical example, we can conclude that the proposed interference management strategy can still be used as an interference-mitigation method even when $L_{\rm D} \leq L_{\rm I}$ case, and its effectiveness may heavily depend on the communicating environments.
Conclusion
==========
In this work, we showed that the interference-free sum-DoF of $K$ is asymptotically achievable in a $K$-cell SISO MAC with ISI, even in the absence of CSIT. This achievability was demonstrated by a blind interference management method that exploits the relativity in delay spreads between desired and interfering links. The result of this work is surprising because the existing work on multi-cell MAC has been shown to asymptotically achieve the sum-DoF of $K$ only when global and perfect CSIT are available [@Suh_Tse:08; @Cadambe_Jafar:09]. We also observed that a significant DoF gain compared to the result in [@Lee:16] is obtained when multiple users exist in a cell by improving the utilization of signal dimensions.
One can easily show that the similar DoF gain is also achieved for a $K$-cell broadcasting channel (or interfering broadcasting channel) as this channel has a duality property with the $K$-cell MAC, so called *uplink-downlink* duality. Therefore, it would be interesting to investigate the sum-DoF of the $K$-cell broadcasting channel with ISI as a future work, by applying the interference management strategy presented in this work. Another promising direction for future work is to extend the proposed interference management method for a multi-antenna setting, i.e., $K$-cell MIMO MAC with ISI. In this extension, it may be able to further improve the sum-DoF by exploiting additional signal dimensions provided by the use of multiple antennas.
Proof of Lemma \[Lemma2\]
=========================
In this proof, we show that the rank of the effective channel matrix ${\tilde{\bf H}_k} \in \mathbb{C}^{(N-M_{\rm D})\times U_k^\prime M_k}$ defined in is $U_k^\prime M_k$. Because $U_k^\prime M_k \leq L_{k,k}-L_{\rm I} \leq N-M_{\rm D}$ by the definitions, we can equivalently show that ${\tilde{\bf H}_k}$ is a full column rank matrix.
We start by introducing the *rank-equivalent* representation of ${\tilde{\bf H}_k}$. Let ${\bf h}_{k,u}^{\rm eff} \in \mathbb{C}^{L_{k,k}-L_{\rm I}}$ be an effective channel-coefficient vector of user $(k,u)$, defined as ${\bf h}_{k,u}^{\rm eff} = \Big[h_{k,u}^{k}[L_{\rm I}],\cdots, h_{k,u}^{k}[L_{k,k}-1]\Big]^{\top}$. Using this vector, ${\bf W}{\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm NC}{\bf f}_{m}$ can be decomposed as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:basisrep}
{\bf W}{\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm NC}{\bf f}_{m} = \underbrace{{\bf W} {\bf D}_{m,k}^{(1)} {\bf E}_k {\bf D}_{m,k}^{(2)}}_{\triangleq {\bf G}_{m,k}} {\bf h}_{k,u}^{\rm eff}.\end{aligned}$$ In the above decomposition, ${\bf D}_{m,k}^{(1)}\in \mathbb{C}^{N}$ and ${\bf D}_{m,k}^{(2)} \in \mathbb{C}^{L_{k,k}-L_{\rm I}}$ are diagonal matrices defined as $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf D}_{m,k}^{(1)} &= w_m^{L_{k,k}-L_{\rm I}} {\rm diag}\Big( \Big[w_m^{L_{\rm I}-L_{k,k}},w_m^{L_{\rm I}-L_{k,k}+1},\cdots, w_m^{-2}, w_m^{-1}, \underbrace{1,1,\cdots,1}_{N-L_{k,k}+L_{\rm I}}\Big] \Big), \label{eq:Dm1}\\
{\bf D}_{m,k}^{(2)} &= w_m^{N-L_{\rm I}}{\rm diag}\Big( \Big[1,w_m^{-1},\cdots,w_m^{-L_{k,k}+L_{\rm I}+1} \Big] \Big), \label{eq:Dm2}
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf D}_{m,k}^{(1)} &= w_m^{L_{k,k}-L_{\rm I}} {\rm diag}\Big( \Big[w_m^{L_{\rm I}-L_{k,k}},w_m^{L_{\rm I}-L_{k,k}+1},\cdots, \nonumber \\
&\qquad\qquad \qquad\qquad w_m^{-2}, w_m^{-1}, \underbrace{1,1,\cdots,1}_{N-L_{k,k}+L_{\rm I}}\Big] \Big), \label{eq:Dm1}\\
{\bf D}_{m,k}^{(2)} &= w_m^{N-L_{\rm I}}{\rm diag}\Big( \Big[1,w_m^{-1},\cdots,w_m^{-L_{k,k}+L_{\rm I}+1} \Big] \Big), \label{eq:Dm2}
\end{aligned}$$ respectively, where $w_m = e^{j\frac{2\pi}{N}(m-1)}$, and ${\bf E}_k \in \mathbb{C}^{N\times(L_{k,k}-L_{\rm I})}$ is a matrix with the special form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:E_k}
{\bf E}_k = \left[\begin{array}{cc}
-{\bf 1}_{(N-L_{\rm I})\times (N-L_{\rm I})}^{\rm upp} & {\bf 0}_{(N-L_{\rm I}) \times (L_{k,k}-N)} \\
{\bf 0}_{1 \times (N-L_{\rm I})} & {\bf 0}_{1 \times (L_{k,k}-N)} \\
{\bf 0}_{(L_{k,k}-N) \times (N-L_{\rm I})} & {\bf 1}_{(L_{k,k}-N)\times(L_{k,k}-N)}^{\rm low} \\
{\bf 0}_{(N-L_{k,k}+L_{\rm I}-1) \times (N-L_{\rm I})} & {\bf 1}_{(N-L_{k,k}+L_{\rm I}-1) \times (L_{k,k}-N)} \\
\end{array}\right].
\end{aligned}$$ In , ${\bf 1}_{M\times M}^{\rm upp}$ and ${\bf 1}_{M\times M}^{\rm low}$ are the $M$ by $M$ upper and lower triangular matrices whose elements are all ones, respectively. By aggregating the effective channel-coefficient vectors in cell $k$, we also define the following random matrix: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:eff_rand_matrix}
{\bf H}_{k}^{\rm eff} = \left[ {\bf h}_{k,1}^{\rm eff},{\bf h}_{k,2}^{\rm eff},\cdots, {\bf h}_{k,U_k^\prime}^{\rm eff}\right] \in \mathbb{C}^{(L_{k,k}-L_{\rm I})\times U_k^\prime}.\end{aligned}$$ From and , we obtain the rank-equivalent representation of ${\tilde{\bf H}_k}$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:span_eff}
{\rm rank} ({\tilde{\bf H}_k})
&= {\rm rank}\bigg(\Big[
{\bf W}{\bf \bar H}_{k,1}^{\rm NC}{\bf F}_{k},{\bf W}{\bf \bar H}_{k,2}^{\rm NC}{\bf F}_{k},\cdots,{\bf W}{\bf \bar H}_{k,U_k^\prime}^{\rm NC}{\bf F}_k
\Big]\bigg) \nonumber \\
&= {\rm rank}\bigg(
\Big[{\bf G}_{1,k}{\bf h}_{k,1}^{\rm eff},\cdots,
{\bf G}_{M_k,k}{\bf h}_{k,1}^{\rm eff},\cdots, {\bf G}_{1,k}{\bf h}_{k,U_k^\prime}^{\rm eff},\cdots,
{\bf G}_{M_k,k}{\bf h}_{k,U_k^\prime}^{\rm eff} \Big]\bigg) \nonumber \\
&= {\rm rank}\bigg(
\Big[{\bf G}_{1,k}{\bf H}_{k}^{\rm eff},{\bf G}_{2,k}{\bf H}_{k}^{\rm eff},\cdots,{\bf G}_{M_k,k}{\bf H}_{k}^{\rm eff}\Big]\bigg),\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:span_eff}
{\rm rank} ({\tilde{\bf H}_k})
&= {\rm rank}\bigg(\Big[
{\bf W}{\bf \bar H}_{k,1}^{\rm NC}{\bf F}_{k},{\bf W}{\bf \bar H}_{k,2}^{\rm NC}{\bf F}_{k},\cdots,{\bf W}{\bf \bar H}_{k,U_k^\prime}^{\rm NC}{\bf F}_k
\Big]\bigg) \nonumber \\
&= {\rm rank}\bigg(
\Big[{\bf G}_{1,k}{\bf h}_{k,1}^{\rm eff},\cdots,
{\bf G}_{M_k,k}{\bf h}_{k,1}^{\rm eff},\cdots, \nonumber \\
&\qquad \qquad~~{\bf G}_{1,k}{\bf h}_{k,U_k^\prime}^{\rm eff},\cdots,
{\bf G}_{M_k,k}{\bf h}_{k,U_k^\prime}^{\rm eff} \Big]\bigg) \nonumber \\
&= {\rm rank}\bigg(
\Big[{\bf G}_{1,k}{\bf H}_{k}^{\rm eff},{\bf G}_{2,k}{\bf H}_{k}^{\rm eff},\cdots,{\bf G}_{M_k,k}{\bf H}_{k}^{\rm eff}\Big]\bigg),\end{aligned}$$ where the last equality is obtained by an appropriate change of the columns. With this representation, we will show that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:span_eff2}
{\rm rank} ({\tilde{\bf H}_k})
= {\rm rank}\bigg(
\Big[{\bf G}_{1,k}{\bf H}_{k}^{\rm eff},{\bf G}_{2,k}{\bf H}_{k}^{\rm eff},\cdots,{\bf G}_{M_k,k}{\bf H}_{k}^{\rm eff}\Big]\bigg) = U_k^\prime M_k,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:span_eff2}
&{\rm rank} ({\tilde{\bf H}_k}) \nonumber \\
&= {\rm rank}\bigg(
\Big[{\bf G}_{1,k}{\bf H}_{k}^{\rm eff},{\bf G}_{2,k}{\bf H}_{k}^{\rm eff},\cdots,{\bf G}_{M_k,k}{\bf H}_{k}^{\rm eff}\Big]\bigg) = U_k^\prime M_k,\end{aligned}$$ with probability one.
To proof the last equality in , first, we need to show that the columns of ${\bf G}_{m_1,k}{\bf H}_{k}^{\rm eff}$ are linearly independent from the columns of ${\bf G}_{m_2,k}{\bf H}_{k}^{\rm eff}$ when $m_1 \neq m_2$ and $m_1, m_2 \in\{1,2,\ldots M_k\}$. For this, it is sufficient to show that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:indepGh}
{\rm Pr}\bigg({\rm span}\Big({\bf G}_{m,k}{\bf h}_{k,u}^{\rm eff} \Big) \subset
{\rm span}\Big(\Big[{\bf G}_{1,k}{\bf h}_{k,u}^{\rm eff},\cdots,{\bf G}_{m-1,k}{\bf h}_{k,u}^{\rm eff},{\bf G}_{m+1,k}{\bf h}_{k,u}^{\rm eff},\cdots,{\bf G}_{M_k,k}{\bf h}_{k,u}^{\rm eff} \Big]\Big)\bigg) = 0,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:indepGh}
{\rm Pr}\bigg({\rm span}\Big({\bf G}_{m,k}{\bf h}_{k,u}^{\rm eff} \Big) \subset
&{\rm span}\Big(\Big[{\bf G}_{1,k}{\bf h}_{k,u}^{\rm eff},\cdots,{\bf G}_{m-1,k}{\bf h}_{k,u}^{\rm eff}, \nonumber \\
&~~~~{\bf G}_{m+1,k}{\bf h}_{k,u}^{\rm eff},\cdots,{\bf G}_{M_k,k}{\bf h}_{k,u}^{\rm eff} \Big]\Big)\bigg) = 0,\end{aligned}$$ because it is obvious that the effective channel-coefficient vectors for different users are linearly independent with probability one as their elements are independently drawn from a continuous distribution. Furthermore, the sufficient condition of is simply given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:rank_WHF}
\text{rank}\left(\left[{\bf G}_{1,k}{\bf h}_{k,u}^{\rm eff}, {\bf G}_{2,k}{\bf h}_{k,u}^{\rm eff}, \cdots, {\bf G}_{M_k,k}{\bf h}_{k,u}^{\rm eff}\right]\right)= \text{rank}({\bf W}{\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm NC}{\bf F}_{k}) = M_k,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:rank_WHF}
&\text{rank}\left(\left[{\bf G}_{1,k}{\bf h}_{k,u}^{\rm eff}, {\bf G}_{2,k}{\bf h}_{k,u}^{\rm eff}, \cdots, {\bf G}_{M_k,k}{\bf h}_{k,u}^{\rm eff}\right]\right) \nonumber \\
&= \text{rank}({\bf W}{\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm NC}{\bf F}_{k}) = M_k,\end{aligned}$$ where the first equality is obtained from . Therefore, to proof , we instead show the equation in by using the following lemma:
\[Lemma3\] For a matrix ${\bf A}{\bf B}{\bf C}$ defined by the product of three matrices ${\bf A}$, ${\bf B}$, and ${\bf C}$, the following inequality holds: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:rank_ineq}
\text{rank}({\bf A}{\bf B}) + \text{rank}({\bf B}{\bf C}) \leq \text{rank}({\bf B}) + \text{rank}({\bf A}{\bf B}{\bf C}).
\end{aligned}$$
See [@Horn:13].
Lemma 3 implies that if we determine the ranks of three matrices ${\bf W}{\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm NC}$, ${\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm NC}{\bf F}_{k}$, and ${\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm NC}$, we can directly obtain an inequality condition for the rank of ${\bf W}{\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm NC}{\bf F}_{k}$ from . Fortunately, the rank of ${\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm NC}$ is easily determined as $$\begin{aligned}
\text{rank}({\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm NC}) &= L_{k,k}-L_{\rm I}, \label{eq:rank_Hnc}\end{aligned}$$ by the definition of ${\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm NC}$ given in . Furthermore, the ranks of ${\bf W}{\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm NC}$ and ${\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm NC}{\bf F}_{k}$ can be determined by using the property of the submatrix of the DFT matrix: Any $N_2$ columns of an $N_1$ by $N$ submatrix of the $N$-point DFT matrix, constructed by removing $N-N_1$ consequtive rows from the original DFT matrix, are linearly independent when $N - N_1 \geq N_2$; this property can easily be shown by extending the result in [@Rath2004] (see Appendix C in [@Rath2004]). Because ${\bf W}= \left[{\bf f}_{M_{\rm D}+1},\cdots,{\bf f}_{N} \right]^H$ and ${\bf F}_k^H = \left[{\bf f}_{1},{\bf f}_{2},\cdots,{\bf f}_{M_k} \right]^H $ are the submatrices of the $N$-point DFT matrix, the above property implies that any $L_{k,k}-L_{\rm I}$ columns of ${\bf W}$ are linearly independent, and also that any $M_k$ columns of ${\bf F}_k^H$ are linearly independent. Using these facts along with the definition of ${\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm NC}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\text{rank}({\bf W}{\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm NC}) &= L_{k,k}-L_{\rm I} \label{eq:rank_WH}\\
\text{rank}({\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm NC}{\bf F}_{k}) &= \text{rank}({\bf F}_{k}^H({\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm NC})^H) = M_k. \label{eq:rank_HF}\end{aligned}$$ Plugging , , and to yields $ M_k \leq \text{rank}({\bf W}{\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm NC}{\bf F}_{k})$. Because ${\bf W}{\bf \bar H}_{k,u}^{\rm NC}{\bf F}_{k}$ is a tall matrix with $M_k$ columns, this rank inequality directly results in .
Now, to proof the last equality in , we only need to show that the rank of ${\bf G}_{m,k}{\bf H}_{k}^{\rm eff}$ is $U_k$. Because all elements of ${\bf H}_{k}^{\rm eff}$ are independent random variables drawn from a continuous distribution, it is sufficient to show that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:rankG}
{\rm rank}\left({\bf G}_{m,k}\right)=L_{k,k}-L_{\rm I},~~\text{for}~m\in \{1,\ldots,M_k\}.\end{aligned}$$ Any diagonal matrix does not change the linear independence of the columns, so we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:spanWD}
&{\rm span} \left({\bf G}_{m,k}\right) = {\rm span} \left({\bf W}{\bf D}_{m,k}^{(1)}{\bf E}_k{\bf D}_{m,k}^{(2)}\right)
= {\rm span} \left({\bf W}{\bf D}_{m,k}^{(1)}{\bf E}_k\right).\end{aligned}$$ Let $\tilde{\bf w}_{m,k}$ be the $k$-th column of ${\bf W}{\bf D}_{m,k}^{(1)}$. Then by the definition of ${\bf E}_k$ given in , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:spanWD2}
&{\rm span} \left({\bf W}{\bf D}_{m,k}^{(1)}{\bf E}_k\right) = \!{\rm span} \Big(\Big[\! \underbrace{\tilde{\bf w}_{m,1},{\cdots}, \tilde{\bf w}_{m,N-L_{\rm I}},
\tilde{\bf w}_{m,N-L_{\rm I}+2},{\cdots}, \tilde{\bf w}_{m,L_{k,k}-L_{\rm I}}
, \tilde{\bf w}_{m,k}^{\rm sum}}_{\triangleq {\bf G}_{m,k}^{\rm eq}} \!\Big] \Big),\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{\bf w}_{m,k}^{\rm sum} = \sum_{k=L_{k,k}-L_{\rm I}+1}^{N}\!\tilde{\bf w}_{m,k}$. Let $\tilde{\bf w}_{m,k}$ be the $k$-th column of ${\bf W}{\bf D}_{m,k}^{(1)}$. Then by the definition of ${\bf E}_k$ given in , we have
where $\tilde{\bf w}_{m,k}^{\rm sum} = \sum_{k=L_{k,k}-L_{\rm I}+1}^{N}\!\tilde{\bf w}_{m,k}$. We have already shown that any $L_{k,k}-L_{\rm I}$ columns of ${\bf W}$ are linearly independent, so the first $L_{k,k}-L_{\rm I}-1$ columns of ${\bf G}_{m,k}^{\rm eq}$ are linearly independent. In addition, the last column of ${\bf G}_{m,k}^{\rm eq}$ is also linearly independent from other columns because $\tilde{\bf w}_{m,k}^{\rm sum}$ contains at least one vector (e.g., saying $\tilde{\bf w}_{m,L_{k,k}-L_{\rm I}+1}$) that is independent from them. Since all columns of ${\bf G}_{m,k}^{\rm eq}$ are linearly independent, holds.
Aggregating the above results implies that all columns of ${\bf G}_{1,k}{\bf H}_{k}^{\rm eff}, {\bf G}_{2,k}{\bf H}_{k}^{\rm eff}, \ldots, {\bf G}_{M_k,k}{\bf H}_{k}^{\rm eff}$ are linearly independent with probability one, so we arrive at the result in ; this completes the proof.
[1]{} Y.-S. Jeon, N. Lee, and R. Tandon, “On the degrees of freedom of wide-band multi-cell multiple access channels with no CSIT,” [*to appear in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Inf. Theory (ISIT)*]{}, June 2017.
R. W. Chang, “Synthesis of band-limited orthogonal signals for multichannel data transmission,” [*Bell Syst. Tech. J.*]{}, vol. 45, pp. 1775–1796. Dec. 1966.
S. B. Weinstein and P. M. Ebert, “Data transmission by frequency division multiplexing using the discrete Fourier transform,” [*IEEE Trans. Commun. Tech.,*]{} vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 628–634, Oct. 1971.
J. A. C. Bingham, “Multicarrier modulation for data transmission: An idea whose time has come,” [*IEEE Commun. Mag.,*]{} vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 17–25, Mar. 1990.
R. S. Cheng and S. Verdú, “Gaussian multiaccess channels with ISI: Capacity region and multiuser water-filling,” [*IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory,*]{} vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 773–786, May 1993. C. Y. Wong, R. S. Cheng, K. B. Letaief, and R. D. Murch, “Multicarrier OFDM with adaptive subcarrier, bit, and power allocation,” [*IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun.,*]{} vol. 17, no. 10, pp. 1747–1758, Oct. 1999.
W. Rhee and J. M. Cioffi, “Increasing in capacity of multiuser OFDM system using dynamic subchannel allocation,” in [*Proc. IEEE Int. Veh. Tech. Conf. (VTC),*]{} vol. 2, pp. 1085–1089, May 2000.
D. Gesbert, S. Hanly, H. Huang, S. S. Shitz, O. Simeone, and W. Yu, “Multi-cell MIMO cooperative networks: A new look at interference,” [*IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun.,*]{} vol. 28, no. 9, pp. 1380–1408, Dec. 2010.
D. Lee, H. Seo, B. Clerckx, E. Hardouin, D. Mazzarese, S. Nagata, and K. Sayana, “Coordinated multipoint transmission and reception in LTE-Advanced: Deployment scenarios and operational challenges,” [*IEEE Commun. Mag.,*]{} vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 148–155, Feb. 2011.
B. Clerckx, H. Lee, Y.-J. Hong, and G. Kim, “A practical cooperative multi-cell MIMO-OFDMA network based on rank coordination,” [*IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.,*]{} vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 1481–1491, Apr. 2013.
H. Dahrouj and W. Yu, “Coordinated beamforming for the multicell multi-antenna wireless system,” [*IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.,*]{} vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 1748–1759, May 2011.
N. Lee, D. Morales-Jimenez, A. Lozano, and R. W. Heath, Jr., “Spectral efficiency of dynamic coordinated beamforming: A stochastic geometry approach,” [*IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.,*]{} vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 230–241, Jan. 2015.
V. R. Cadambe and S. A. Jafar, “Interference alignment and the degrees of freedom of the $K$ user interference channel,” [*IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory,*]{} vol. 54, no. 8, pp. 3425–3441, Aug. 2008. V. R. Cadambe and S. A. Jafar, “Interference alignment and the degrees of freedom of wireless $X$ networks,” [*IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory,*]{} vol. 55, no. 9, pp. 3893–3908, Sep. 2009.
C. Suh and D. Tse, “Interference alignment for cellular networks,” in [*Proc. 46th Annual Allerton Conf. Commun. Control Comput. (Allerton),*]{} Sep. 2008.
A. Chaaban, A. Sezgin, B. Bandemer, and A. Paulraj, “On Gaussian multiple access channels with interference: Achievable rates and upper bounds,” in [*Proc. 4th Int. Workshop Multiple Access Commun. (MACOM),*]{} Sep. 2011.
T. Kim, D. J. Love, B. Clerckx, and D. Hwang, “Spatial degrees of freedom of the multi-cell MIMO multiple access channel,” in [*Proc. IEEE Global Commun. Conf. (GLOBECOM),*]{} Dec. 2011.
N. Lee, W. Shin, R. W. Heath, Jr., and B. Clerckx, “Interference alignment with limited feedback for two-cell interfering MIMO-MAC,” in [*Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Wireless Commun. Syst. (ISWCS),*]{} pp. 566–570, Aug. 2012.
H. J. Yang, W.-Y. Shin, B. C. Jung, and A. Paulraj, “Opportunistic interference alignment for MIMO interfering multiple-access channels,” [*IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.,*]{} vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 2180–2192, May 2013.
Y. Zhu and D. Guo, “The degrees of freedom of isotropic MIMO interference channels without state information at the transmitters,” [*IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory,*]{} vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 341–352, Jan. 2012.
M. A. Maddah-Ali and D. Tse, “Completely stale transmitter channel state information is still very useful,” [*IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory,*]{} vol. 58, no. 7, pp. 4418–4431, July 2012.
T. Gou and S. A. Jafar, “Optimal use of current and outdated channel state information: Degrees of freedom of the MISO BC with mixed CSIT,” [*IEEE Commun. Lett.,*]{} vol. 16, no. 7, pp. 1084–1087, July 2012.
N. Lee and R. W. Heath, Jr., “Not too delayed CSIT achieves the optimal degrees of freedom,” in [*Proc. 50th Annual Allerton Conf. Commun. Control Comput. (Allerton),*]{} Oct. 2012.
N. Lee and R. W. Heath, Jr., “Space-time interference alignment and degrees of freedom regions for the MISO broadcast channel with periodic CSI feedback,” [*IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory,*]{} vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 515–528, Jan. 2014.
R. Tandon, S. A. Jafar, S. Shamai, and H. V. Poor, “On the synergistic benefits of alternating CSIT for the MISO-BC,” [*IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory,*]{} vol. 59, no. 7, pp. 4106–4128, July 2013.
S. A. Jafar, “Topological interference management through index coding,” [*IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory,*]{} vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 529–568, Jan. 2014.
C. S. Vaze and M. K. Varanasi, “The degrees of freedom regions of MIMO broadcast, interference, and cognitive radio channels with no CSIT,” [*IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory,*]{} vol. 58, no. 8, pp. 5354–5374, Aug. 2012.
C. S. Vaze and M. K. Varanasi, “A new outer bound via interference localization and the degrees of freedom regions of MIMO interference networks with no CSIT,” [*IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory,*]{} vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 6853–6869, Nov. 2012.
S. A. Jafar, “Interference alignment — A new look at signal dimensions in a communication network,” [*Foundations and Trends in Commun. and Inf. Theory,*]{} vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–134, 2011.
C. Wang, T. Gou, and S. A. Jafar, “Aiming perfectly in the dark- blind interference alignment through staggered antenna switching,” [*IEEE Trans. Signal Process.,*]{} vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 2734–2744, June 2011.
S. A. Jafar, “Blind interference alignment,” [*IEEE J. Sel. Topics Signal Process.,*]{} vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 216–227, June 2012.
M. Morales-Céspedes, J. Plata-Chaves, D. Toumpakaris, S. A. Jafar, and A. G. Armada, “Blind interference alignment for cellular networks," [*IEEE Trans. Signal Process.,*]{} vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 41–56, Jan. 2015.
N. Lee, “Interference-free OFDM: Rethinking OFDM for interference networks with inter-symbol interference," arXiv:1609.02517 \[cs.IT\], Sep. 2016. \[Online\]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1609.02517
G. H. Golub and C. F. V. Loan, “Matrix computations,” [*3rd ed. The Johns Hopkins University Press*]{}, 1996.
R. A. Horn and C. R. Johnson, “Matrix analysis,” [*2nd ed. Cambridge University Press*]{}, 2013.
G. Rath and C. Guillemot, “Frame-theoretic analysis of DFT codes with erasures,” [*IEEE Trans. Signal Process.,*]{} vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 447–460, Feb. 2004.
[^1]: This paper was presented in part at the IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), June 2017 [@Jeon:17].
[^2]: Y.-S. Jeon and N. Lee are with the Department of Electrical Engineering, POSTECH, Pohang, Gyeongbuk, 37673 Korea (e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]).
[^3]: R. Tandon is with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721 USA (e-mail: [email protected]).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The proton analyzing power $A_y$ in pion production reaction $\overrightarrow{p} d \rightarrow \pi^0{\ ^{3}}\rm{He}$ has been calculated including one- and two-body meson production mechanisms with a proper treatment of the three-nucleon dynamics and an accurate solution of the 3$N$ bound-state problem for phenomenological two-nucleon potentials. In the region around the $\Delta$ resonance, the structure of the analyzing power can be understood once interference effects among amplitudes describing intermediate $\Delta N$ formation in different orbital states are considered along with the additional interference with the $S$-wave pion production amplitudes. Then, the inclusion of three-nucleon dynamics in the initial state produces the structure of the analyzing power that has been observed experimentally.'
author:
- 'Luciano Canton$^{1,2}$ and Leonid G. Levchuk$^{2,3}$'
title: '**Polarized Proton Pionic Capture in Deuterium as a Probe of $3N$ Dynamics**'
---
[ *$^1$ Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, 35131 Padova, via Marzolo, n. 8 Italy,\
$^2$ Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università, 35131 Padova, via Marzolo, n. 8 Italy,\
$^3$ Kharkov Institute of Physics and Technology, 61108 Kharkov, Ukraine\
*]{}
It has been known for almost twenty years that the experimental structure of the analyzing power $A_y$ for the $\overrightarrow{p} d \rightarrow \pi^0 {\ ^{3}}\rm{He}$ reaction (in the region around the $\Delta$ resonance) exhibits a rapid variation at the c.m. polar angle of $\Theta_{\rm c.m.} =90^{\circ}$, with the appearence of an additional (second) peak and changing the sign as one moves from lower energies to the $\Delta$-resonance region. To our knowledge, this behavior of the proton analyzing power has never been interpreted theoretically before, while the understanding of the underlying mechanisms is of great importance to describe and understand the basic $NN\rightarrow NN \pi$ inelasticities in the most simple “complex” nuclear environment, the three-nucleon system. Single pion production represents the first process that needs to be understood in order to consider more complicated hadronic processes that occur at moderately higher energy, such as double-pion production, or heavier meson ([e.g.]{}, $\eta$) production. In addition, single pion production could also reveal mechanisms involving multinucleon exchanges, thus providing important information that bridges intermediate-energy phenomena to low-energy three-nucleon and multinucleon forces, to be used in the study of low-energy nuclear systems.
Theoretically, pion production in proton-deuteron collisions was studied long time ago with the deuteron model [@Rud], which describes the $pd \rightarrow \pi^+ t$ reaction in terms of the differential cross section for the more elementary $pp \rightarrow \pi^+ d$ process. The model has been subsequently refined by Locher and Weber [@LochWeb], who introduced additional mechanisms based on the elastic $\pi d \rightarrow \pi d$ cross section, and by Fearing [@Fearing] who gave phenomenological estimates of the effects introduced by optical-model distortions. The deuteron model has been later extended by Germond and Wilkin [@GermWilk] who developed a simple spin-dependent analysis in plane waves by which they predicted the deuteron tensor analyzing power $T_{20}$ to approach its geometrical limit $-\sqrt{2}$ at threshold, based on low-energy theorems. Recently, Falk [@Falk] developed further the deuteron model in its spin dependent form and performed a phenomenological analysis of polarization observables near threshold. Calculations including explicitly $\Delta$ dynamics and meson-exchange processes were pioneered in the late ’70 [@GreeSai], but the complexity involved in the computation of the corresponding amplitudes forced the authors to restrict themselves with only exploratory calculations. Laget and Lecolley [@LagetLec] performed calculations that tried to go beyond one- and two-body pion production mechanisms and included effective three-body mechanisms [via]{} meson double rescatterings, showing beneficial effects at higher energies, well beyond the $\Delta$ resonance. Results around the isobar resonance, however, were not quite satisfactory, and especially the proton analyzing power $A_y$, [i.e.]{}, the asymmetry of the reaction yield for the opposite proton spin directions, $$A_y={{N_\uparrow-N_\downarrow}\over {N_\uparrow+N_\downarrow}}\, ,$$ was in poor accord with the data [@Cameron].
The approach involving the $3N$ dynamics has been pushed forward recently in a series of papers [@CantonSchad], where explicit $\Delta$ excitation mechanisms were treated in the three-nucleon system using the few-body techniques [@Canton_ea_1]. Intermediate $\Delta$ propagation and rescattering were described phenomenologically using an isobar complex-mass scaling that has been tested and parametrized on the $pp \rightarrow \pi^+ d$ reaction [@Canton_ea_2]. Such test calculations have shown that, for the description of the proton pionic capture by protons, the interplay between ($\Delta$-mediated) $P$-wave mechanisms and $S$-wave two-body rescattering mechanisms (in the isoscalar and isovector channels) is a fundamental feature that has to be taken into account for the overall reproduction of both spin-averaged and spin-dependent observables. Anti-symmetrization prescriptions due to the identity of the nucleons were fully taken into account.
Nowadays, the calculations can be performed with more accurate knowledge of the nuclear wave functions (WF), and with including a much larger number of intermediate three-nucleon states. Furthermore, the nucleon-deuteron initial-state interaction (ISI) can be calculated through, [e.g]{}, the Alt-Grassberger-Sandhas (AGS) scheme [@AGS], with realistic nucleon-nucleon transition matrices. The complete calculation of the reaction represents a very complicated theoretical task, and involves, due to the variety of the few-body intermediate states that have to be expanded in partial waves, computation of an exorbitant number of multidimensional integrals.
The amplitude of the ${p} d \rightarrow \pi^0{\ ^{3}}\rm{He}$ reaction (or the inverse pion absorption process) is determined by the matrix element $$A_{if} = ^{(-)}{_S \langle}{{\bf{q}}},\psi_{d} | A |\psi_{t}, {{\bf{P}}}^\pi_{0} \rangle\, ,
\label{AMPL}$$ where $\psi_t$ represents the three-nucleon bound-state and ${^{(-)}}{_S\langle}{{\bf{q}}},\psi_d |$ refers to a properly antisymmetrized interacting nucleon-deuteron state in the initial channel. Diagrammatically, this amplitude is illustrated by Fig. \[diag1\].
Within the model discussed here, it includes the proton-deuteron ISI, the bound-state two- (deuteron) and three-nucleon ($^3$He) WF, the matrix element of a $3N$ permutation operator that gives rise to the exchange contribution to the amplitude, and an operator of pion production on a pair of nucleons. Note that in formulation of the AGS formalism employed in our calculations, the 3$N$ break-up process is effectively included in the ISI block in Fig. \[diag1\]. The meson production mechanisms are given by the two-body (Fig. \[diag2\]a,b,c)
and one-body (plain $\pi NN$ vertex in Fig. \[diag2\]d) contributions. The $\Delta$ excitation mechanism (Fig. \[diag2\]c) has the structure $${\cal A}_\Delta = V_{NN-N\Delta} G_\Delta F_{\Delta N\pi} \, ,$$ where $V_{NN-N\Delta}$ is the $NN\rightarrow N \Delta$ transition potential generated by $\pi$- and $\rho$-exchanges, $G_\Delta$ effectively describes the intermediate $\Delta NN$ propagation, and $F_{\Delta N\pi}$ is the $\Delta N \pi$ transition vertex function. All the corresponding details including the extended formulas representing the mechanisms in the three-nucleon partial waves have been published elsewhere [@CantonSchad; @Canton_ea_1]. The asymptotic pion wave is not decomposed in partial waves but treated directly in three dimensions. An important quantity for the present calculation is the maximum orbital momentum $l_\Delta$ in the $\Delta N$ subsystem. We found that $l_\Delta = 0$ is not sufficient to describe polarization observables, and one has to go up to $l_\Delta = 2$, at least.
In the $\Delta$ resonance region, the spin structure of the reaction amplitude is dependent strongly also on the interference effects with the other mechanisms, particularly the $S$-wave two-body pion production contributions shown in Fig. \[diag2\]a,b. Each of these mechanisms can be schematically described as $${\cal A}_\pi = F_{N N\pi} G_\pi \lambda_{N\pi-N\pi} +
{\rm time\ reordering} \ ,$$ where $F_{N N\pi}$ is the $\pi N N$ vertex, $G_\pi$ is the pion propagator, and $\lambda_{N\pi- N\pi}$ is the corresponding contribution to the half-off-shell $\pi N$ scattering amplitude. By “time reordering” we denote a term coming from “backward in time” propagation of the intermediate-state pion , in which case $\lambda_{N\pi- N\pi}$ is replaced by a $N\to 2\pi N$ vertex amplitude for double-pion production.
The starting point for the construction of $\lambda_{N\pi- N\pi}$ is the phenomenological low-energy ($S$-wave) pion-nucleon interaction Hamiltonian [@KR] $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal H}_{\rm{int}} =
{\frac{\lambda_V}{m_\pi ^2}}
\bar{\psi}\gamma ^{\mu} {{\bm{\tau}}} \psi \cdot
\left[{{\bm{\phi}}} \times \partial_\mu {{\bm{\phi}}}\right]
+ {\frac{\lambda_S}{m_\pi}}
\bar{\psi} \psi
\left[{{\bm{\phi}}} \cdot {{\bm{\phi}}}\right] .
\label{Lag-piN}\end{aligned}$$
The calculations herein illustrated have been performed with the set of parameters used in the previous study [@CantonSchad]. Namely, for the isovector coupling constant in Eq. (\[Lag-piN\]), we have $\lambda_V/4{\pi} = 0.045$, whereas the $\pi NN$ and $\pi N\Delta$ coupling constants are equal to ${f_{\pi NN}^2 / 4 \pi} = 0.0735$ and ${f_{\pi N\Delta}^2 / 4 \pi} = 0.32$, respectively. Our present treatment is based on Ref. [@MWB_HO]. The isospin-odd contribution is given in terms of a $\rho$-exchange model, while the isospin-even term is described as the combined effect of a phenomenological short-range (SR) process (Fig. \[diag2\]b) and an effective scalar-meson ($\sigma$) exchange of Fig. \[diag2\]a. The two latter mechanisms act in opposite directions and almost cancel each other in case of the free pion-nucleon scattering. However, an off-shell enhancement of the probability amplitude takes place in the scalar-isoscalar channel for pion production off a bound system. A question still remains open, if this form mimics other physical effects, such as the 2$N$ SR-exchange contributions proposed in Ref. [@LeeRiska] (see also Ref. [@Hanhart], where the current status of theory and phenomenology of pion production in $NN$ collisions close to threshold is reviewed).
Further details (in particular, the treatment of the fully antisymmetrized matrix elements with respect to the Faddeev three-nucleon wave function) are not discussed here and can be found in the papers [@CantonSchad; @Canton_ea_1; @Canton_ea_2]. The three-body dynamics in the initial state has been described following the treatment [@Januschke] of the low-energy proton-deuteron scattering, with the set of the AGS equations being reduced through application of the spline-interpolation technique to a linear equation system.
In Fig. \[fig-Ay-1\],
the results for the proton analyzing power are compared with what has been observed in experiments. For the three different phenomenological nucleon-nucleon potentials, one observes an additional peak at $\Theta_{\rm c.m.} \simeq 100^{\circ}$ when going from $E_{\rm lab}=350$ MeV towards higher energies. This behaviour is fully explained by the model calculation, once the ISI involving the three-nucleon dynamics is taken into account. Otherwise, if one neglects these three-body effects in the initial channel, the structure of the observable is poorly reproduced.
In generation of this structure, another quantity that plays an important role is the angular momentum of the intermediate $\Delta N$ state. While $l_\Delta=0$ is sufficient in description of the general behaviour of the excitation function (see Ref. [@CantonSchad]), one must consider higher $\Delta N$ partial waves, at least up to $l_{\Delta}=2$, in case of the analyzing power $A_y$. As follows from Fig. \[fig-Ay-2\],
there is no need, however, to go beyond this value, since the numerical convergence is already reached with the $\Delta N$ $D$-waves.
Apart from the analyzing power $A_y$, also the angular differential cross-section has always been a challenge for the theory. Recent COSY data [@GEM] provided new information about the shape of the cross-section, being at the same time consistent with earlier TRIUMF measurements [@Cameron]. All these data compare fairly well with our calculations, as shown in Fig. \[fig-diff-1\].
Indeed, almost all of the data points fall in the strip determined by the calculations performed with different $NN$ potentials. It is worth noting that for higher energies and backward angles, the data seem to favor more the Paris potential, while in the lower part of the energy range considered, the Bonn potentials (Bonn-B, in particular) give rise to the results which are closer to the data.
To summarize, we have described the pionic capture processes in nucleon-deuteron collisions employing elementary production mechanisms obtained from the non-relativistic reduction of the phenomenological $\pi N$ and $\pi\Delta$ Hamiltonians. The corresponding matrix elements between the three-nucleon states have been evaluated within a large-basis space, consisting of 464 three-nucleon partial waves. Total angular momenta of the system up to $7/2$ for both the parities have been considered. The prescriptions required by the Pauli principle have been taken into account through the application of the permutation formalism to the three-nucleon system. Finally, these matrix elements have been folded with the nuclear WF to obtain the probability amplitudes, with the complete details of the procedure being outlined in Refs. [@CantonSchad; @Canton_ea_1; @Canton_ea_2]. In the calculation of the plane-wave part of the amplitude, we mainly follow these papers. The only difference is modification of the standard Jacobi momentum set for the system through the replacement of the pion mass by its total energy, what is more adequate to the kinematics of the present calculations. An extended paper explaining this and some other ingredients of the model is in progress. However, much more important turns out to be our regard of the $3N$ dynamics in the initial proton-deuteron state, which was not extensively investigated in the previous treatment of the reaction.
The results obtained suggest that one achieves a fairly good reproduction of the phenomenology, when including, in addition to the $\Delta$-rescattering mechanism, the $\rho$-exchange process in the $S$-wave, as well as another $S$-wave mechanism that generates a significant amount of interaction in the scalar-isoscalar $\pi N$ channel. On the contrary, the one-body term (the off-energy-shell ${\pi { NN}}$ vertex) adds contributions that are significantly smaller. For the scalar-isoscalar component we have considered an off-shell model [@MWB_HO], which has been used before. We do not claim here that this particular way to generate the flux in the scalar-isoscalar channel is more realistic than other alternatives ([e.g.]{}, the above-mentioned SR-exchange contributions proposed in Ref. [@LeeRiska]). A study on how really the flux is generated in the scalar-isoscalar channel is beyond the scope of the present work, but can represent at this point a subject for future investigations. We hope that studies of spin observables close to threshold of this specific reaction can shed light on that problem.
This work shows that, with a combination of two-body mechanisms, one can explain the structure of the proton analyzing power $A_y$, which has been accurately measured about 20 years ago and represented since then a challenge for theorists, being a difficult observable to interpret. We conclude that it is possible to reproduce qualitatively the nontrivial energy dependence of $A_y$ around the $\Delta$ resonance, provided that the three-body nuclear dynamics in the initial state is taken into account. It is worth mentioning also that we have made use of the techniques that have been developed, in fact, mainly for low-energy few-nucleon applications. It is remarkable that they can be successfully used in this energy regime, where the use of the three-body non-relativistic quantum-mechanical equations and the concept of the standard $NN$ potentials is, in some sense, questionable.
L.G.L. is indebted to the University of Padova and INFN for their kind hospitality and support in October-November, 2003 and April-August, 2004.
[21]{} M. Ruderman, Phys. Rev. [**87**]{}, 383 (1952). M. P. Locher and H. J. Weber, Nucl. Phys. [**B76**]{}, 400 (1974). H. Fearing, Phys. Rev. C [**4**]{}, 1210 (1975). J. F. Germond and C. Wilkin, J. Phys. G [**14**]{}, 181 (1988). W. R. Falk, Phys.Rev. C [**61**]{}, 034005 (2000). A. M. Green and M. E. Sainio, Nucl. Phys. [**A329**]{}, 477 (1979). J. M. Laget and J. F. Lecolley, Phys. Lett. B [**194**]{}, 177 (1987). J. M. Cameron [[*et al.*]{}]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**A472**]{}, 718 (1987). L. Canton and W. Schadow, Phys. Rev. C [**61**]{}, 064009 (2000); [*i*bid.]{} [**56**]{}, 1231 (1997); L. Canton [[*et al.*]{}]{}, [*i*bid.]{} [**57**]{}, 1588 (1998), L. Canton [[*et al.*]{}]{}, nucl-th/0210078. L. Canton, J. P. Svenne, and G. Cattapan, Phys. Rev. C [**48**]{}, 1562 (1993). L. Canton, A. Davini, and J. P. Dortmans, Phys. Rev. C [**58**]{}, 1929 (1998); L. Canton, G. Cattapan, P. J. Dortmans, G. Pisent, and J. P. Svenne, Can. J. Phys. [**74**]{} 209 (1996); P. J. Dortmans, L. Canton, and K. Amos, J. Phys. G [**23**]{} 479 (1997). E. O. Alt, P. Grassberger, and W. Sandhas, Nucl. Phys. [**B2**]{}, 167 (1967). D. Koltun and A. Reitan, Phys. Rev. [**141**]{}, 1413 (1966). O. V. Maxwell, W. Weise, and M. Brack, Nucl. Phys. [**A348**]{}, 338 (1980); E. Hernandez and E. Oset, Phys. Lett. [**B350**]{} 158, (1995). T.-S. H. Lee and D. O. Riska, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 2237 (1993). C. Hanhart, Phys. Rep. [**397**]{} 155, (2004); H. Machner and J. Haidenbauer, J. Phys. G [**25**]{} R231, (1999). T. Januschke, Ph.D. thesis, Bonn University, 1990. R. Abegg [[*et al.*]{}]{}, Proc. X Int. Conf. of Few-Body Problems in Physics, Karlsruhe, [**2**]{} 255 (1983) (B. Zeitnitz ed.) J. Cameron [[*et al.*]{}]{}, Phys. Lett. [**103 B**]{}, 317 (1981). J. Lolos [[*et al.*]{}]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**A422**]{}, 582 (1984). S. Abdel-Samad [[*et al.*]{}]{}, Phys. Lett. [**553 B**]{}, 31 (2003).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'G. Gilli'
- 'G. Israelian'
- 'A. Ecuvillon'
- 'N.C. Santos'
- 'M. Mayor'
date: 'Received 19 Jul 2005/ Accepted 06 Dec 2005 '
title: 'Abundances of refractory elements in the atmospheres of stars with extrasolar planets[^1]'
---
[This work presents a uniform and homogeneous study of chemical abundances of refractory elements in 101 stars with and 94 without known planetary companions. We carry out an in-depth investigation of the abundances of Si, Ca, Sc, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Co, Ni, Na, Mg and Al. The new comparison sample, spanning the metallicity range $-0.70< [$Fe$/$H$]< 0.50$, fills the gap that previously existed, mainly at high metallicities, in the number of stars without known planets.]{} [We used an enlarged set of data including new observations, especially for the field “single” comparison stars . The line list previously studied by other authors was improved: on average we analysed 90 spectral lines in every spectrum and carefully measured more than 16600 equivalent widths (EW) to calculate the abundances.]{} [We investigate possible differences between the chemical abundances of the two groups of stars, both with and without planets. The results are globally comparable to those obtained by other authors, and in most cases the abundance trends of planet-host stars are very similar to those of the comparison sample. ]{} [This work represents a step towards the comprehension of recently discovered planetary systems. These results could also be useful for verifying galactic models at high metallicities and consequently improve our knowledge of stellar nucleosynthesis and galactic chemical evolution.]{}
Introduction
============
Over the last ten years a large number of stars harbouring planets have been found. The first giant planet was discovered around 51 Peg by Mayor & Queloz (1995) and there are more than 150 planetary-mass companions presently known orbiting solar-type stars. The growing number of extrasolar planets[^2] has activated intensive study of these objects and their parent stars, and nowadays extensive studies of the properties of the new planetary systems are conceivable. Several spectroscopic analyses of iron abundances (Gonzalez 1998; Gonzalez et al. 2001; Laws et al. 2003; Santos et al. 2001a,2001b, 2003, 2004a,b, 2005) have suggested that planet-host stars are more metal-rich than field dwarfs. These results show that the probability of finding a planet is a strongly increasing function of stellar metallicity, at least for \[Fe/H\] above solar value. Two interpretations, the *self-enrichment hypothesis* and the *primordial hypothesis*, have been proposed to explain a possible connection between the metallicity excess and the presence of planets. The former considers that the observed iron overabundances derives from the accretion of a large amount of rocky planetesimal material on to the star (Gonzalez 1997). The latter, the “primordial scenario”, suggests that the iron excess in stars with planets just reflects the high metal content of the protoplanetary cloud from which stars and planets were formed (Santos et al. 2000, 2001a,2001b).
In this context, abundance trends of chemical species other than iron can give important clues in this debate, so that discriminating between these two possibilities will help in understanding how planetary systems form. Efforts have been made to analyse the chemical abundances of light elements (e.g. García López & Pérez de Taoro 1998; Gonzalez & Laws 2000; Ryan 2000; Deliyannis et al. 2000; Israelian et al. 2003a, 2004; Santos et al. 2002, 2004b), as well as other metals (e.g. Gonzalez & Laws 2000; Gonzalez et al. 2001; Smith et al. 2001; Takeda et al. 2001; Sadakane et al. 2002; Fisher & Valenti 2005). Most of these authors considered inhomogeneous comparison samples of field dwarfs from the literature that might be a source of systematic errors. The majority of these studies support the primordial hypothesis (Pinsonneault et al. 2001; Santos et al. 2001a,2001b, 2002; Sadakane et al. 2002), but evidence of pollution has been found for a few cases (Israelian et al. 2001,2003a,2003b; Low & Gonzalez 2001).
Unbiased and homogeneous studies of Fe abundance in stars with and without planets have been performed by Santos et al. (2001a, 2003, 2004a, 2005). Similar studies have been recently carried out for elements other than iron. Refractory elements (some $\alpha$ and Fe-group elements) have been analysed by Bodaghee et al. (2003); all volatile elements (C, S, Zn, N, O) have been studied by Ecuvillon et al. (2004a,2004b, 2005) and Na, Al and Mg by Beirão et al. (2005). These studies all required a uniform high-metallicity comparison, given the lack of “single” field stars in the data for \[Fe/H\]$>0.1$. We provide results using new and more precise atmospheric parameters from high quality spectra and also complete the high-metallicity comparison between the two samples.
In this paper we present a detailed, homogeneous and uniform study of Si, Ca, Ti, Sc, V, Cr, Mn, Co, Ni, Na, Mg and Al in a set of 101 planet-harbouring stars and a group of 94 solar-type stars with no known planets in the metallicity range $-0.70< $\[Fe/H\] $<0.45$. We have made use of about 16600 EWs measured to calculate the \[$X$/H\] ratio for each element and have plotted the results in the \[$X$/$H$\] vs. \[Fe/H\] and \[X/Fe\] vs. \[Fe/H\] planes.
\[linee\]
----------- ------------ ------------ ------- ----------- ------------ ------------
$\lambda$ $\chi_{l}$ $\log{gf}$ $\lambda$ $\chi_{l}$ $\log{gf}$
5665.56 4.92 $-$1.980 5304.18 3.46 $-$0.680
5690.43 4.93 $-$1.790 5312.86 3.45 $-$0.580
5701.10 4.93 $-$2.020 5318.77 3.44 $-$0.710
5772.14 5.08 $-$1.620 5480.51 3.50 $-$0.830
5793.09 4.93 $-$1.910 5574.39 4.45 $-$0.480
5948.55 5.08 $-$1.110 5783.07 3.32 $-$0.400
6125.02 5.61 $-$1.520 5783.87 3.32 $-$0.150
6142.49 5.62 $-$1.480 5787.92 3.32 $-$0.110
6145.02 5.61 $-$1.400
6155.15 5.62 $-$0.750 4265.92 2.94 $-$ 0.440
6721.86 5.86 $-$1.090 4470.13 2.94 $-$ 0.550
4502.13 2.92 $-$ 0.490
5512.98 2.93 $-$0.440 5399.47 3.85 $-$0.0969
5581.97 2.52 $-$0.650 5413.68 3.85 $-$0.470
5590.12 2.52 $-$0.710 5432.54 0.00 $-$3.620
5867.56 2.93 $-$1.590 6440.93 3.77 $-$1.250
6161.29 2.52 $-$1.220
6166.44 2.52 $-$1.120 5301.04 1.71 $-$1.930
6169.05 2.52 $-$0.730 5325.27 4.02 $-$0.120
6169.56 2.52 $-$0.440 5342.70 4.02 0.574
6449.82 2.52 $-$0.630 5483.36 1.71 $-$1.220
6455.60 2.52 $-$1.370 5647.23 2.28 $-$1.580
6093.15 1.74 $-$2.340
5239.82 1.45 $-$0.760 6455.00 3.63 $-$0.280
5318.36 1.36 $-$1.700
5526.82 1.77 0.150 5578.72 1.68 $-$2.650
6245.62 1.51 $-$1.040 5587.86 1.93 $-$2.380
6300.69 1.51 $-$1.960 5682.20 4.10 $-$0.390
6320.84 1.50 $-$1.840 5694.99 4.09 $-$0.600
6604.60 1.36 $-$1.160 5805.22 4.17 $-$0.580
5847.00 1.68 $-$3.410
5471.20 1.44 $-$1.550 6086.28 4.26 $-$0.440
5474.23 1.46 $-$1.360 6111.07 4.09 $-$0.800
5490.15 1.46 $-$0.980 6128.98 1.68 $-$3.370
5866.46 1.07 $-$0.840 6130.14 4.26 $-$0.950
6091.18 2.27 $-$0.460
6126.22 1.07 $-$0.410 5688.22 2.104 $-$ 0.625
6258.11 1.44 $-$0.440 6154.23 2.102 $-$ 1.607
6261.11 1.43 $-$0.490 6160.75 2.104 $-$ 1.316
6303.76 1.44 $-$1.600
6312.24 1.46 $-$1.580 5711.09 4.346 $-$ 1.706
6318.72 5.108 $-$ 1.996
5668.37 1.08 $-$1.00 6319.24 5.108 $-$ 2.179
5670.85 1.08 $-$0.460 8712.69 5.932 $-$ 1.204
5727.05 1.08 $-$0.000 8736.02 5.946 $-$ 0.224
5727.66 1.05 $-$0.890
5737.07 1.06 $-$0.770 6696.03 3.143 $-$ 1.570
6090.21 1.08 $-$0.150 6698.67 3.143 $-$ 1.879
6216.35 0.28 $-$0.900 7835.31 4.022 $-$ 0.728
6285.16 0.28 $-$1.650 7836.13 4.022 $-$ 0.559
6452.31 1.19 $-$0.820 8772.87 4.022 $-$ 0.425
8773.91 4.022 $-$ 0.212
----------- ------------ ------------ ------- ----------- ------------ ------------
:
--------------------------- ------------------ ----------------------------- ------------
Spectrograph/Telescope Observatory Resolution Range
($\lambda$/$\Delta\lambda$) (Å)
CORALIE/1.2-m Ewler Swiss La Silla(Chile) 50000 3800-6800
FEROS/1.52-m ESO La Silla (Chile) 48000 3600-9200
UVES/VLT 8-mKuyen UT2 Paranal (Chile) 110000 4800-6800
SARG/3.5-m TNG ORM (la Palma) 57000 5100-10100
UES/4-m WHT ORM (la Palma) 55000 4600-7800
--------------------------- ------------------ ----------------------------- ------------
\[strum\]
Data
====
All the objects from the comparison sample belong to the CORALIE extrasolar-planets-finding programme [^3]. The high resolution spectra are the same as those used by Santos et al. (2004a) to derive precise and uniform stellar parameters for 98 planet-host stars and 41 comparison sample “single” dwarfs in a volume-limited sample in the solar neigborhood ($<$ 20 pc). It should be pointed out that the star HD 219542 B was excluded from the planet-host list presented in Santos et al. (2004a) since the presence of a planet around this star has been rejected (Desidera et al. 2004). All our spectra were collected during several observing campaigns with the CORALIE spectrograph on the 1.2 m Euler Swiss Telescope, the FEROS spectrograph on the 2.2 m ESO/MPI Telescope (both at La Silla, Chile), the UVES spectrograph on the VLT/UT2 Kueyen Telescope (Paranal Observatory, ESO, Chile), the SARG spectrograph on the 3.5 m TNG and the UES spectrograph on the 4.2 m WHT (both at the Roque de los Muchachos Observatory, La Palma, Spain). The spectrograph and data characterisctics are listed in Table \[strum\].\
In order to extend the number of stars in a comparison sample, we added 48 FEROS spectra from Santos et al. (2005) and five new SARG spectra. We refer the reader to this paper for a description of the data. The [S/N]{} ratio of the spectra varies between 150 and 350. New high [S/N]{} spectra obtained in 2004 with VLT/UVES have been used as well (see Ecuvillon et al. 2004a,2004b, 2005)
-- --
-- --
Spectral analysis
=================
Chemical abundances of the nine refractory elements studied here, as well as Na, Mg and Al, were derived performing a standard local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) analysis, strictly differential with respect to the Sun. Solar abundances for each element were taken from Anders & Grevesse (1989) using a solar model with $T_{\rm eff}$ = 5777 K, $\log g$ = 4.44 dex, $\xi_{t}$ = 1.0 km s$^{-1}$. We used a revised version (2002) of the MOOG code (Sneden 1973)[^4] (with the **abfind** driver) and a grid of Kurucz (1993) ATLAS9 atmospheres. The atmospheric parameters, effective temperature ($T_{\rm eff}$), surface gravity ($\log g$), microturbolence ($\xi_{t}$) and metallicity (\[$Fe$/$H$\]), and their corresponding uncertainties, were taken from Santos et al. (2004a, 2005). It should be stressed that these stellar parameters were derived in a uniform way, using high resolution spectra, the same line list and model atmospheres for all the stars. The spectral lines of the refractory elements analysed here were extracted from the study by Bodaghee et al. (2003), while the line lists of Na, Mg and Al were taken from Beir[ã]{}o et al. (2005). These lists were successively modified in order to minimize abundance errors. Since the V I line at 6531.42 Å, the Mn I line at 5388.50 Åand the Co I lines at 5312.86 Å and 6632.44 Å were difficult to measure in most of the spectra (too weak or blended), we eliminated them from the list. We also excluded the Mg line at 8923.57 Å because it was not measurable in the new Feros spectra analysed for Na, Mg and Al. We added more lines of V, Mn and Co from Gurtovenko & Kostik (1989). Before including these lines in our list, we first verified that each line was not too strong and checked for possible blending, using the Kurucz Solar Atlas (Kurucz et al. 1984). For these new lines we derived semi-empirical atomic oscillator strengths using their EWs measured in the solar atmosphere with ($T_{\rm eff}$, $\log g$, $\xi_{t}$)= 5770 K, 4.44 dex and 1.0 km $s^{-1}$), and performed an inverted solar analysis. The number of lines increased from 5 to 9 for V, from 3 to 8 for Mn, and from 5 to 7 for Co.
Finally, we considered about 80 spectral lines for the analysis of refractory elements in each spectrum and about 14 lines for the study of Na, Mg and Al abundances (see Table \[linee\]) in 53 new FEROS and SARG spectra. We have measured about 16600 equivalent widths in our spectra. For each spectral line EWs were measured by a Gaussian fit using the *splot* task within the “echelle” IRAF package.[^5] Furthermore we employed a new program (IRAF scripts) written by N. C. Santos for automatic measure of the EWs of Na, Mg and Al lines. This program was previously used to measure the EWs of a list of Fe lines (Santos et al. 2005). Every measurement was taken carefully achieving the best agreement between lines profile and Gaussian fits. About 25% of the equivalent widths used to calculate abundances come from Bodaghee et al. (2003), whose stellar parameters have been updated by Santos et al. (2004a, 2005). Detailed observational data (e.g. line-by-line EWs for each element) are available as an electronic table (Table 11) at the Centre des Données Strasbourg (CDS). \[anal\]
Uncertainties {#erro}
-------------
We have tested the dependence of our results on atmospheric parameters (Fig. \[slope\]) and refer the reader to the Figs 1–2 by Beir[ã]{}o et al. (2005) for the plots of \[$X$/Fe\] ($X$ = Na, Mg, Al) [vs.]{} $T_{\rm eff}$ and [vs.]{} $\log g$. In Table \[tabNLTE\] are listed the slopes of the \[$X$/Fe\] ratios for refractory elements as a function of $T_{\rm eff}$ for all stars in the distributions. We observe no characteristic trends for the majority of the elements studied. In the case of Ti, V and Co we note decreasing trends for the \[$X$/Fe\] ratio corresponding to $T_{\rm eff}$ values greater than 5500 K. This trend could be caused by NLTE effects which, however, contribute mostly in the case of the more metal-poor stars. We do not take NLTE effects into account because they are usually small in metal-rich stars for complex atoms such as iron (see Edvardsson et al. 1993; Th[é]{}venin & Idiart 1999). On the other hand, although NLTE effects have not been studied for a number of elements (e.g. V, Co, etc.), they are nonetheless not thought to alter the main conclusion of the present paper. Some unknown blended lines may also be responsible for these trends. In fact, the overestimation of EWs caused by the increasing blending effects becomes more severe at lower $T_{\rm
eff}$.
The distribution of planet-hosts and non-planet-host stars as function of $T_{\rm eff}$ shows that the latter are on average cooler (see Fig. \[istemp\]). To verify this, we selected randomly two subgroups of stars (planet and no-planet hosts) with the same $T_{\rm eff}$ distributions and obtained the \[$X$/H\] distribution for Ti, V and Co. We repeated this process for 200 randomly selected subgroups and calculated the average distribution for each element (Ti, V, Co). In Fig. \[istotest\] we observed the same behaviour as that found for all the stars analysed. In both cases the differences between average \[$X$/H\] for hosts and no-hosts are of the same order (see Table \[tabmed\].
[lr|lr]{} Species & Slopes $\pm$ rms & Species & Slopes $\pm$ rms\
Si & $-0.015 \pm 0.010$ & Cr & $-0.007 \pm 0.007$\
Ca & $0.057 \pm 0.013$ & Mn & $-0.029 \pm 0.020$\
Sc & $-0.014 \pm 0.011$ & Co & $-0.122 \pm 0.012$\
Ti & $-0.137\pm 0.015$ & Ni & $ 0.023 \pm 0.008$\
V & $-0.242 \pm 0.015$ &\
In contrast, systematic errors are difficult to locate but are largely reduced by good data quality and good instrumental resolution. Since we have analysed more than one line for each element (usually 7–8 lines) in a given star, the total dispersions around the average abundance are more significant compared to the continuum observed uncertainties, which are usually around 0.05 dex.
[|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c| ]{} Star & Si & Ca & Sc & Ti & V& Cr & Mn & Co & Ni\
($T_{\rm eff}$;\[$Fe$/$H$\];$\log g $;$\xi_{t}$) & & & & & & & & &\
\
HD 50281A & $\mp$0.06 & $\pm$0.12 & $\mp$0.01 & $\pm$ 0.14 & $\pm$ 0.15 & $\pm$ 0.06 & $\pm$ 0.05 & $\pm$ 0.01&$\mp$0.01\
(4685;$-$0.04;4.32;0.64) & & & & & & & & &\
HD 43162 & $\pm$ 0.01 & $\pm$ 0.08 & $\mp$0.01 & $\pm$ 0.10 & $\pm$ 0.11 & $\pm$ 0.06 & $\pm$0.06 & $\pm$0.06 & $\pm$ 0.05\
(5633;$-$0.01;4.48;1.24 )& & & & & & & & &\
HD 10647 & $\pm$ 0.03 & $\pm$ 0.07 & $\mp$ 0.01 & $\pm$ 0.09 & $\pm$ 0.10 & $\pm$ 0.05 &$\pm$ 0.06 & $\pm$ 0.07 & $\pm$ 0.06\
(6143;$-$0.03;4.48;1.40) & & & & & & & & &\
\
HD 10697 & $\pm$ 0.00 & $\mp$0.06 & $\pm$ 0.11 & $\mp$0.01& $\mp$ 0.01 & $\mp$0.01 &$\mp$ 0.02 & $\pm$0.01 & $\pm$0.00\
(5641;0.14;4.05;1.13)& & & & & & & & &\
HD168443 & $\pm$0.01 & $\mp$0.07 & $\pm$0.12 & $\mp$ 0.01& $\mp$ 0.00 & $\mp$ 0.02 & $\mp$0.02 & $\pm$0.01 & $\pm$0.00\
(5617;0.06;4.22;1.21)& & & & & & & & &\
HD 28185 & $\pm$ 0.00 & $\mp$0.09 & $\pm$ 0.11 & $\mp$ 0.02& $\mp$ 0.02 & $\mp$ 0.03 & $\mp$0.04 &$\pm$0.02 & $\pm$ 0.01\
(5656;0.22;4.45;1.01)& & & & & & & & &\
\
HD 6434 & $\pm$ 0.01 & $\pm$ 0.00 & $\pm$0.06 & $\mp$0.01& $\mp$0.01 & $\pm$0.00 & $\pm$0.00 & $\pm$0.00 & $\pm$0.00\
(5835;$-$0.52;4.60;1.53)& & & & & & & & &\
HD147513 & $\pm$ 0.00 & $\pm$ 0.02 & $\pm$ 0.08 &$\mp$0.01& $\mp$0.01 & $\pm$ 0.00 & $\pm$ 0.00 & $\pm$0.01 & $\pm$ 0.01\
(5894;0.08;4.43;1.26)& & & & & & & & &\
HD 4203 & $\pm$ 0.00 & $\pm$ 0.03 & $\pm$ 0.10 & $\mp$0.00& $\mp$0.01 & $\pm$ 0.01 & $\pm$ 0.02 &$\pm$ 0.03 & $\pm$ 0.04\
(5636;0.40;4.23;1.12& & & & & & & & &\
\
HD 69830 & $\mp$0.02 & $\mp$0.07 &$\pm$ 0.01 & $\pm$ 0.00 & $\mp$0.07 & $\mp$0.04 & $\mp$0.08 & $\mp$0.06&$\mp$0.06\
(5410;$-$0.03;4.38;0.89) & & & & & & & & &\
HD 43162 & $\mp$ 0.02 & $\mp$ 0.08 & $\mp$ 0.06 & $\mp$ 0.05 & $\mp$0.04 & $\mp$0.04 & $\mp$0.08 & $\mp$0.05 & $\mp$0.05\
(5633;$-$0.01;4.48;1.24 )& & & & & & & & &\
HD 84117 & $\mp$0.02 & $\mp$ 0.08 & $\mp$ 0.06 & $\mp$ 0.05 & $\mp$ 0.04 & $\mp$ 0.05 &$\mp$0.05 & $\mp$ 0.02 & $\mp$0.04\
(6167;$-$0.03;4.35;1.42 )& & & & & & & & &\
\[sens\]
When analysing many lines to calculate abundances, uncertainties in the atmospheric parameters should be the primary source of abundance errors. These are of the order of 50 K in $T_{Â\rm eff}$, 0.12 dex in $\log g$, 0.08 km $s^{-1}$ in $\xi_{t}$ and 0.05 dex in \[Fe/H\] (see Santos et al. 2004b, 2005). The abundance sensitivity to changes in atmospheric parameters were estimated as follows. First we selected a set of 12 stars from our list: for each atmospheric parameter we chose three stars with similar values for all the parameters except for the one considered, which must vary within the sample. We then generated new atmospheric models, changing only the “varying” parameter and calculating the corresponding abundances. The difference between these values and those obtained without varying the parameter, give us the abundance sensitivity to changes in the parameters. Tables \[sens\] and \[sens2\] show these results after varying the effective temperature by $\Delta T_{\rm eff}= \pm 100 $ , surface gravity by $\Delta \log g= \pm 0.30 \, dex$, metallicity by $\Delta [$Fe$/$H$]= \pm 0.30 \,dex$ and microturbulence by $\Delta \xi_t = \pm 0.50 \, km\,s^{-1}$. We note that ions such as Sc II are generally more sensitive to changes in surface gravity, while neutral atoms are influenced mostly by uncertainties in the effective temperature. At a glance, we observe from Table \[sens\] that the V and Ti abundances can vary with temperature changes of $\Delta[$X$/$H$]\sim \pm 0.12 \, dex$, while we associate $\Delta [Sc/H]\sim \pm 0.11 \, dex$ with changes in surface gravity. With respect to Table \[sens2\] we note that Na abundances are more sensitive to variations in atmospheric parameters (e.g. $T_{Â\rm eff}$ and $\log g$) than Mg and Al. Finally, we evaluated the errors in the abundances of all the elements, adding quadratically the standard deviation of the mean abundance obtained from all the measured lines and the uncertainties dued to the abundance sensitivities to changes in the atmospheric parameters. For each star these “total” errors are of the order of 0.10 dex.
[|l|c|c|c|]{} Star & Na & Mg & Al\
($T_{\rm eff}$;\[$Fe$/$H$\];$\log g $;$\xi_{t}$) & & &\
\
HD 50281A & $\pm$0.09 & $\pm$0.00 & $\pm$0.07\
(4685;$-$0.04;4.32;0.64) & & &\
HD 43162 & $\pm$ 0.05 & $\pm$0.05 & $\pm$0.05\
(5633;$-$0.01;4.48;1.24 )& & &\
HD 10647 & $\pm$0.05 & $\pm$0.05 & $\pm$0.05\
(6143;$-$0.03;4.48;1.40) & & &\
\
HD 10697 & $\mp$0.12 & $\mp$0.05 &$\mp$ 0.02\
(5641;0.14;4.05;1.13)& & &\
HD168443 & $\mp$0.11 & $\mp$0.05 & $\mp$0.03\
(5617;0.06;4.22;1.21)& & &\
HD 28185 & $\mp$0.05 & $\mp$0.03 & $\mp$0.03\
(5656;0.22;4.45;1.01)& & &\
\
HD 6434 & $\mp$0.01 & $\mp$0.04 & $\mp$0.01\
(5835;$-$0.52;4.60;1.53)& & &\
HD147513 & $\pm$0.02 & $\mp$ 0.04 & $\pm$0.00\
(5894;0.08;4.43;1.26)& & &\
HD 4203 & $\pm$0.02 & $\pm$0.06 &$\pm$ 0.00\
(5636;0.40;4.23;1.12 & & &\
\
HD 69830 & $\mp$0.02 & $\mp$0.04 & $\mp$0.02\
(5410;$-$0.03;4.38;0.89) & & &\
HD 43162 & $\mp$0.02 & $\mp$0.04 & $\mp$0.02\
(5633;$-$0.01;4.48;1.24 )& & &\
HD 84117 & $\pm$ 0.02 & $\pm$0.04 & $\mp$ 0.03\
(6167;$-$0.03;4.35;1.42 )& & &\
\[sens2\]
Results
=======
Bodaghee et al. (2003) recently carried out a spectroscopic analysis of the same refractory elements as those presented in our work while Beir[ã]{}o et al. (2005) did the same for Na, Mg and Al. These authors did not find any significant differences between planet host and comparison-sample stars, a result in perfect agreement with our findings. Because of the lack of comparison sample stars with \[Fe/H\] $>0.1$ dex in previous studies, the abundance distribution of stars with giant planets looked like a high metallicity extension of the curves traced by field dwarfs without planets. New spectra of metal-rich stars with no planets have been gathered, and consequently a complete comparison is also possible in the high metallicity domain. It is still conceivable that certain specific trends found for the metal-rich tail of Galactic chemical evolution are due to the presence of planets (see plots for Co, V, Na, Mg, Al in Figs \[fig1\], \[fignew\]). However, we should stress that even the new comparison sample contains about 20% of stars at \[Fe/H\] $>0.1$. All the results, together with their total errors (see Sec. \[erro\]), are listed in the Tables 7-10. Furthermore, we have compared the abundances calculated with EW values measured with different instruments. As shown in Fig. \[compa\], we did not detect any significant discrepancies among the abundance values for the nine refractory elements.
-- -- --
-- -- --
--------- ------------------- ---------- ------------------- ---------- -------
Species Average
(X) $<$\[$X$/$H$\]$>$ $\sigma$ $<$\[$X$/$H$\]$>$ $\sigma$ diff.
Si 0.09 0.20 $-$0.13 0.24 0.23
Ca $-$0.01 0.19 $-$0.22 0.22 0.22
Ti 0.15 0.17 0.01 0.19 0.14
Sc 0.16 0.20 $-$0.08 0.24 0.25
V 0.21 0.24 0.08 0.26 0.13
Cr 0.04 0.22 $-$0.18 0.25 0.22
Mn 0.15 0.33 $-$0.14 0.33 0.29
Co 0.16 0.25 $-$0.04 0.26 0.20
Ni 0.09 0.24 $-$0.17 0.27 0.26
Na 0.12 0.24 $-$0.17 0.26 0.29
Mg 0.19 0.19 $-$0.05 0.21 0.23
Al 0.19 0.21 $-$0.01 0.23 0.18
--------- ------------------- ---------- ------------------- ---------- -------
\[tabmed\]
-- --
-- --
The histograms provide the distributions of \[$X$/H\] with $X$ = Si, Ca, Sc, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Co and Ni (Fig. \[isto\]), and with $X$ = Na, Mg, Al (Fig. \[istonew\]) for the two samples of stars, with and without planets. These results are similar to those presented for \[Fe/H\] by Santos et al. (2004a, 2005) and clearly confirm that the observed metallicity excess is, as expected when extended to elements other than iron. We observe similar features to those noted in the \[$X$/H\] distribution for refractory elements (Bodaghee et al. 2003) and for iron (Santos et al. 2001a, 2004a; Reid 2002). For example, these histograms of planet-host stars are usually not symmetrical. This interesting feature is particularly evident for Ca, Sc, Co, Ni, Na and Al, for which the distribution seems to be an increasing function of \[$X$/H\] up to a certain value, after which it falls abruptly. This cut-off corresponds to \[$X$/H\] $\sim 0.5$ for Si, Ti, Ni, Na, \[$X$/H\] $\sim 0.7$ for V, Cr, Mn and Co and \[$X$/H\] $\sim 0.6$ for Mg and Al. Only in the case of Ca does the distribution fall to \[$X$/H\] $\sim 0.3$. For some elements (e.g. Ti, V, Cr, Mg) the distributions appear to be slightly bimodal. This is probably related to a lack of stars with \[$X$/H\] $\sim 0.3$ in the planet-host sample and \[$X$/H\] $\sim -0.2$ in the comparison group for these elements. The average values $<$\[$X$/H\]$>$, the rms dispersions for the two distribution, and the difference between the average \[$X$/H\] for stars with and without planets are listed in Table \[tabmed\]. We note that this difference varies from 0.13 dex for V to 0.29 dex for Mn and Na. The difference between the average abundance values of the two groups (see Table \[tabmed\]) is only an estimate and is not very significant, given the usually high dispersion around the mean values.
In Fig. \[fig0\] are shown \[$X$/H\] [vs.]{} \[Fe/H\] plots for refractory elements. The \[$X$/H\] ratio is a linear function of \[Fe/H\] and the small amount of scatter give a certain plausibility to our results. We refer the reader to the Fig. 5 by Beir[ã]{}o et al. (2005) for the plots of \[$X$/H\] [vs.]{} \[Fe/H\] (X= Na, Mg and Al). These plots are not presented here because adding 53 new comparison sample stars did not change the results for these elements. However, \[$X$/Fe\] [vs.]{} \[Fe/H\] plots for Na, Mg and Al are shown in Figure \[fignew\].
Galactic chemical evolution trends
==================================
With the exception of the lightest elements (e.g. H and He), the history of the Galaxy’s chemical composition is dominated by nucleosynthesis occurring in many generations of stars (McWilliam 1997). The low-mass stars are like “fossils” because their lifetimes are sometimes comparable to the age of the Galaxy. It might actually be supposed that, at least for F–G dwarfs, the external envelope of the stars have preserved much of their original chemical composition, since it has not been convectively mixed with internal matter. The relation \[$X$/Fe\] [vs.]{} \[Fe/H\] is traditionally used in observational studies of the chemical evolution of the Galaxy since iron is a good chronological indicator of nucleosynthesis (controversial). Furthermore, iron lines are numerous and easy to measure in the spectra of dwarfs.
In Fig. \[fignew\] we present \[$X$/Fe\] [vs.]{} \[Fe/H\] plots for Na, Mg and Al taken from the work by Beir[ã]{}o et al. (2005) with the addition of abundances from a new comparison sample. We also did calculations relative to the iron abundances (\[$X$/Fe\]) of $\alpha$ elements (e.g. Si, Ca, Ti) and of iron-peak elements (e.g. Cr, Mn, Co, Ni). The former are believed to be mostly produced in the aftermath of explosions of type II supernovae (SNe II), although, following some models, these elements might also be produced during a type Ia supernova (SN Ia) event (Thielmann et al. 2002). Meanwhile, most of the latter would have been synthesized by SNe Ia explosions. Magnesium is supposed to be produced by SNe II, thus comparing Mg abundances with those found for other $\alpha$ elements could provide us with evidence concerning the origin of these elements. Sodium and aluminium are thought to be mostly a product of Ne and C burning in massive stars. It is not clear how Sc is formed, because in the periodic table it is intermediate between $\alpha$ and iron-peak elements. The origin of manganese is also debated. However, Sc and Mn abundances in long-lived F and G stars are of great interest since they could also introduce special constraints on nucleosynthesis theory (Nissen et al. 2000). Even though the main aim of this study was to compare the abundances of refractory elements in stars with and without planets, our results also give us a chance to increase our present knowledge of the chemical evolution of the Galaxy at \[Fe/H\] $>0$. In Figs \[fig1\] and \[fignew\] we present the \[$X$/Fe\] [vs.]{} \[Fe/H\] plots for all the elements.
Comparison with the literature
==============================
There are already several studies concerning the chemical abundances of elements other than iron in F, G, K main sequence stars in the solar neighborhood (see Edvardson et al. 1993; Feltzing & Gustafsson 1998; Chen et al. 2000; Nissen et al. 2000; Fulbright et al. 2002; Reddy et al. 2003; Bensby et al. 2003; Allende Prieto et al. 2004). In addition, various studies on chemical abundances in planet-host stars have gradually emerged (Gonzalez et al. 2000; Santos et al. 2000; Takeda et al. 2001; Sadakane et al. 2002; Bodaghee et al. 2003; Ecuvillon et al. 2004a, 2004b; Beir[ã]{}o et al. 2005; Fischer & Valenti 2005). We note that our abundance trends generally agree with those published in the literature and this lends a certain reliability to our results. In the following subsections, we describe \[$X$/Fe\] [vs.]{} \[Fe/H\] trends for each element and then make a brief comparison with studies in the literature on this subject. This comparison is divided into two parts: first, we compare studies on abundances in stars with planets; second, we extend the comparison to other studies regarding abundance trends in metal-rich stars of the Galactic disc. We focus our attention mainly on the \[Fe/H\] $>0$ range. Given the unobserved or probably insignificant differences between the two samples of stars presented, we consider the distribution as a whole for the rest of the analysis. Possible differences between our trends and those recently published could be of great interest since it might reflect the presence of planets. In contrast, any relation to the presence of a planet is perhaps coincidental and the global trends observed are probably best interpreted as a consequence of Galactic chemical evolution.
The $\alpha$ elements
---------------------
### Silicon
In Figs \[fig1\] and \[andam\] we note a slight \[Si/Fe\] overabundance compared to the solar value at \[Fe/H\] $\lesssim -0.2$ (with a rather larger scatter), while the point distribution remains constant at \[Si/Fe\] $\sim 0.0$ for the rest of the metallicity range.
-- -- --
-- -- --
Our results agree with the previous chemical analyses of stars with planets by Gonzalez et al. (2000, hereafter GZ00), Bodaghee et al. (2003, hereafter BOD) and Fischer & Valenti (2005). Sadakane et al. (2002, hereafter SD02) in their study analysed only a few objects (12 stars with extrasolar planets) but their abundance distribution is flat at high metallicities.
Edvardsson et al. (1993, hereafter EAGLNT) and Chen et al. (2000, hereafter C00) obtained similar results, as well as Bensby at al.(2003, hereafter BEN) and Fulbright et al. (2002, hereafter FUL) in the range \[Fe/H\] $>0$. In another study on metal-rich stars (\[Fe/H\] $>0.10$) (Felzing & Gustafsson 1998, hereafter FG98) the \[Si/Fe\] distribution exhibits a constant trend around the solar value. All these results differ from those of Allende Prieto et al. (2004, hereafter AL04), in which the abundance trend for Si changes abruptly around \[Fe/H\] $\sim 0$ and assumes a positive slope.
### Calcium
Contrary to the other $\alpha$ elements, the \[Ca/Fe\] ratio seems to decrease quite uniformly (see Fig. \[fig1\] and Fig. \[andam\]). In particular, the plot suggests the presence of a [plateau]{} in the range $-0.2\lesssim$ \[Fe/H\] $ \lesssim 0.2$ followed, for higher metallicities, by a slight fall-off. Planet-host stars with $T_{\rm eff}<$ 5000 K show a certain dispersion in \[Ca/Fe\] values, for example the stars HD 177830, HD 137759 and HD 114783.
The similar behaviour of calcium trends for stars both with and without planets has been observed in other studies of chemical abundances (BOD and GZ00). As BOD have noticed, SD02 analysed only two stars in the range $0.2\lesssim$ \[Fe/H\] $\lesssim 0.4$ (where a possible [plateau]{} is suggested), so the comparison with our results is only partially valid.
The Ca distribution appears quite “flat” in the data presented by EAGLNT, FG89, AL04 and FUL. However, the results plotted by BEN appear to decrease for \[Fe/H\] $\sim 0.2- 0.3$.
### Titanium
The titanium \[Ti/Fe\] ratio decreases in the range $-0.6\lesssim[Fe/H]\lesssim 0$ until the solar value where the distribution settles (Fig. \[fig1\] and \[andam\]).
Similar trends have been obtained by BOD and Fischer & Valenti (2005), while we cannot observe any slope change around $-0.2\lesssim$ \[Fe/H\] $\lesssim 0$ in SD02, because only a few objects have been plotted. Despite the large scatter in the GZ00 data, titanium abundances seem to decrease gradually with metallicity.
A quite pronounced point dispersion is also observed in EAGLNT, BEN and CH00, especially for \[Fe/H\] $\lesssim -0.3$ (as seen here). This scatter is probably due to the overestimation of EWs caused by the increasing blending effect (which becomes severer as $T_{\rm eff}$ falls) or by Galactic evolution effects. Finally, comparing the trends for \[Fe/H\] $>0$ we note that \[Ti/Fe\] values remain approximately constant in the plots of BEN, FUL and FG98, while the data of AL04 again show a rise above solar metalicity.
### Scandium
Figures \[fig1\] and \[andam\] illustrate that the scandium trend is similar to that of other $\alpha$ elements. It drops until $-0.2\lesssim$ \[Fe/H\] $\lesssim 0$ and afterwards the \[Sc/Fe\] ratio approximately follows the solar value at high metallicities.
Previous studies on stars with planets have obtained similar results, as presented in BOD and SD02.
\]
-- --
-- --
There are only a few studies in the literature about scandium abundances. The most detailed one was presented by Nissen et al. (2000) in the range $-1.4<$ \[Fe/H\] $<0.1$, so comparison with our results at high metallicity is not possible at all. However, it is interesting to note a slope change at \[Fe/H\] $\sim -0.3, -0.2$ that is also represented in our graphs. Results by FG98 show a substantial star-to-star scatter but globally the \[Sc/Fe\] ratio remains around solar for \[Fe/H\] $>0$. In contrast, the AL04 plot shows large enrichments in scandium for metal-rich stars.
The Fe-group elements
---------------------
### Manganese
Manganese is one of the lesser studied element in the literature. Manganese lines turn out to be the most difficult to measure owing to unknown blended lines that probably cause the quite large point spread, particularly for stars with planets. The \[Mn/Fe\] ratio generally tends to increase with the metallicity, differently from other iron-peak elements (see Fig. \[andam\]). In Fig. \[fig1\] we observe a clear change of slope around $-0.2\lesssim$ \[Fe/H\] $\lesssim 0$.
Despite a certain scatter, we note the good agreement between our results and those of BOD and SD02.
Nissen et al. (2000) analysed Mn abundances, in disc stars ($-1.4<$ \[Fe/H\] $<0.1$). These results show an evident increase in manganese abundances for the entire metallicity range considered. Another study (FG98) also exhibits a slight linear \[Mn/Fe\] dependence on iron in metal-rich stars.
### Vanadium
On the subject of vanadium abundances, Fig. \[fig1\] (bottom right) clearly shows how removing cooler stars ($T_{\rm eff} < 5000$ K) from the data considerably reduces the dispersion of points. Although vanadium belongs to the iron-peak group, we note that \[V/Fe\] ratio behaves like an $\alpha$ element. Figure \[andam\] shows that \[V/Fe\] values in stars with planets are systematically $\sim 0.10$ dex lower than in the comparison sample stars. Since planet-hosts are, on average, hotter than comparison sample stars (see Fig. \[istemp\]) and \[V/Fe\] shows a negative slope with $T_{Â\rm eff}$, this effect may contribute to the observed difference.
The same considerable scatter is observed in the studies by BOD and SD02, but good agreement among trends is found in both cases. Contrary to our results and those of BOD, SD02 emphasized that the \[V/Fe\] values of stars with planets are about 0.15 dex higher than comparison sample vanadium abundances. This mismatch could suggest that vanadium analysis is strongly influenced by an NLTE effect, as discussed in Section \[erro\].
There are not many studies regarding vanadium abundances in metal-rich stars without planets. The \[V/Fe\] ratio remains around the solar value in the plots of FG98 and CH00, for \[Fe/H\] $>0$.
[r]{}\
### Chromium
Chromium abundances in our target are constant around \[Cr/Fe\] $\sim -0.05$ dex (see Fig. \[andam\]). We note very little scatter for this element (Fig. \[fig1\]).
Our observed trend is similar to those already published by BOD and SD02: the point distribution is uniform, constant and with little scatter. However, the BOD data show about 0.05 dex systematically lower chromium abundances compared to our results.
Good agreement is found with the FG98, CH00, BEN and FUL plots. All these results exhibit a \[Cr/Fe\] ratio of around 0.
### Cobalt
The \[Co/Fe\] ratio first decreases to the solar value and then slowly rises for metal-rich stars (see also Fig. \[andam\]). The figures also show that the abundances of metal-rich stars with planets seems to be lower ($\sim 0.05$ dex) than \[Co/Fe\] values for stars without planets.
Previous studies of BOD and SD02, have obtained similar results for cobalt. In this last paper authors suggested that planet-host stars exhibit a slight Co overabundance with respect to the solar value ($\sim
0.15$ dex) when compared to stars with no companions.
Our results resemble those of FG98, while with respect to AL04 we obtained a change of slope of around $[Fe/H]\sim 0$.
### Nickel
Similarly to calcium and vanadium, the nickel trend shows a possible [plateau]{} in the range $-0.2\lesssim$ \[Fe/H\] $\lesssim 0$ and hence a slight slope change for metal-rich stars (see Fig. \[fig1\]).
Our trends resemble those observed by BOD, SD02 and Fischer & Valenti (2005). The \[Ni/Fe\] ratio seems to increase slightly in metal-rich stars.
In most of the studies considered (see FG98, CH00, FUL, EAGLNT) nickel abundances exhibit a uniform and approximately constant trend around the solar value. In the results proposed by BEN, nickel abundances remain constant until \[Fe/H\] $\sim 0.2$, where the values are greater than the rest of the set of data. A different plot is represented by AL04: the \[Ni/Fe\] ratio increases for higher metallicity values.
Na, Mg and Al
-------------
In Figs \[fignew\]-\[andan\] we present the plots for Na, Mg and Al. As discussed in detail in the paper by Beir[ã]{}o et al. (2005), the \[Na/Fe\] ratio slowly decreases as a function of \[Fe/H\] until the solar metallicity, then we can observe a change of the slope. This behaviour is similar to that shown by some refractory abundance distribution (e.g. Si, Ti, Sc). Despite the dispersion of the points, the \[Na/Fe\] values are on average below solar for \[Fe/H\] $\sim$ 0.0.
The Mg and Al abundances also resemble those derived for Si, Ti, Sc. We note that the decrease in the \[Mg/Fe\] and \[Al/Fe\] values with increasing metallicity in the range $-0.70<$ \[Fe/H\] $< 0$ is stronger than for Na. For metal-rich stars the abundance distributions for the three elements stay at approximately solar value except for a light upturn in \[Na/Fe\] and \[Al/Fe\] values.
These results agree globally with previous studies of stars with planets (see SD02, GZ00 and Fischer & Valenti 2005 for Na plots) and we also confirm that Mg and Al may be slightly enhanced in the planet-host HD 168746, as noticed in SD02. The \[Na/Fe\] upturn above solar metallicity is also found in GZ00 and both EAGLNT, FG98, BEN, but not in CH00. With respect to Al abundances, other authors (EAGLNT, FG98, BEN) have observed similar trends. In the plots proposed by CH00 we note a clear upturn at \[Fe/H\] $\sim -0.2,-0.3$, as traced by comparison stars in our sample.
Possible differences between the abundance trends of the two groups of stars have been observed here only for metal-rich stars. It is particularly interesting to note that comparison stars continue to show a decrease in \[Mg/Fe\] with increasing \[Fe/H\], while maintaining the slope observed for lower metallicity, while planet-hosts change the slope. An opposite effect is observed for \[Al/Fe\] where the planet hosts seem to have less Al than their “single” conterparts. The dependence of \[Mg/Fe\] on $T_{\rm eff}$ is not responsible for this effect (see figs 1 and 2 in Beir[ã]{}o et al. 2005) and we cannot rule out that this difference is real. Figure \[fignew\] also shows that removing cooler stars ($T_{\rm eff}< 5000 K$) from the dataset does not change these results. GZ00 also suggested a difference in \[Mg/Fe\] values between planet-host and single stars.
Discussion and conclusion
=========================
We have determined abundances for nine refractory elements (other than iron) in a large sample of 101 stars with planets and in a homogeneous comparison sample of 94 stars with no known planets. We have also presented Na, Mg, Al abundances in 53 new comparison sample stars to extend the previous work by Beir[ã]{}o et al. (2005). For each element a uniform and independent study of the two samples was carried out using atmospheric parameters derived from a detailed spectroscopic analysis by Santos et al. (2004a, 2005). Abundance ratios \[$X$/H\] [vs.]{} \[Fe/H\] and \[$X$/Fe\] [vs.]{} \[Fe/H\] have been plotted to compare the two samples and to try to find differences eventually connected to the presence of giant planets. This study was also intended to provide a complete comparison in the high metallicity domain, where studies had lacked “single” stars with \[Fe/H\]$>0.1$. Furthermore, the data could provide clues clarifying the chemical evolution of planetary systems.
In our analysis we stressed a certain diversity of trends for elements of a common origin. On one hand not all the refractory elements studied here show the same behaviour; on the other hand, the abundance trends of elements coming from the same nucleosynthesis source are not always alike, in contrast with that we expected.
Our concluding remarks are as follows:
- [Again we confirm that the excess of metallicity observed for planet hosts is not unique to iron.]{}
- [The abundance trends of stars with planets are very similar to those traced by comparison sample stars. This feature could favour the primordial hypothesis to explain the metallicity excess in stars harbouring planets. In any case, some elements (e.g. Mg, Al, V, Co) show certain differences in the behaviour of abundances of stars with planets and “single” stars, in the higher metallicity range. We thus do not exclude the possibility that the presence of a planet might influence the composition of certain elements in the atmosphere of metal rich stars.]{}
- [Good agreement was found with both previous published studies on abundances in stars with extrasolar planets and most studies on metal-rich stars of the Galactic disc. One might suggest that the observed trends are simply a conseguence of Galactic chemical evolution, with no particular mechanism linked to the presence of a planet. To this end, only the calcium abundances show a different trend when comparing studies on stars with planets (BOD, GZ00 and this article) and most chemical analysis on Galactic disc stars (EAGLNT, FG98, AL04, FUL).]{}
In the future gathering new homogeneous abundance values of other elements with a wide range of condensation temperatures $T_{\rm C}$ will be of great importance. For example, a detailed comparison of \[$X$/Fe\] abundances of volatile and refractory elements is currently in progress . This study will give us the chance to discuss the relative importance of differential accretion (e.g. Gonzalez 1997; Smith et al. 2001; Sadakane et al. 2003) in stars harbouring extrasolar planets.
Support from Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (Portugal) to NCS in the form of a scholarship (reference SFRH/BPD/8116/2002) and a grant (reference POCI/CTE-AST/56453/2004) are gratefully acknowledged. Thanks to the anonymous referee for his/her useful suggestions.
Allende Prieto, C., Barklem, P. S., Lambert, D. L. & Cunha, K. 2004 A&A 420, 183
Anders. E., & Grevesse, N. 1989, Geochim, Cosmochim. Acta, 53, 197
Beir[ã]{}o, P., Santos, N. C., Israelian, G. & Mayor, M. 2005, A&A 438, 251
Bensby, T., Feltzing, S. & Lundström, I. 2003, A&A, 410, 527 (BEN) Bensby, T., & Ilyn, I., 2005 A&A, in press
Bodaghee, A., Santos, N. C., Israelian, G. & Mayor, M. 2003, A&A, 404, 717 (BOD)
Deliyannis, C. P., Cunha, K., King, J. R., & Boesgaard, A. M. 2000, AJ, 119, 2437
Desidera, S., Gratton, R. G., Endl, M., Claudi, R. U., & Cosentino, R. 2004, A&A, 420, L27
Chen, Y., Q., Nissen, P. E., Zhao, G., Zhang, H. W., & Benoni, T. 2000, A&AS, 141, 491 (CH00)
Ecuvillon, A., Israelian, G., Santos, N. C., et al. 2004a, A&A, 418, 703 Ecuvillon, A., Israelian, G., Santos, N. C., et al. 2004b, A&A, 426, 619 Ecuvillon, A., Israelian, G., Santos, N. C., et al. 2005, A&A, submitted
Edvardsson, B., Andersen, J., Gustafsson, B., et al. 1993, A&A, 275, 101 (EAGLNT)
Feltzing, S., & Gustafsson, B. 1998, A&AS, 129, 237 (FZ98)
Fischer, D.& Valenti, J. 2005, ApJ, 622, 1102-1117
Fulbright, J. P. 2002, AJ, 123, 404 (FUL)
Garc[í]{}a L[ó]{}pez R., & P[é]{}rez de Taoro, M. R. 1998, A&A, 334, 599
Gray, D., 1992, in: “The observation and analysis of stellar photospheres”, Cambridge Univ. Press
Gonzalez, G., 1997, MNRAS, 285,403
Gonzalez, G., 1998, A&A, 334, 221
Gonzalez, G., & Laws, C. 2000, A&A, 119, 390
Gonzalez, G., Laws, C., Tyagi, S., & Reddy, B. 2001, AJ, 121, 432
Gurtovenko, E. A., & Kostyk, R. I. 1989, Fraunoffer spectrum and system of solar oscillator strengths, KiIND, 200
Israelian G., Santos, N. C., Mayor, M., & Rebolo, R. 2001, Nature, 411, 163
Israelian G., Santos, N. C., Mayor, M., & Rebolo, R. 2003a, A&A, 405, 753
Israelian G., 2003b, in IAU S219: “Stars as Sun: Activity, Evolution, and Planets, ed A. K. Dupree (San Francisco: ASP)
Israelian G., Santos, N. C., Mayor, M., & Rebolo, R. 2004, A&A, 414, 601
Kurucz, R. L., 1993, CD-ROMs, ATLAS9 Stellar Atmospheres Programs and 2 km $s^{-1}$ Grid (Cambridge: Smithsonian Astrophys. Obs.)
Kurucz, R. L., Furenlid, I., Brault, J., & Testerman, L. 1984, Solar Flux Atlas from 296 to 1300 nm, NOAO Atlas No. 1
Mayor, M., & Queloz, D. 1995, Nature, 378, 355
McWilliam, A., 1997, ARA&A, 35, 503
Moore, C. E., Minnaert, M. G. J, & Houtgast, J. 1966, The solar Spectrum 2934 Å to 8770 Å
Murray, N., & Chaboyer, B. 2002, 566, 442
Laws, C., & Gonzalez, G. 2001, ApJ, 553, 405 Laws, C., Gonzalez, G., Walker, K. M., et al. 2003, AJ, 125, 2664
Nissen, P. E., Chen, Y. Q., Schuster, W. J., & Zhao, G. 2000, A&A, 353, 722
Pinsonneault, M. H., DePoy, D. L., & Coffee, M. 2001, AJ, 556, L59
Reid, I. N. 2002, PASP, 114, 306
Reddy, B. E., Tomkin, J., Lambert, D. L., & Allend Prieto, C., 2003, MNRAS, 340, 304
Sadakane, K., Ohukubo, M., Takada, Y., et al. 2002, PASJ, 54, 911
Santos, N. C., Israelian, G., Mayor, M. 2000, A&A, 363, 228 Santos N. C., Israelian, G., & Mayor, M. 2001a, A&A, 373, 1019 Santos N. C., Israelian, G., Mayor, M., 2001b in “Confirming the Metal-Rich Nature of Stars with Giant Planets. Proceedings of the 12th Cambridge workshop“Cool Stars, Stellar System, and the Sun”, Boulder, Colorado, USA
Santos, N. C., Garc[í]{}a L[ó]{}pez R. J., Israelian, G., et al. 2002, A&A, 386, 1028 Santos, N. C., Israelian, G., Mayor, M., Rebolo, R., & Udry, S. 2003, A&A, 398, 363
Santos N. C., Israelian, G., & Mayor, M. 2004a, A&A, 415, 1153
Santos N. C., Israelian, G., Garc[í]{}a L[ó]{}pez R., et al. 2004b, A&A, 427, 1085
Santos N. C., Israelian, G., Mayor, M., et al. 2005, A&A 437, 1127
Smith, V. V., Cunha, C., & Lazzaro, D. 2001, AJ, 121, 3207
Sneden, C. 1973, Ph. D. Thesis, University of Texas
Lewis, J., S. 1995 in: “Physics and Chemistry of the Solar System”, Academic Press (San Diego)
Th[' e]{}venin, F. & Idiart, T. P. 1999, ApJ, 521, 753-763
Takeda, Y., Sato, B., Kambe, E., et al. 2001, PASJ, 53, 1211 Thielemann K-F., Argast, D., Brachwitz, F., et al. 2002, A&SS, 281, 25 Timmers, F. X., Woosley, S. E., & Weaver, T. A., 1995, ApJS, 98, 617
Vauclair, S. 2003, ApJ, 605, 874
[^1]: Based on observations collected at the La Silla Observatory, ESO (Chile), with [CORALIE]{} spectrograph at the 1.2 m Euler Swiss telescope, and with the [FEROS]{} spectrograph at the 1.52 m ESO telescope, at the Paranal Observatory, ESO (Chile), using the UVES spectrograph at the VLT/UT2 Kueyen telescope, and with the UES and SARG spectrographs at the 4 m William Hershel Telescope (WHT) and the 3.5 m TNG, respectively, both at La Palma (Canary Islands).
[^2]: A complete updated table of known planets can be found at https://obswww.unige.ch/exoplanets.
[^3]: http://unige.ch/ udry/planet/planet.html.
[^4]: The MOOG2002 source code can be downloaded at http://verdi.as.utexas.edu/moog.html.
[^5]: IRAF is distributed by National Optical Astronomy Observatories, operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under contract with the National Science Fundation, USA.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Two models are given by crossing the Friedmann metrics with Schwarzschild and Kerr metrics. In these evolving universes with a gravitational source, the force four-vector and the corresponding potentials are evaluated.'
author:
- |
M. Sharif [^1]\
Department of Mathematics, University of the Punjab,\
Quaid-e-Azam Campus Lahore-54590, PAKISTAN.
title: '**Effects of Force and Energy in an Evolving Universe with a Gravitational Source**'
---
Introduction
============
The Friedmann models are without gravitational source due to their homogeneity. There are models which combine the Friedmann universe with a Schwarzschild metric \[1\], but only one metric acts at any point in the spacetime. There being no model which could show both the expansion of the universe and a gravitational attraction together. Bokhari and Qadir \[2\] presented an alternative way of constructing a toy model which gives an effect of a gravitational source in an evolving universe. The spatial part of this metric is the same as the Schwarzschild metric, but multiplied by a time dependent scale factor. The time component is the usual Schwarzschild time component
$$ds^2=e^{\nu(r)} dt^2-a^2(t)[e^{-\nu (r)}dr^2+r^2d\Omega^2],$$
where $d\Omega^2=d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta d\phi$ is the solid angle. This metric admits of a conformal time-like Killing vector. It provides a gravitational source for the flat Friedmann model and cannot be extended to the open and closed Friedmann universes. The force was evaluated by using the conformal pseudo-Newtonian $(c\psi N)$-formalism \[2\] which deals with conformally static spacetimes. The time component of the force four-vector does not appear there. Thus the metric and the $c\psi N$-formalism has weakness of its own. In this paper we construct a new metric which is applicable to all the three (flat, open, closed) Friedmann models. Further we take another metric which is a cross between the Kerr and the Friedmann metrics only for flat case. We evaluate the force four-vector and energy imparted to a test particle for these metrics so as to be able to analyse them in terms of forces and energy. To this end we use the extended $(e\psi N)$-formalism which deals with non-static spacetimes explicitly. We will not discuss the $e\psi N$-formalism in any detail as that is discussed separately \[3,4\].
The plan of the paper is as follows. In the next section we shall briefly review the essential points of the $e\psi N$-formalism for the purposes of application. In section three we determine the forces and energy for the Friedmann-Schwarzschild crossed metric and analyse them. In the next section we evaluate the $e\psi N$ force and potential for the Friedmann-Kerr crossed metric only for the flat case. Finally in the fifth section the results are summarised and discussed.
The $e\psi N$-Formalism
=======================
The basis of the formailsm is the observation that the tidal force, which is operationally determinable, can be related to the curvature tensor by
$$F_T^\mu=mR_{\nu\rho\pi}^\mu t^\nu l^\rho t^\pi,\quad (\mu,\nu,\rho,\pi=0,1,2,3),$$
where $m$ is the mass of a test particle, $t^\mu=f(x)\delta_0^\mu,
\quad f(x)=(g_{00})^{-1/2}$ and $l^\mu$ is the separation vector. $l^\mu$ can be determined by the requirement that the tidal force have maximum magnitude in the direction of the separation vector. Choosing a gauge in which $g_{0i}=0$ (similar to the synchronous coordinate system \[5,6\]) in a coordinate basis. We further use Riemann normal coordinates (RNCs) for the spatial direction, but not for the temporal direction. The reason for this difference is that both ends of the accelerometer are spatially free, i.e. both move and do not stay attached to any spatial point. However, there is a “memory" of the initial time built into the accelerometer in that the zero position is fixed then. Any change is registered that way. Thus “time" behaves very differently from “space".
The $e\psi N$ force, $F_\mu$, satisfies the equation
$$F_T^{*\mu}=l^\nu F_{;\nu}^\mu ,$$
where $F_T^{*\mu}$ is the extremal tidal force corresponding to the maximum magnitude reading on the dial. Notice that $F_T^{*0}=0$ does not imply that $F^0=0$. The requirement that Eq.(3) be satisfied can be written as $$l^i(F_{,i}^0+\Gamma_{ij}^0F^j)=0,$$ $$l^j(F_{,j}^i+\Gamma_{0j}^iF^0)=F_T^{*i}.$$
A simultaneous solution of the above equations can be found by taking the ansatz
$$F^0=m\left[(\ln A)_{,0}-\Gamma_{00}^0+\Gamma_{0j}^i\Gamma_{0i}^i/A\right]f^2,$$
$$F^i=m\Gamma_{00}^i f^2,$$
where $A=(\ln \sqrt{-g})_{,0},\quad g=det(g_{ij})$. These equations can be written in terms of two quantities $U$ and $V$ given by
$$U=m\left[\ln (Af/B)-\int(g^{ij}_{,0} g_{ij,0}/4A)dt\right],$$
$$V=-m\ln f,$$
as $$F_0=-U_{,0}, \quad F_i=-V_{,i}.$$ It is to be noted that the momentum four-vector $p_\mu$ can be written in terms of the integral of the force four-vector $F_\mu$. Thus
$$p_{_\mu }=\int F_\mu dt.$$
Notice that the zero component of the momentum four-vector corresponds to the energy imparted to a test particle of mass $m$ while the spatial components give the momentum imparted to a test particle.
Friedmann-Schwarzschild Crossed Metric
======================================
We define the metric by taking “a cross" between the Friedmann and Schwarzschild metrics by \[4\]
$$ds^2=e^{\nu(t,\chi)}dt^2-a^2(t)\left[e^{-\nu(t,\chi)}d\chi^2+\sigma^2(\chi)d\Omega^2\right],$$
where $e^{\nu(t,\chi)}=[1-2M/a\sigma(\chi)], \chi$ is the hyperspherical angle, $\sigma(\chi)$ is $\sinh\chi, \chi$ or $\sin\chi$ according as the model is open $(k=-1),$ flat $(k=0)$ or closed $(k=1)$ and $a(t)$ is the corresponding scale parameter. Even in the flat case, when $\sigma^2(\chi)=\chi^2$, Eq.(12) does not reduce to Eq.(1) as the coefficient of $d\chi^2$ is time dependent here. Since the physical distance is being re-scaled this metric seems (relatively) more realistic than given by Eq.(1). Ofcourse neither is a realistic cosmological model. Since the conformal time-like Killing vector of the previous metric is no longer available the $c\psi N$-formalism cannot now be applied.
The $e\psi N$ force, for the flat Friedmann model, is simply
$$\left.
\begin{array}{l}
F_0=\frac{3m\chi}{2(3\chi
a_0^{2/3}t^{2/3}-7Ma_0^{1/3})}[\frac{-4M^2a_0^{1/3}}{9\chi
t^{5/3}(a_0^{1/3}t^{2/3}-2M)}+\frac{2(a_0^{2/3}\chi-7Ma_0^{1/3}t^{-2/3})}{9\chi
t^{1/3}}\\
\qquad+\frac{4M(3a_0^{2/3}\chi-7Ma_0^{1/3}t^{-2/3})}{9\chi
(a_0^{1/3}t\chi-2Mt^{1/3})}],\\
F_1=-\frac{mM}{a_0^{1/3}t^{2/3}\chi^2(1-2M/a\chi)},\quad
F_2=F_3=0.
\end{array}
\right\}$$
The time at which the repulsive force of the model inverts to an attractive force can be obtained by making $F_0=0$. It will be
$$t_I=\frac{(M/2\chi)^{2/3}}{a_0^{1/2}}.$$
We shall call this the “inversion time".
For the open Friedmann model (for sufficiently small values of $t$, for a given $\chi$), the $e\psi N$ force, is
$$\left.
\begin{array}{l}
F_0=-\frac{8m\sinh\chi\{(12t/a_0)^{-5/3}-\frac{1}{60}(a_0/12t)\}\{1-\frac{3}{20}
(12t/a_0)^{2/3}\}}{3a_0\sinh\chi\{\frac{1}{2}(12t/a_0)^{2/3}
+\frac{3}{40}(12t/a_0)^{4/3}\}-14M}[\frac{12M^2}{a_0\sinh\chi(a\sinh\chi-2M)}\\
\qquad\{1-\frac{3}{10}(12t/a_0)^{2/3}\}+\frac{7M}{a_0\sinh\chi}\{1+\frac{1}{30}
(12t/a_0)^{2/3}\}],\\
F_1=-\frac{4mM(a_0/12t)^{2/3}}{a_0\sinh^2\chi(1-2M/a\sinh\chi)}\{1-\frac{3}{20}
(12t/a_0)^{2/3}\},\quad
F_2=F_3=0.
\end{array}
\right\}$$
The inversion time for the open Friedmann model will be
$$t_I=M/3\sinh\chi.$$
For the closed Friedmann model of the universe (for sufficiently small $t$, for the given $\chi$), this takes the form
$$\left.
\begin{array}{l}
F_0=-\frac{8m\sin\chi\{(12t/a_0)^{-5/3}+\frac{1}{60}(a_0/12t)\}\{1+\frac{3}{20}
(12t/a_0)^{2/3}\}}{3a_0\sin\chi\{\frac{1}{2}(12t/a_0)^{2/3}-\frac{3}{40}
(12t/a_0)^{4/3}\}-14M}[\frac{12M^2}{ a_0\sin\chi(a\sin\chi-2M)}\\
\qquad\{1+\frac{3}{10}(12t/a_0)^{2/3}\}+\frac{7M}{a_0\sin\chi}\{1-\frac{1}{30}
(12t/a_0)^{2/3}\}],\\
F_1=-\frac{4mM(a_0/12t)^{2/3}}{a_0\sin^2\chi(1-2M/a\sin\chi)}\{1+\frac{3}{20}
(12t/a_0)^{2/3}\},\quad F_2=F_3=0.
\end{array}
\right\}$$
The inversion time for the closed model turns out to be
$$t_I=\frac{a_0}{2}\left[\pi/2+4M/3a_0\sin\chi-(8M/3a_0\sin\chi)^{1/2}-1\right].$$
It is to be noted that the $e\psi N$ force, for the first order, comes out to be equal for each of the Friedmann models of the universe. The time component of the $e\psi N$ force, in each of the Friedmann universe models, gives a measure of the change of the gravitational potential energy of the test particle. The spatial component represents a $\psi N$ force for the Schwarzschild metric, modulo a local Lorentz factor for the flat case. However, this component reduces for the early stages of the open Friedmann model and increases for the early stages of the closed Friedmann universe. Further, we see from Eqs.(15) and (17) that the magnitude of the time component of the $e\psi N$ force decreases for the early stages of the open Friedmann model while it increases for the early stages of the closed Friedmann model. The fact that we get the usual Newtonian force, as happens for the Schwarzschild metric, shows that our metric does, infact, give the effect of a gravitating particle of mass $m$. This is in agreement with the already evaluated force for the Schwarzschild metric in the $\psi N$ and the $e\psi N$-formalisms.
The $e\psi N$ potential for the flat Friedmann model will be $$\left.
\begin{array}{l}
p_0=m\ln[\frac{3t(a_0^{1/3}t^{2/3}\chi-2M)^2}{2(a_0^{1/3}t^{2/3})^{12/7}
(3a_0^{1/3}t^{2/3}\chi-2M)^{9/7}}],\\
V=m\ln(1-2M/a_0^{1/3}t^{2/3}\chi)^{1/2}.
\end{array}
\right\}$$ From here we note that $p_0$ tends to infinity as $t$ approaches to zero. Infact, this gives the energy imparted to the test particle in the Friedmann model for the flat case.
It is worth mentioning that “in crossing" the two metrics the potentials have merely been “added". In principle each could have been modified by the other as well.
For the open Friedmann universe, the $e\psi N$ potential is
$$\left.
\begin{array}{l}
p_0=m\ln[\frac{(a_0\sinh\chi)^{12/7}\{3a_0(\cosh\eta-1)\sinh\chi-4M\}^{9/7}\sinh\eta}
{a_0\{a_0(\cosh\eta-1)\sinh\chi-4M\}^2(\cosh\eta-1)^{2/7}}],\\
V=m\ln[\frac{a_0(\cosh\eta-1)\sinh\chi-4M}{a_0(\cosh\eta-1)\sinh\chi}]^{1/2}.
\end{array}
\right\}$$
For the closed model of the Friedmann universe, the $e\psi N$ potential turns out to be
$$\left.
\begin{array}{l}
p_0=m\ln[\frac{(a_0\sin\chi)^{12/7}\{3a_0(1-\cos\eta)\sin\chi-4M\}^{9/7}\sin\eta}
{a_0\{a_0(1-\cos\eta)\sin\chi-4M\}^2(1-\cos\eta)^{2/7}}],\\
V=m\ln[\frac{a_0(1-\cos\eta)\sin\chi-4M}{a_0(1-\cos\eta)\sin\chi}]^{1/2}.
\end{array}
\right\}$$
The quantity $p_0$ yields the energy of the test particle for this crossed metric and the quantity $V$ gives the usual $\psi N$ potential for the Schwarzschild metric, modulo a local Lorentz factor. It is worth noting that the time variaton and the usual Newtonian gravitational potential are acting together in this example. From here we see that the energy of the test particle becomes infinite at time $t=0$ in each of the Friedmann models.
Notice that the force is repulsive at the early stages of the open Friemann model of the universe. But after a particular time, the attaractive force dominates the repulsive force. Thus there is an attractive component of the cosmological force in the expanding universe. This result coincides with the numerical results \[7\] which also indicate the dominance of the attractive force.
Friedmann-Kerr Crossed Metric
=============================
We have obtained some fundamentally new insights by considering the force four-vector for the Friedmann-Schwarzschild crossed metric. Further insights can be expected from the force four-vector by considering a more complicated metric than the Friedmann-Schwarzschild crossed metric, namely a non-static Kerr-like metric. This metric differs from the previous metric in that the Friedmann-Schwarzschild crossed metric does not have any conformal time-like Killing vector but it has a conformal time-like Killing vector. This metric has been defined \[9\] by multiplying the spatial part by a time factor. We shall call this metric the Friedmann-Kerr crossed metric. This has the following form
$$\left.
\begin{array}{l}
ds^2=(1-2Mr/R^2)dt^2-a^2(t)[(R^2/J)dr^2+R^2d\theta^2+(P\sin^2\theta/R^2)d\phi^2]\\
\qquad+\{2Mrba(t)\sin^2\theta/R^2\}dtd\phi,
\end{array}
\right\}$$
where
$$R^2=r^2+b^2\cos^2\theta,\quad J=r^2-2Mr+b^2,\quad P=(r^2+b^2)^2-Jb^2\sin^2\theta$$
and $b(=s/M)$ is the spin or angular momentum per unit mass of the balck hole. The metric coefficients are given by
$$\left.
\begin{array}{l}
g_{00}=1-2Mr/R^2,\quad g_{11}=-a^2R^2/J,\quad g_{22}=-a^2R^2,\\
g_{33}=-a^2P\sin^2\theta/R^2,\quad
g_{03}=g_{30}=Mrab\sin^2\theta/R^2.
\end{array}
\right\}$$
Under suitable coordinate transformations \[6\], the off-diagonal elements vanish and we are left with the following metric coefficients
$$\left.
\begin{array}{l}
g_{00}=g_{00}-g^{33}g_{03}^2=(1-2M/r)(1+4M^2b^2r^2\sin^2\theta/R^4J),\\
g_{11}=-a^2R^2/J,\quad g_{22}=-a^2R^2,\quad g_{33}=-a^2P\sin^2\theta/R^2.
\end{array}
\right\}$$
The $e\psi N$ force, for the flat Friedmann model of the universe $(k=0)$ is
$$\left.
\begin{array}{l}
F_0=m/3t,\\
F_1=\frac{m}{JR^2(R^2-2Mr)(R^4J+4M^2b^2r^2\sin^2\theta)}[MR^4J^2(r^2-b^2\cos^2\theta)\\
\qquad+4M^2b^2\sin^2\theta\{R^2J(2r^3-3Mr^2+rb^2\cos^2\theta)\\
\qquad-r^2(R^2-2Mr)(3rJ+(r-M)R^2)\}],\\
F_2=\frac{mMrb^2\sin 2\theta}{R^2(R^2-2Mr)(R^4J+4M^2b^2r^2\sin^2\theta)}[R^4J-2Mr\{(R^2-2Mr)\\
\qquad(r^2+b^2+2b^2\sin^2\theta)-b^2\sin^2\theta\}],\\
F_3=0.
\end{array}
\right\}$$
Notice that the zero component coincides with that of the zero component of the flat Friedmann model \[4\]. It gives a rate of change of energy which approaches infinity at the very early stages of the Friedmann universe and goes to zero as $t$ tends to infinity \[4\]. It is worth noting that the spatial components of the $e\psi N$ force $F_1, F_2$ and $F_3$ are just the $\psi N$ force for the Kerr metric for a special choice of geodesics \[9,10\], modulo a local Lorentz factor.
The $e\psi N$ “potentials" for this spacetime turn out to be
$$\left.
\begin{array}{l}
U=-m\ln(t/T)-\frac{1}{2}m\ln[(R^2-2Mr)(R^4J+4M^2b^2r^2\sin^2\theta)/R^6J],\\
V=\frac{1}{2}m\ln[(R^2-2Mr)(R^4J+4M^2b^2r^2\sin^2\theta)/R^6J].
\end{array}
\right\}$$
Here if we add both these potentials the resultant will be the time component of the Friedmann metrics. Notice that the time component of the $e\psi N$ potential comes out to be the time component of the flat Friedmann model of the universe minus the radial and polar coordinate dependent term. The additional term occurs due to the $g_{00}$ of the Kerr metric. Thus the potentials have merely been “added" when we “cross" the two metrics as in the case of the previous metric.
The expressions for the $e\psi N$ force and the $e\psi N$ potential are comprehensible and help us in understanding the energy of the test particle. We note that the spatial component of the $e\psi N$ potential reduces to the usual $\psi N$ potential of the Kerr metric for a special choice of geodesics \[9,10\], modulo a local Lorentz factor. The sum of both these potentials gives the potential energy imparted to the test particle. This energy goes to infinity for $t=0$ as required for the Friedmann models of the universe.
Conclusion
==========
We have constructed a cross model which gives an effect of gravitational source in all the Friedmann models of the universe. We then applied the $e\psi N$-formalism to this crossed metric so as to obtain the physical effects of forces. The spatial component of the force four-vector and the scalar quantity V give the Newtonian gravitational force and potential respectively for each of the Friedmann universes. This shows that the effect of gravitational source in an evolving universe. We have seen that the inversion time is different for each of the Friedmann models. Further we attempted to use the Kerr metric instead of Schwarzschild metric only for the flat case. In this case the time component just gives the energy imparted to a test particle for the flat Friedmann universe. We get physically acceptable effects in terms of forces and energy in each of the Friedmann models. The problem of constructing a new metric (i.e. cross between Kerr and Friedmann models) for each of the Friedmann metrics and then applying the $e\psi N$-formalism to it remains open.
[**Acknowledgments**]{}
The author would like to thank Prof. Chul H. Lee for his hospitality at the Department of Physics and Korea Scientific and Engineering Foundation (KOSEF) for postdoc fellowship at Hanyang University Seoul, KOREA.
[**References**]{}
[\[1\]]{} Lindquist R.W. and Wheeler J.A.: Rev. Mod. Phys. [**29**]{}(1957)432;\
Einstein A. and Strauss E.: Rev. Mod. Phys. [**17**]{}(1945)120; [**18**]{}(1946)148.
[\[2\]]{} Bokhari A.H.: Ph.D. Thesis (Quaid-i-Azam University, 1985);\
Bokhari A.H. and Qadir A.: [*Proc. 4th Marcel Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity*]{}, ed. R. Ruffini (Elsevier Science Publishers, 1986) 1635.
[\[3\]]{} Qadir, A. and Sharif, M.: [*Proc. 4th Regional Conference on Mathematical Physics*]{}, eds. F. Ardalan, H. Arfaei and S. Rouhani (Sharif University of Tech. Press, 1990);Nuovo Cimento B[**107**]{}(1992)1071.
[\[4\]]{} Sharif M.: Ph.D. Thesis (Quaid-i-Azam University, 1991).
[\[5\]]{} Misner, C.W., Thorne, K.S. and Wheeler, J.A.: [*Gravitation*]{} (W.H. Freeman San Francisco, 1973).
[\[6\]]{} Landau, L.D. and Lifschitz, E.M.: [*The Classical Theory of Fields*]{} (Pergamon Press, 1975).
[\[7\]]{} Qadir, Asghar and Siddiqui, A.W.: work in progress.
[\[8\]]{} Bokhari, A.H.: Nuovo Cimento B[**103**]{}(1989)617.
[\[9\]]{} Qadir, A. and Quamar, J.: [*Proc. 4th Marcel Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity*]{}, ed. Hu Ning (Science Press and North Holland Co., 1983)189;\
Quamar, J.: Ph.D. Thesis (Quaid-i-Azam University, 1984).
[\[10\]]{} Qadir, A. and Quamar, J.: Europhys. Lett. [**4**]{}(1986)423.
[^1]: e-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This is supplementary information for arXiv:1204.4896, which also appeared in Physical Biology 9, 026008 (2012).'
author:
- 'Kirill S Korolev, Melanie J I Müller, Nilay Karahan, Andrew W Murray, Oskar Hallatschek and David R Nelson'
bibliography:
- 'SCBibs.bib'
title: 'Supplementary information for “Selective sweeps in growing microbial colonies”'
---
In this supplementary information, we first describe in section \[SExperiments\] the methods used in the main text. We then show that the macroscopic spatio-genetic patterns of spatial competitions are independent of microscopic details, using both experimental and theoretical arguments: In section \[SBuddingPattern\] we show experimentally that sector shapes apply also to microbes with different cell division patterns. In section \[S\_Insensitivity\_model\_parameters\], we show that the patterns predicted by our reaction-diffusion model are not sensitive to the microscopic model parameters. Next, we investigate the duration of the initial stage of sector formation in our experiments in section \[SSectorEstablishment\]. Finally, we detail the statistical analysis of differences between different ways to measure relative fitness in section \[SStatisticalAnalysis\].
Methods {#SExperiments}
=======
**Numerical integration.** We used an explicit forward-time centered-space (FTCS) finite-difference method (6-point stencil) on a square grid to numerically solve the reaction-diffusion partial differential equations describing our model in space and time [@press:numerical_recipes].
**Strains.** For the competition experiments, our reference *Saccharomyces cerevisiae* strains were the prototrophic W303 strains yJHK102, yJHK111, and yJHK112. These strains all have the genotype MAT**a** *bud4$\Delta$::BUD4(S288C) can1-100*, and differ only at the His3 locus, with *HIS3*, *his3Δ::prACT1-ymCitrine-tADH1:His3MX6* and *his3Δ::prACT1-ymCherry-tADH1:His3MX6* for yJHK102, yJHK111, and yJHK112, respectively. Thus, yJHK102 is not fluorescent, the strain yJHK111 constitutively expresses a yellow fluorescent protein, and yJHK112 constitutively expresses a red fluorescent protein, which is pseudo-colored as blue in the microscopy images shown.
The cycloheximide-resistant strain yMM8 is derived from yJHK111 by replacing *CYH2::cyh2-Q37E*, which confers resistance to the drug cycloheximide [@StockleinBock81]. The budding mutant yMM22 is also derived from yJHK111 by replacing *bud4$\Delta$::KANMX6*. The advantageous mutant $\alpha F^{\rm R}$-E04 was isolated in a screen for $\alpha$-factor resistant mutants of the strain DBY15084 (W303 MAT**a** *ade2-1 CAN1 his3-11 leu2-3,112, trp1-1 URA3 bar1$\Delta$::ADE2 hml$\alpha\Delta$::LEU2*) performed in Ref. [@LangMurray09]. This mutant is non-fluorescent.
In the text, we refer to the strains yJHK102, yJHK111, and yJHK112 as the non-fluorescent, yellow fluorescent, and red fluorescent wild-type strain, respectively. Further, we call the strains $\alpha F^{\rm R}$-E04, yMM8, and yMM22 the advantageous sterile mutant, the advantageous cycloheximide resistant mutant, and the budding mutant.
**Growth conditions.** We used 1% agarose plates with CSM (complete synthetic medium as described in Ref. [@BurkeStearns00], except 2$\;$g of adenine and 4$\;$g of leucine were used). Strains were pre-grown in liquid CSM at $30^{\circ}$C in exponential phase for more than 12 hours. They were then counted with a Coulter counter and mixed in appropriate ratio of mutant:wild-type to obtain well-separated sectors. For competitions of the advantageous sterile mutant with the wild-ype, this ratio was 1:500. For competitions of the cycloheximide-resitant mutant with the wild-type, the ratio was 1:100, 1:200, and 1:500 for cycloheximide concentrations $<50$nM, in the range 50-90nM, and $>90$nM, respectively. This mix was then inoculated on agar plates that had dried for 2 days post-pouring. For circular colonies, drops of 0.5$\;\mu$l of the mix were pipetted on the plate. For linear colonies, we dipped a sterilized razor-blade into the cell mix and then gently touched the agar surface with the razor-blade. For colliding circular colonies, two drops of 0.5$\;\mu$l of the mix were pipetted on the plate with centers approximately $1\;\rm{mm}$ apart. The plates were then incubated at $30^{\circ}$ in a humidified box for 8 days and imaged with a Zeiss Lumar stereoscope.
**Image analysis.** Data analysis was performed using MatLab R2010. In particular, colony and sector boundaries were detected using the edge function in MatLab R2010.
**Sector analysis.** The analysis of sectors is illustrated in figures 15 and 16. Sector boundaries from edge detection were separated into two bounding “arms” by tracing backwards from the two outmost points towards the colony center. The sector arms were then plotted in Cartesian coordinates $x(y)$ for linear inoculations and in log-transformed polar coordinates $\phi[\ln(r)]$ for circular inoculations. Next, the average sector arm position was subtracted from each sector arm, in order to average out wobble in the growth direction of the sector. The resulting sector arms were then fitted with straight lines, in accordance with equations (10) and (12), for long times, i.e. for large $y$ or $r$. This procedure is equivalent to fitting the average of the upper and lower arms of the sector. We ensured that the fitting was done only to established sectors. Since different sectors splayed off into linear behavior at different times, the start point for the fit was determined using the following condition: The maximal number of points from the colony boundary towards the inoculum was fitted that still gave $r^2$ value of at least $0.995$. Here, $r^2$ is the square of the Pearson correlation coefficient, whose value very close to 1 indicates a very good linear correlation [@Weiss07], implying that our theory describes the sector boundaries very well. For the linear expansions, this condition led to fits at a distance from the inoculant of roughly $y>3\;\rm{mm}$, corresponding to times $t>120\;\rm{h}$. For the circular expansions, the fit range was $r/R_0>4$, or $t>90\;\rm{h}$. We also fitted the sectors with the fixed cutoff of $y>3\;\rm{mm}$ (linear expansions) and $r/R_0>4$ (circular expansions), and obtained the same results for the relative fitnesses within error bars.
**Sector analysis for small nonzero fitness differences.** For small nonzero fitnesses, $0<s<0.02$, some sector boundaries failed the stringent high-quality-of-fit criterion of $r^2>0.995$. We attribute this to the fact that, for small relative fitnesses, fluctuations caused by genetic drift and other noise sources have larger impact on the sector shape than for higher fitness differences. In addition, the establishment time for sectors become very large for small $s$, see the discussion in section \[SSectorEstablishment\], so that some of the sectors might not yet have fully established on the experimental timescale. In consequence, we ignored sectors that failed the $r^2>0.995$ criterion.
**Sector analysis for zero fitness differences.** In cases where sectors boundaries were indistinguishable from straight lines, leading to a relative fitness value $s$ equal to zero within error bars, all sectors failed to fulfill the criterion $r^2>0.995$. The reason is that, for zero fitness differences, sector boundaries are dominated by genetic drift and other sources of fluctuations. In this case, we therefore fitted these sectors for radii $r/R_0>4$ (radial expansions) and for distances $y>3\;\rm{mm}$ (linear expansions).
**Analysis of colliding colonies.** The analysis of colliding colonies is shown in figure 17. To obtain this figure, we used Matlab R2010 to detect the edges of the two colonies, and to then fit circles to each colony as well as to the boundary between the colonies. The selective advantage was calculated from the ratio $x_0/R_b$, see equations (20) and (21). The selective advantage can also be calculated from the distance $x_0$ or from the radius $R_b$ alone by solving equation (20) or equation (21), respectively, for the selective advantage $s$. All three methods gave the same results for the selective advantage within the measurement uncertainty. Although the observed standard deviations were small for this assay, we suspect that it might suffer from a systematic error. This error could result from our assumption of constant expansion velocity ratios, which might be somewhat inaccurate at the early stage of colony growth; see the inset in figure 14 in the main text.
**Expansion velocities.** The analysis of radial expansion velocities is shown in figure 14 for the circular expansions. Radii of each colony were plotted against time. Each radial growth curve was fitted with a straight line over the same times as for the sector analysis, i.e. for times larger than $90\;\rm{h}$. The relative fitness was then calculated as the ratio of the average growth velocities (slopes). Analogously, for the linear expansions, the increase in extension in $y$-direction of each razor-blade inoculation was fitted for times larger than $120\;\rm{h}$. The relative fitness was again calculated as the ratio of the average velocities.
**Error calculations.** In order to obtain the selective advantages $s$ for plate assays shown in table 1, the respective experiment was done on 2-3 different batches of plates, with 4-10 replicates each times. We found that the expansion velocities and fitnesses determined from replicates on the same batch of plates were very similar, while expansion velocities from different batches of plates were significantly different, with $p$-values below $0.03$ determined by an ANOVA F-test. This statistical hypothesis test compares the variance within and between sets of replicates in order to test whether the several sets have the same expected value of the measured quantity, and a small $p$-value indicates that the means of the sets are significantly different [@Weiss07]. The difference between different batches could be due to different plate humidities. We therefore calculated the errors of the velocities and fitnesses using a random cluster bootstrapping algorithm suitable for clustered data [@DavisonHinkley97]. In contrast, fitnesses calculated from sectors (both from linear and radial expansions) and from colony collisions on different batches of plates were not significantly different.
**Fitness in liquid culture.** The growth rates in liquid culture were determined by taking standard growth curves of cells pre-grown in exponential phase in CSM for more than 12 hours, using a Coulter counter. The relative fitness in direct competition in liquid culture was determined with a flow-cytometer-based competition assay as described in Ref. [@LangMurray09].
**Growth of *Pseudomonas aeruginosa* colonies.** See Ref. for the strain information and growth conditions.
Neutral competitions of strains with different fluorescence {#SNeutral}
===========================================================
----------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------
Competing reference strains yellow : non-fluorescent yellow : red
Assay Selective advantage $s$ Selective advantage $s$
Liquid culture competition -0.01 $\pm$ 0.01 (N=3) 0.00 $\pm$ 0.01 (N=3)
Radial expansion sectors 0.00 $\pm$ 0.01 (N=97) 0.00 $\pm$ 0.01 (N=96)
----------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------
: Expression of a fluorescent protein in our reference strains does not incur a fitness cost: There is no significant selective advantage in competitions of the yellow wild-type yJHK111 with the non-fluorescent wild-type yJHK102, or with the red wild-type yJHK112. Errors are standard deviations, and the number $N$ of replicates is given in parentheses.[]{data-label="tab:neutral"}
Our fitness assay does not rely on any assumptions about the exact origin of the fitness difference between the strains. The assay, however, would be more valuable if we can show that the introduction of fluorescence does not significantly affect the fitness. We therefore measured the relative fitnesses of our three reference strains, that differ only in the expression of a fluorescent protein: the non-fluorescent strain yJHK102, the yellow strain yJHK111 (constitutively expresses mCitrine), and the red strain yJHK112 (constitutively expresses mCherry). We confirmed that these strains are neutral with respect to each other, as measured using the liquid culture fitness assay and the radial plate sector assay, see table \[tab:neutral\]. This means that the expression of our fluorescent proteins does not incur a fitness cost.
Examples of radial expansions of mixes of these strains are shown in figure \[fig:neutral\_radial\_expansion\]. Note that the sector boundaries are straight lines, as predicted by equation (16) in the main text for $v_1=v_2$. An example of a linear expansion competition of the yellow and red reference strain is shown in the main text figure 1(a). The shape of neutral sectors was already discussed by Hallatschek et al., compare Fig. 4B in Ref. [@HallatschekNelson:ExperimentalSegregation].
![Neutral expansions of strains, that differ only in expression of a fluorescent protein, exhibit sectors with straight boundaries. (a) Competition of the yellow and non-fluorescent wild-type strains, inoculated in ratio 1:1. (b) Competition of the yellow and red wild-type strains (pseudo-colored as blue for better contrast), inoculated in ratio 1:10. Red circles indicate the size of the colony right after the inoculation and at the end of expansion. The scale bars are 1mm.[]{data-label="fig:neutral_radial_expansion"}](FigNeutral4.eps){width="10cm"}
Insensitivity of sector shapes to details on cellular lengths scales {#SBuddingPattern}
====================================================================
Our theory describes the growth of a microbial colony, and the positions of boundaries of sectors and colony collisions, on spatial length scales much larger than the cell size. The predictions of our theory should therefore be independent of microscopic details on cellular length scales. In order to test this, we investigated whether the manner of cell division of *S. cerevisiae* influences the macroscopic patterns observed in colony expansions. In addition, we conducted a competition experiment using the bacterium *Pseudomonas aeruginosa*.
Insensitivity of sector shapes to the *S. cerevisiae* budding pattern
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cells of *S. cerevisiae* replicate by budding off daughter cells. The spatial locations for new buds are chosen non-randomly [@BartholomewMittwer53; @ChantHerskowitz91]: Haploid cells bud in an axial pattern, wherein each bud emerges adjacent to the site of the previous bud, while diploid cells bud in a bipolar pattern, wherein successive buds can emerge from either end of the ellipsoidal mother cell.
![Different budding patterns do not change the sector shape: When replacing our yellow wild-type strain yJHK111 ($BUD4$ wild type, axial budding pattern) by the yellow budding mutant yMM22 ($bud4\Delta$, bipolar budding pattern), sector shapes remain the same. (a) A radial expansion of the yellow budding mutant and the red wild-type yJHK112 (pseudo-colored as blue), inoculated at ratio 1:1, exhibits sectors with straight boundaries. This is the same assay as shown in figure \[fig:neutral\_radial\_expansion\], but with the yellow wild-type replaced by the budding mutant. (b) Radial expansion and (c) colony collision of the yellow budding mutant and the non-fluorescent advantageous sterile mutant $\alpha$E04. These are the same assays as shown in the main text figures 16 and 17, but with the yellow wild-type replaced by the budding mutant. All scale bars are 1mm.[]{data-label="fig:budding_mutants"}](FigureBuddingMutants2.eps){width="\textwidth"}
Assay Selective advantage $s$
-------------------------- ----------------------------- --
Liquid competition $0.18 \pm 0.01 \;\, (N=3)$
Radial expansion sectors $0.25 \pm 0.03 \;\, (N=11)$
Colony collisions $0.23 \pm 0.01 \;\, (N=12)$
: Relative fitnesses of the advantageous sterile mutant $\alpha F^{\rm R}$E04 and the budding mutant yMM22. Errors are standard deviations, and the number $N$ of replicates is given in parentheses. These relative fitnesses are very similar to the ones obtained for the competition of the sterile mutant with the yellow wild-type, see table 1 in the main text. []{data-label="table:budding_mutants"}
In order to test whether the budding pattern affects the formation of sector boundaries, we used *haploid* strains with different budding patterns by modifying the *BUD4* locus. Bud4p is a landmark protein required for the axial budding pattern in haploid cells: Haploids with *BUD4* deletions exhibit the bipolar budding pattern [@ChantHerskowitz91], but otherwise grow normally [@SandersHerskowitz96]. Our yellow wid-type strain yJHK111 has a functional BUD4 protein and exhibits the axial budding pattern. By deleting the $BUD4$ gene in this strain, we made the yellow budding mutant yMM22 with a bipolar budding pattern. We confirmed that the $bud4$ deletion is neutral by competing the budding mutant against the red wild-type yJHK112 in a liquid competition assay ($s=0.00\pm 0.01$, N=3). The budding mutant was also neutral in a radial expansion competition with the wild-type, forming sectors with straight boundaries ($s=0.00 \pm 0.01, N=65)$, see figure \[fig:budding\_mutants\](a). The change in budding pattern therefore does not change the shape of neutral sectors.
We then repeated the direct competition experiments described in the main text for the advantageous sterile mutant $\alpha F^{\rm R}$E04 and the yellow wild-type yJHK111, but replaced the wild-type with the budding mutant. We only used competition assays with reasonable accuracy, i.e. the liquid culture competition, and the radial expansion sector and colony collision assays. Images of the latter two assays are shown in \[fig:budding\_mutants\](b,c); they look very similar to the corresponding images in figures 16 and 17 of the main text. In particular, the sector and collision boundaries are described well by logarithmic spirals and circles, respectively, as predicted by our theory.
The numerical values of the relative fitnesses of the advantageous sterile mutant and the budding mutant are listed in table \[table:budding\_mutants\]. The relative fitnesses from the radial sector and the colony collision assays agree well with each other, but are larger than the relative fitness from liquid competition. The observed range of the relative fitnesses $s$ of the advantageous sterile mutant and the budding mutant is consistent with the relative fitnesses of the advantageous sterile mutant and the wild-type, compare table 1 in the main text.
Sector shapes for the bacterium *Pseudomonas aeruginosa*
--------------------------------------------------------
To test our theory even further, we conducted a competition experiment in a different species, the bacterium *Pseudomonas aeruginosa*. Figure \[FPaeruginosaCircular\](a) shows the radial expansion of two neutral fluorescently labeled *P. aeruginosa* strains. A spontaneous advantageous mutation (or another heritable phenotypic change) gave rise to a large blue sector, whose boundaries can be well fitted by a logarithmic spiral, see figure \[FPaeruginosaCircular\](b).
Given all the differences in growth and migration between the yeast *S. cerevisiae* and the bacterium *P. aeruginosa*, it is remarkable that the theoretically predicted logarithmic spiral describes the shapes of selective sweeps in both species so well.
(a)![Using the radial sectoring assay for the bacterium *Pseudomonas aeruginosa*. (a) Fluorescent image of a spontaneous advantageous mutation (or another heritable phenotypic change) in a *P. aeruginosa* colony, which was grown from a circular drop of two neutral fluorescently labeled strains (yellow and blue). The smaller red circle marks the visible part of the homeland, while the larger red circle marks the approximate radius where the mutation occurred; its radius is taken as $R_0$. The initial sectoring is due to genetic drift, but the largest blue sector expands because the spontaneous mutation confers a selective advantage. The scalebar is 2mm. (b) Sector boundaries (blue dots) extracted from (a), and the fits (red lines) to a logarithmic spiral. From the slope of the fit, we estimate that $s=0.33$. []{data-label="FPaeruginosaCircular"}](PaeruginosaSectorMicroscope.eps "fig:"){width="5cm"} (b)![Using the radial sectoring assay for the bacterium *Pseudomonas aeruginosa*. (a) Fluorescent image of a spontaneous advantageous mutation (or another heritable phenotypic change) in a *P. aeruginosa* colony, which was grown from a circular drop of two neutral fluorescently labeled strains (yellow and blue). The smaller red circle marks the visible part of the homeland, while the larger red circle marks the approximate radius where the mutation occurred; its radius is taken as $R_0$. The initial sectoring is due to genetic drift, but the largest blue sector expands because the spontaneous mutation confers a selective advantage. The scalebar is 2mm. (b) Sector boundaries (blue dots) extracted from (a), and the fits (red lines) to a logarithmic spiral. From the slope of the fit, we estimate that $s=0.33$. []{data-label="FPaeruginosaCircular"}](PaeruginosaSectorFit.eps "fig:"){width="6cm"}
In summary, all experimental evidence is this section supports our theoretical conclusion that spatio-genetic patterns created by range expansion and natural selection are rather insensitive to the microscopic details of the growth and migration.
Robustness of reaction-diffusion model to microscopic details {#S_Insensitivity_model_parameters}
=============================================================
In this section, we present additional evidence that the macroscopic shape of spatial patterns depends only on $v_{1}/v_{2}$ in our reaction-diffusion model represented by equation (4) in the main text.
We first show that colony expansion can indeed be described by a constant velocity, see figure \[fig:velocity\]. The initial transient is due to the front relaxation from the sharp, step-like initial condition. We then demonstrate in figure \[fig:alpha\] that this velocity is insensitive to the exponents $\alpha_{1}$ and $\alpha_{2}$, which control how fast migration stops behind the front. In figure \[fig:growth\_diffusion\], we show that the angle $\phi$ describing sectors in the linear geometries does not depend on whether the beneficial mutation is caused by an increase in the growth rate or in the diffusion constant. Indeed, in agreement with equations (7) and (8) of the main text we find that $\phi$ depends only on $v_{1}/v_{2}=\sqrt{g_{1}D_{01}/(g_{2}D_{02})}$. Finally, we show in figure \[fig:diffusion\_c\] that our results still hold even when the diffusion constant changes with cell concentration non-monotonically. In particular, the sector angle is still given by equation (8) in the main text.
![The velocity of colony expansion in the linear geometry quickly approaches a constant. The solid red line shows the position of the front $y$ as a function of time $t$ obtained from the numerical solutions of Eq. (4) in the main text. The dashed black line is the best linear fit to the data for $t>5$. The position of the front is defined as $y=\int_{0}^{\infty} c_{1}(x',y')dy'$. Here, the parameters are as in figure 5 of the main text, but only the first strain is present, and the habitat size is $1\times10$ with the discretization step of $2^{-7}$.[]{data-label="fig:velocity"}](velocity.eps){width="6cm"}
![The velocity of colony expansion $v$ does not depend on how fast the diffusion constant decreases with cell concentration. The red circles show the expansion velocities obtained from the numerical solutions of Eq. (4) in the main text. The solid black line is a horizontal line indicating the absence of dependence of $v$ on $\alpha$; because only one strain is present we omit the indexes of $v$ and $\alpha$. Here, the parameters are as in figure 5 of the main text, but only the first strain is present, and the habitat size is $1\times10$ with the discretization step of $2^{-7}$.[]{data-label="fig:alpha"}](alpha.eps){width="6cm"}
![The sector angle $\phi$ depends only on $g_{1}D_{01}/(g_{2}D_{02})$. Equation (4) in the main text is solved numerically for linear expansions. The resulting sector angles are plotted for varying $g_{1}$ (shown with black plus signs) and varying $D_{01}$ (shown with red circles). Here, the non-varying parameters are as in figure 5 of the main text, but the habitat size is $1\times8$ with the discretization step of $2^{-7}$.[]{data-label="fig:growth_diffusion"}](growth_diffusion.eps){width="6cm"}
![Non-monotonic dependence of diffusion constant on the cell concentration does not affect our results. Equation (4) in the main text was solved numerically for linear expansions with $D_{1}(c_{1},c_{2})=D_{2}(c_{1},c_{2})=D_{0}(c_{1}+c_{2})(1-c_{1}-c_{2})\theta(1-c_{1}-c_{2})$. The resulting sector angles $\phi$ are shown with red stars and the theoretical expectation $\cos(\phi/2)=(1+s_{\rm{wm}})^{-1/2}$ from equation (8) in the main text is shown with a solid black line. Note that, although equation (7) of the main text no longer holds, $v^{2}_{1}/v^{2}_{2}=g_{1}D_{01}/(g_{2}D_{02})$ is still valid from dimensional analysis (see also Ref. for a discussion of wave speeds when $D\sim c$). Here, the non-varying parameters are as in figure 5 of the main text, but the habitat size is $1\times8$ with the discretization step of $2^{-7}$.[]{data-label="fig:diffusion_c"}](diffusion_c.eps){width="6cm"}
The results of our numerical exploration suggest that the macroscopic spatial patterns are determined only by $v_{1}/v_{2}$. Therefore, there is some freedom in the choice of microscopic parameters, if one would like to use numerical solutions of equation (4) in the main text to compute spatial patterns. In particular, we can set $\alpha_{1}=\alpha_{2}=1$ and $\epsilon_{1}=\epsilon_{2}=0$ for simplicity. The remaining four parameters $g_{1}$, $g_{2}$, $D_{01}$, and $D_{02}$ determine three observables: the time scale $g_{1}^{-1}$, length scale $\sqrt{D_{01}/g_{1}}$, and selective advantage $(1+s)^{2}=g_{1}D_{01}/(g_{2}D_{01})$. Thus, there is one degree of freedom remaining, which we can fix if the relationship between selective advantage in the Petri dish $s=1-v_{1}/v_{2}$ and in liquid culture $s_{\rm{wm}}=g_{1}/g_{2}-1$ is known. In general, this relationship can be arbitrary because mutations can affect migration rate represented by $D_{01}$ independently from the growth rate. However, two special cases deserve special attention.
The first special case assumes that $D_{01}/D_{02}=g_{1}/g_{2}=1+s_{\rm{wm}}$, as is appropriate for compact colonies where migration is driven by cell growth and division. Equation (4) in the main text then takes the following form
$$\left\{
\eqalign{
\frac{\partial c_{1}(t,\bm{x})}{\partial t}&=(1+s_{\rm{wm}})\bm{\nabla}\cdot\left[D(c_{1},c_{2})\bm{\nabla}c_{1}(t,\bm{x})\right]+ \\ & (1+s_{\rm{wm}})gc_{1}(1-c_{1}-c_{2}),\\
\frac{\partial c_{2}(t,\bm{x})}{\partial t}&=\bm{\nabla}\cdot\left[D(c_{1},c_{2})\bm{\nabla}c_{2}(t,\bm{x})\right]+\\ & gc_{2}(1-c_{1}-c_{2}),\\}
\right.
\label{ECompetitionSpatialSimplified}$$
where $g$ is the growth rate of strain $2$, and $D$ is its diffusion constant with the following dependence on the concentrations of cells
$$\label{SCDiffusionConstantSimplified}
D(c_{1},c_{2})=D_{0}(1-c_{1}-c_{2})\theta(1-c_{1}-c_{2}).$$
Under these assumptions, the selective advantage in liquid an in the Petri dish are the same $s=s_{\rm{wm}}$.
The second special case is appropriate for growth-independent migration, e.g. swimming or swarming. Here $D_{01}=D_{02}$, and equation (4) in the main text takes the following form.
$$\left\{
\eqalign{
\frac{\partial c_{1}(t,\bm{x})}{\partial t}&=\bm{\nabla}\cdot\left[D(c_{1},c_{2})\bm{\nabla}c_{1}(t,\bm{x})\right]+ \\ & (1+s_{\rm{wm}})gc_{1}(1-c_{1}-c_{2}),\\
\frac{\partial c_{2}(t,\bm{x})}{\partial t}&=\bm{\nabla}\cdot\left[D(c_{1},c_{2})\bm{\nabla}c_{2}(t,\bm{x})\right]+\\ & gc_{2}(1-c_{1}-c_{2}),\\}
\right.
\label{ECompetitionSpatialSimplified2}$$
Under these assumptions, $1+s=\sqrt{1+s_{wm}}$.
As we show in the main text, the first special case is more appropriate for yeast colonies. Note, however, that equation (\[ECompetitionSpatialSimplified\]) yields the same spatial patterns as equation (\[ECompetitionSpatialSimplified2\]) provided provided $(1+s_{\rm{wm}})\to(1+s_{\rm{wm}})^{2}$.
Duration of the initial stage of sector formation {#SSectorEstablishment}
=================================================
In section 3 of the main text we discuss that sector formation proceeds in two stages: During the late stage, when the sector is large, its interior is occupied by the fitter strain only. The sector boundaries are far apart and are well described by the equal-time argument of section 4. During the early stage, the sector size is comparable to the width of the sector boundaries, and the two boundaries interact. In this regime, the sector interior is occupied by a mix of the two strain; the fitter strain has not yet completed the selective sweep. This effect is shown in simulations in figure 5 of the main text, and is also clearly visible in the experimental sectors shown in figure 1, 15 and 16 of the main text, as well as in figure \[fig:budding\_mutants\](b).
In this early regime of sector establishment, the equal-time argument does not apply because the assumption that the domain of one strain is impenetrable to the other strain is violated. Our reaction-diffusion model predicts that the characteristic time duration of the early regime of sector formation scales as the inverse difference in growth rates of the two strains, $(g_1-g_2)^{-1}$, see equation (6) of the main text. This measn that the sector establishment time should decrease with the fitness difference of the two strains.
![Dependence of the relative fitness $s$ on the drug cycloheximide, as measured by a liquid fitness assay (blue triangles), by radial expansion sectors (red circles), and by colony collisions (green squares). The solid black line is a fit to all data points.[]{data-label="fig:Fitness_CHX"}](FitnessCHX-thin2.eps){width="10cm"}
![Characterization of the sector establishment: The distance $R_{\rm int}$ between the homeland and the intersection of the fits to the sector arms, determined from the same experiments as in figure \[fig:Fitness\_CHX\], decreases with the relative fitness $s$.[]{data-label="fig:Sector_establishment"}](SectorEstablish-Rint.eps){width="7.5cm"}
In order to test this experimentally, we varied relative fitness using the drug cycloheximide for the competition of the cycloheximide-sensitive wild-type strain yJHK112 and the cycloheximide-resistant strain yMM8. We then measured the relative fitness by our three most accurate direct competition methods: the liquid fitness assay, the radial expansion sector assay, and the colony collision assay. Figure \[fig:Fitness\_CHX\] shows that the results from the three methods agree reasonably well with each other, and that the relative fitness increases linearly with the cycloheximide concentration.
Experimentally, the sector establishment time can be characterized by the distance $R_{\rm int}$ between the homeland and the point of intersection of the of the two tangents fitted to the sector in the late, fully established, stage, see figures 15(b) and 16(b) of the main text. We determined $R_{\rm int}$ for the radial expansion sectors for competitions at different cycloheximide concentrations and thus for different fitnesses $s$, see figure \[fig:Sector\_establishment\]. For fitnesses larger than zero[^1], the distance $R_{\rm int}$ in decreases with relative fitness $s$. This means that indeed the sector establishment time decreases for increasing fitness.
Statistical analysis of differences between fitness assays {#SStatisticalAnalysis}
==========================================================
In this paper, we measure the relative fitness of two yeast strains using different spatial assays on agar plates as well as the standard fitness assays in liquid culture. Here, we compare the results of different fitness assays, and investigate whether they are significantly different. To this purpose, we apply statistical hypothesis testing with a significance level of $0.05$. When performing multiple comparisons in parallel, we use a Bonferroni correction: For $n$ comparisons, each test is required to have a $p$-value smaller than $0.05/n$ to give an overall significance level of $\sim 0.05$ [@Shaffer95].
Table 1 in the main text summarizes the results of all different fitness assays for the competition of the advantageous sterile mutant and the yellow reference strain. Inspection of this table immediately shows that some assays have a very high standard deviation, namely the two linear expansion assays and the radial expansion velocity assay. Presumably due to this high variability, the results from these assays cannot be significantly distinguished from each other, nor from the other assays shown in the table: $p$-values from Welch’s t-test, which tests whether two data sets have equal means (but allowing for unequal variances [@Weiss07]), are all larger than $0.25$. Thus we cannot reject the hypothesis that these assays would give the same result, given sufficient amount of data.
We now focus on the more accurate fitness assays: the radial expansion sectors and colony collisions, as well as the liquid culture competition assay (the liquid culture growth rate assay behaved similar to the liquid competition assay). We first used a One-way ANOVA F-test to test whether these three assays had the same means [@Weiss07]. This was not the case ($p=0.008$). Pairwise comparison of the three assays with Welch’s t-test showed that only the radial sector assay was significantly different ($p<0.05/3$, using a Bonferroni correction for 3 comparisons) from the liquid culture competition, as well as from the colony collision assay.
We next applied the same statistical testing procedure to the competitions of the budding mutant and the advantageous sterile mutant whose results are shown in table \[table:budding\_mutants\]. Again the three assays do not have the same means ($p=0.008$ from an ANOVA F-test), but for this competition the liquid competition result was different from both the radial sector assay and the colony collision assay ($p<0.05/3$), while the two plate assays were not significantly different.
We also applied our testing procedure to the cycloheximide experiment described in section \[SSectorEstablishment\], in which the liquid culture competition assay, the radial sector assay, and the collision assay are employed over a range of fitnesses, see figure \[fig:Fitness\_CHX\]. One-way ANOVA indicated significant differences ($p<0.05$) for the three lowest cycloheximide concentrations, as well as for 98nM. Pairwise comparisons with Welch’s t-test showed that the liquid culture competition was significantly different from the two spatial assays for 0, 14 and 98 nM, while the two spatial assays were different for 14 and 28nM.
Assays mean fitness difference
--------------------------------------- ------------------------- --
Radial sectors and liquid competition 0.002 $\pm$ 0.023
Collision and liquid competition 0.000 $\pm$ 0.034
Radial sectors and collisions 0.002 $\pm$ 0.015
: Average differences of relative fitnesses determined by different assays for the cycloheximide data shown in figure \[fig:Fitness\_CHX\]. Errors are standard deviations.[]{data-label="tab:fitness_differences"}
The differences between the different fitness assays could be caused by a systematic error in sector and collision analysis, or by the underestimation of measurement variance due to possible data clustering by the day of the experiment. In addition, the three-dimensional structure of yeast colonies (yeast colonies grow to a height of about 1mm), which is neglected in our two-dimensional theory, might cause some of the differences between the spatial and liquid assays.
To get an overall impression of the assay performance, we calculated the mean differences of relative fitnesses determined by different assays for the cycloheximide data, see table \[tab:fitness\_differences\]. The average differences are very close to zero, indicating that the assays give similar results without a directional bias. The standard deviations are of the order of $0.02$, suggesting that the assays might give different results for fitness differences of this order of magnitude. Indeed, in the cycloheximide experiment, the assays are significantly different for fitness values $s<0.02$, as described above, but not for larger fitnesses except one.
In summary, we conclude that the three relatively accurate fitness assays, namely the liquid competition assay and the spatial radial sector and colony collision assays give overall similar results, especially for large fitness differences.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[^1]: We omitted sectors with fitness values indistinguishable from zero, since we could not fit these sectors with our usual stringent criterion, see section \[SExperiments\]. In addition, our theoretical prediction in equation (6) of the main text breaks down for zero fitness differences.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
This paper describes a precise measurement of electron scattering off the proton at momentum transfers of $0.003 \lesssim Q^2 \lesssim
1$ GeV$^2$. The average point-to-point error of the cross sections in this experiment is $\sim$ 0.37%. These data are used for a coherent new analysis together with all world data of unpolarized and polarized electron scattering from the very smallest to the highest momentum transfers so far measured. The extracted electric and magnetic form factors provide new insight into their exact shape, deviating from the classical dipole form, and of structure on top of this gross shape. The data reaching very low $Q^2$ values are used for a new determination of the electric and magnetic radii. An empirical determination of the two-photon-exchange correction is presented. The implications of this correction on the radii and the question of a directly visible signal of the pion cloud are addressed.
author:
- 'J.C. Bernauer'
- 'M.O. Distler'
- 'J. Friedrich'
- 'Th. Walcher'
- 'P. Achenbach'
- 'C. [Ayerbe Gayoso]{}'
- 'R. Böhm'
- 'D. Bosnar'
- 'L. Debenjak'
- 'L. Doria'
- 'A. Esser'
- 'H. Fonvieille'
- 'M. [Gómez Rodríguez de la Paz]{}'
- 'J.M. Friedrich'
- 'M. Makek'
- 'H. Merkel'
- 'D.G. Middleton'
- 'U. Müller'
- 'L. Nungesser'
- 'J. Pochodzalla'
- 'M. Potokar'
- 'S. [Sánchez Majos]{}'
- 'B.S. Schlimme'
- 'S. Širca'
- 'M. Weinriefer'
bibliography:
- 'thesisbib.bib'
nocite: '[@Andivahis; @Borkowski74-2; @Borkowski74; @Bosted90; @Christy04; @Goitein70; @Janssens65; @Litt69; @Price71; @Qattan; @Rock92; @Sill93; @Simon80; @Stein75; @Walker]'
title: The electric and magnetic form factors of the proton
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Form factors of extended quantum systems are traditionally considered as a means to access the distribution of charge, magnetism and weak charge through their Fourier transforms. However, this traditional interpretation is only approximately valid for a light system as the proton. More recently it was realized through the generalization of quark-gluon structure functions that an interpretation on the light-cone frame is not only mandatory, but also fruitful since it offers better insight into the quark-gluon structure of the nucleon (for a summary see Ref. [@Vanderhaeghen:2010nd]). However, for such an application of form factors, good knowledge from the smallest to the highest momentum transfers is needed. Though common fits of the world data have been presented in recent years they were always hampered by the insufficient knowledge at the small negative four-momentum transfers $Q^2 \lessapprox 0.5$ GeV$^2$ [@fw03; @Arrington03; @Arrington07; @venkat11; @Kelly:2004hm; @alberico09]. This lack of knowledge was recently remedied by a precise measurement of the elastic electron scattering cross sections at the Mainz Microtron (MAMI) [@Bernauer:2010wm], and this paper presents a new determination of the electric and magnetic form factors through a new fit of these data together with the previous world data including the results from polarization measurements. The precision was made possible by the MAMI cw electron beam with energies up to 1600 MeV with narrow halo and excellent energy definition. However, in this measurement only electron energies up to 855 MeV were used since the higher energies were not yet available at the time of the experiment. Using the three high-resolution spectrometers of the A1 collaboration [@Blomqvist:1998xn] it was possible to measure the elastic electron-proton scattering cross section and extract the form factors up to a negative four-momentum transfer squared of 1 GeV$^2$ with an average total point-to-point error of the cross sections of 0.37% [@Bernauer:2010wm].
There are two established ways to extract form factors from cross sections: the classic Rosenbluth separation and a direct fit of form factor models to the measured cross sections. The first method is the traditional way of analyzing and presenting experimental results, it produces form factors without any model assumption. The second method is often used in fits for at least a decade. It has many advantages, especially when coupled with an experiment optimized for this style of analysis
- The traditional Rosenbluth separation of the electric and magnetic form factors uses measurements of the cross section at constant $Q^2$ and varied values of the polarization parameter $\varepsilon$. This method, however, limits unnecessarily the kinematical range since the range of beam energy and scattering angle are larger than the constant-$Q^2$ domain. Aiming the second approach, the experiment is not bound by this constraint. All data at any kinematical point can be used for the fit, even if the covered range of $\varepsilon$ at a given $Q^2$ is not wide enough to separate the form factors.
- It is a notorious problem to measure an absolute cross section to better than about $\pm 2$%. This was already the case in the old fits of Hofstadter [@Hofstadter55] and is highly relevant for all older measurements since the uncertainty of the absolute normalization may have been as large as $\pm 5$% mostly due to the uncertainty in the determination of the electron beam current, target thickness and solid angle of the spectrometers. A common fit to the world data has to account for the uncertainty in the cross section normalization of the different experiments. To this end one may introduce the normalization as parameters in the fits, as has been done in previous extractions (e.g. Refs. [@Arrington03; @Arrington07; @venkat11; @alberico09]). We can employ the same technique to determine the normalizations. Having groups of measurements with good relative normalization internally given by the experiment, the fit can determine the relative normalization of the groups with regard to each other and the global normalization via the extrapolation to the known form factor values at $Q^2=0$.
- While the classic Rosenbluth approach gives a correct error estimate for the form factor themselves, traditionally numbers for the anti-correlation between $G_E$ and $G_M$ are not given. Without this information, uncertainties of fits to the form factors, for example for the extraction of the radius, cannot be calculated correctly. A direct, global fit to cross sections does not have this problem.
- We find that the robustness of the fits is increased (see Sec. \[chptextrosen\]). This is, on the one hand, caused by the smoothing effect of the fit and, on the other hand, the fit allows us to separate the form factors even if the measurements do not coincide in $Q^2$. Therefore, the effective density of measurements in $Q^2$ can be increased.
The experiment presented here, to our knowledge, is the first specifically optimized for this method of analysis. This approach and the precise measurements extending down to very low momentum transfer made some distinctive improvements over previous extractions possible as follows:
- The form-factor normalization at $Q^2=0$: The momentum region covered by the new measurement at MAMI, the details of which are described in this paper, is 0.003 GeV$^2 \lesssim Q^2 \lesssim$1 GeV$^2$. The small statistical error of 0.2% at low $Q^2$ reduces dramatically the uncertainty of the normalization at $Q^2=0$.
- Normalization of different data sets: The new data presented here have excellent relative normalization in a large $Q^2$ range, tying together the normalizations of the different data sets in the overlap region. Together with the first point, the absolute normalization is fixed with small uncertainty for a broad range in $Q^2$. Of course, the normalization factors extracted by the fit have to be independent of the specific fit model. The analysis presented here has this feature.
- Two-photon-exchange (TPE) correction: The cross section data and the asymmetry measurements with polarized electrons give inconsistent results for the form factors. This inconsistency is believed to be caused by the unconsidered TPE contribution which is deemed to be more important for the Rosenbluth formula, containing the electric and magnetic form factors $G_E^2$ and $G_M^2$ as a sum weighted by kinematical factors, than for the asymmetry formulas, which give the ratio $G_E/G_M$. Both methods are based on the one-photon-exchange approximation only [@Guichon03]. We fit the cross-section data together with the polarization data using a simple empirical model to parametrize the inconsistency. This empirical ansatz can reconcile the measurements and can easily be compared to theoretical calculations of TPE.
Some of the results of this paper are topical theoretically and at the center of recent controversies as follows:
- Electric and magnetic radii: A very precise determination of the electric radius of the proton through the Lamb shift of muonic hydrogen [@pohl] has given a 4% smaller value than both the CODATA value [@Mohr08] and the result of the present experiment [@Bernauer:2010wm]. The smaller muonic Lamb shift value has been confirmed recently with an updated result [@Antognini:1900ns]. This discrepancy is a so far unresolved puzzle. A similar discrepancy existed for the magnetic radius between the determination from the hyperfine splitting of electric hydrogen [@volotka] and some of the fits of the electron scattering world data [@Ron:2011rd]. However, as will be discussed in Sec. \[sec:V.C\], this discrepancy disappears with the result of this experiment [@Bernauer:2010wm].
- TPE correction: This correction has been calculated by several groups but with diverging results (see Ref. [@Meziane:2010xc] and references therein). After a controversy [@Arrington:2011kv; @Bernauer:2011zz; @Ron:2011rd] we present an experimental method in this paper showing the size of the effect possibly assigned to TPE and make it directly accessible to a comparison with theoretical calculations.
- Possible signal of a pion cloud: The common idea is that the proton form factors are smooth and show no narrow structure of small $Q^2$ scale. In an outdated fit of the pre-2003 data Friedrich and Walcher hypothesized the existence of a bump-dip structure which they attributed to the signal of a pion cloud [@fw03]. This bump-dip could not be confirmed by the results of this experiment [@Bernauer:2010wm], which, however, shows some other similar and more significant structure. Though the idea of such structures is not very welcome [@Meissner:2007tp] as it is considered to be a “popular fantasy” on theoretical grounds, the fits presented here will show further evidence for it.
The resolution of these controversies is partially possible through the high-precision results for the form factors presented here and as discussed later.
The paper is organized as follows. In the second section we present the relevant details of the experiment at MAMI followed by the description of the theoretical basis in the next section. The fourth section describes the extraction of cross sections from the measured count rates. The analysis of the cross section and some peculiar aspects of the statistics needed for the determination of errors and for the construction of confidence bands is described in the fifth section. It follows a discussion of the results in the frame work sketched above concluding with the new determination of the proton form factors in Sec. \[ffffitssec\] and of the radii in Sec. \[secradii\].
Because of the size of the data set, cross sections and tabulated fits are not included as an appendix in the paper but are available electronically as part of the Supplemental Material [@supp], on the arXiv, and on request from the authors.
Experiment {#secexperiment}
==========
In this section, we give an overview of the accelerator and detector facilities used in the experiment and describe the hydrogen target and the program of the measurement.
Accelerator
-----------
MAMI, the Mainz Microtron [@Herminghaus76; @Jankowiak:2006yc; @Kaiser:2008zz], is a normal conducting continuous-wave electron accelerator. It consists of a cascade of three race-track microtrons (RTMs) and a fourth stage, a harmonic double-sided microtron (HDSM). The accelerator is equipped with two electron sources: a thermionic source, which can provide currents in excess of $100\ \mathrm{\mu A}$, and a polarized source that makes use of the photoelectric effect on a GaAs crystal using polarized light which can provide more than $30\ \mathrm{\mu A}$.\
A linear accelerator injects the electrons with 3.97 MeV into the first RTM. Each of the three RTMs contains a normal conducting accelerator segment and two large high precision conventional magnets which recirculate the beam back into the accelerator segment. In the first RTM, the beam is recirculated 18 times, raising the electron energy to 14.86 MeV. The second RTM boosts this to 180 MeV in 51 turns.\
The beam may now bypass the rest of the accelerator and may be directed to the different experimental sites. Alternatively, it can enter RTM 3, which can boost the energy up to 855 MeV in 90 turns. Every other recirculation path can be instrumented with a kicker magnet which deflects the beam to the exit beam line system. Thus, the energy can be selected in 15-MeV steps.\
The beam may then be injected into the fourth stage. The HDSM stage comprises two anti-parallel accelerator segments, one of which is operated at the doubled frequency to suppress instabilities. The beam is recirculated by four magnets. The HDSM stage raises the energy up to 1.6 GeV in 43 recirculations.\
The absolute beam energy uncertainty is 150 keV and the root-mean-square (rms) energy spread is 30 keV at 855 MeV and 110 keV at 1.5 GeV. For the measurements described in this work, an unpolarized beam with beam energies of 180, 315, 450, 585, 720 and 855 MeV was used.\
Detector setup
--------------
The detector setup of the A1-collaboration at MAMI is called the three-spectrometer facility. The three high-resolution magnetic spectrometers, labeled A, B, and C, can be operated in single, double, or triple coincidence mode. A detailed description can be found in Ref. [@Blomqvist:1998xn]. The spectrometers can be rotated around a central pivot to measure at different scattering angles. The scattering angle can be read out with an absolute accuracy of 0.01$^\circ$, leading to an uncertainty in the cross-section of around 0.02%.
The magnetic system of spectrometer A and C is composed of a quadrupole, a sextupole, and two dipoles. This complex system facilitates a high-precision measurement of particle momentum and angle inside a relatively large acceptance of up to 28 msr. Spectrometer B consists of only a single dipole in a clamshell configuration, leading to a slim design with higher spatial resolution but smaller acceptance (5.6 msr); for out-of-plane measurements, spectrometer B can be tilted by up to 10$^\circ$.
Each of the three spectrometers is equipped with similar detector systems consisting of two scintillator planes, two packets of two vertical drift chamber layers (VDC), and a gas-Čerenkov detector. The scintillators are used for triggering, particle identification, and for a time reference. The drift chambers are used for the reconstruction of the particle trajectory. The Čerenkov detector distinguishes between muons (and heavier particles) and electrons.
Target system {#sectarget}
-------------
The target system is enclosed in a vacuum scattering chamber located on the rotation axis of the spectrometers and directly connected to the beam vacuum tube. A target ladder holds several interchangeable solid state materials like graphite, polyethylene, HAVAR foil, copper, etc., of varying thicknesses. Additionally, a luminescent screen (an $\mathrm{Al_2O_3}$ plate with a cross-hair printed on it) is mounted; it is used for beam position calibration. The target ladder has a vertical translation degree of freedom that is actuated by an electric motor to select the target material.\
The normal lid of the barrel-shaped scattering chamber can be exchanged for two different target constructions: A high-pressure gas target and a cryogenic target. The present experiment used the latter filled with liquid hydrogen as a proton target.
The cryogenic target system is composed of two loops. An inner loop (the “Basel loop”) is filled with the target gas, which is liquefied before the beginning of the beam time. The completely liquefied material is continuously recirculated by a fan. The loop contains an interchangeable target cell; two types were used in this experiment: a 5-cm-long, cigar-shaped cell with its axis in the beam direction and a cylindrical cell with a diameter of 2 cm and the axis perpendicular to the scattering plane. A heat exchanger couples the inner loop to the outer loop, which is coupled to a Philips compressor. The outer loop is also filled with hydrogen and works like a heat pipe: Hydrogen is liquefied at the Philips compressor. It flows down to the target, cooling down the target heat exchanger. The warmed up hydrogen then evaporates and returns to the Philips compressor.\
The hydrogen inside the inner loop is sub cooled to ensure that the beam load does not substantially change the density of the hydrogen by local heating above the boiling point. Nevertheless, for higher currents the beam is rastered in the transverse directions to reduce the effective power density (in both directions +-1mm for currents above $1~\mathrm{\mu A}$ and +-2mm for currents above $5~\mathrm{\mu A}$).
Additions to the standard experimental setup
--------------------------------------------
### pA-meter {#pameterdesc}
In a typical experiment at the three-spectrometer facility, the beam current is measured with a Förster probe located in a part of RTM 3 where all recirculations of the beam pass through. Accordingly, the accuracy of the measurement is best with the highest number of recirculations, i.e., for a beam energy of 855 MeV. For 180 MeV, the beam does, however, not pass the probe.\
Therefore, for measurements at small energies, a pA meter was installed at a collimator right before the linear accelerator segment. When the beam is deflected on the collimator, a current proportional to the beam current can be measured precisely. The pA-meter has been calibrated versus the Förster probe with a range of beam currents using a beam energy of 855 MeV, where the Förster probe is most sensitive. Since the pA meter is situated in a section of the accelerator where the beam energy is constant, the calibration is valid for all beam energies. The pA-meter system also has a better precision for low beam currents, which are needed for the measurements at small scattering angles.
### Beam position stabilization {#chptbeamstab}
A shift of the beam position on the target results in a drift of the measured cross section [@Jcb04]. The beam is normally stabilized by the circulation in RTM 3, which dampens beam position changes introduced in the earlier stages of the accelerator. This self-stabilization is less effective with lower recirculation number, i.e., lower energies, and is absent in the case of an incident beam energy of 180 MeV when the beam bypasses RTM 3. To eliminate beam position drifts, a beam-position control system has been installed by the MAMI group [@dehn]: The beam position is measured with two cavities in front of the target. Their signal is digitized and a correction current for the beam steering dipoles in the beam line is generated. The cavities need high beam currents for adequate sensitivity. Therefore, the beam has to be switched to a diagnostic mode where the beam is modulated as a train of high current pulses with a low duty cycle. These periods have to be excluded from the cross section measurements. During the data taking, the A1 computer system periodically disables the data acquisition and generates a signal to the MAMI control system to start the adjustment process. When the correction has been performed, MAMI signals back to the A1 system and data acquisition is resumed. The analysis codes have been modified to account for these pauses in the data acquisition.\
The system was installed in the beginning of the second measurement period (see Table \[tabbeamtimes\]) and was used for all later measurements. After the installation of the system, there was no beam position drift detectable. For the first period, we observed beam position shifts of less than 0.3 mm, leading to a change in the cross section of less than 0.1%. Because this change is matched by the luminosity measurement, the error in the ratio of the two is negligible.
Kinematic coverage {#subsecprog}
------------------
At a given (negative) four-momentum transfer squared, $$Q^2=4EE^\prime\sin^2\frac{\theta}{2},$$ where $E\ (E^\prime)$ is the energy of the incoming (outgoing) electron and $\theta$ is the electron scattering angle, the relative contributions of $G_E$ and $G_M$ to the cross sections depend on the polarization of the virtual photon $$\varepsilon=\left(1+2\left(1+\frac{Q^2}{4m_p^2}\right)\tan^2\frac{\theta}{2}\right)^{-1}.$$ In order to extract the form factors from the measured cross sections using the traditional Rosenbluth technique, it is mandatory to measure at different $\varepsilon$ for a given, constant $Q^2$ value. While this constraint does not have to be fulfilled when performing the mentioned global fit, which is in focus here, the range and number of different $\varepsilon$ values in a given $Q^2$ range determine the accuracy of the separation.\
Figure \[figkine\] displays the part of the $\varepsilon$-$Q^2$-plane accessible by the accelerator and detector setup in this experiment. To help the readability, only the centers of the overlapping acceptances are marked. The shaded areas are excluded because of the various experimental limitations (see the figure caption).
In order to vary $\varepsilon$ at constant $Q^2$, both the scattering angle and the incident beam energy have to be changed. A beam energy change takes about 6 h at MAMI, which is quick in comparison to other accelerator facilities but still too costly to be done frequently. Thus, the measuring program was organized to minimize beam energy changes. Since the energy gain in RTM 1 and RTM 2 is fixed, the minimum beam energy of MAMI is achieved when the beam passes RTM 3 without further acceleration, resulting in a 180-MeV beam. The beam time allocation permitted to measure at six energies, spread out evenly between 180 and 855 MeV in 135-MeV steps. In this experiment, no use was made yet of the 1.6-GeV stage of MAMI. While the HDSM stage (MAMI C) was already commissioned for productive use, there was no experience with the quality of the beam, and it was not yet possible to extract the beam at energies between 0.855 and 1.6 GeV.
At each beam energy, the measured angle range was maximized. The geometric designs of target and spectrometers allow each spectrometer to cover different but overlapping angular ranges. To maximize the angular range covered by the data set and the internal redundancy in the data, all three spectrometers were used in parallel. Spectrometers A and C were used alternately as the “production spectrometer” (changing angle from run to run) and “luminosity monitor” (at a fixed angle). The spectrometer angle is changed each time only by one-fourth of the acceptance, i.e., by $2.5^\circ$ for A and C and by $0.5^\circ$ for B, so that at each angle the cross section is measured four times with the same spectrometer but with different parts of the spectrometer acceptance. While the quality of the reconstruction is not good enough to split up the acceptance of a single measurement in smaller bins with the aimed-for precision, this fourfold oversampling of the scattering angle allows us to recover the $Q^2$ dependence inside the acceptance of a single measurement. Spectrometer A is situated on the opposite side of the beam line from spectrometers B and C. Hence, a comparison in the overlap region between spectrometer A and the others is testing the beam, target, and rotation-axis alignment. Spectrometer A can be used in the range between $25^\circ$ and $110^\circ$. Due to the construction of the target, the angle of A had to be limited to $90^\circ$ for the long target cell and to $110^\circ$ for the short target cell. Spectrometer C extends the angle range to over $130^\circ$. The slim construction of spectrometer B allows it to reach scattering angles down to $15.5^\circ$.
When the field of a spectrometer is changed, the magnetic fields change due to eddy currents and have to stabilize. Since this takes some time, the momentum was adjusted only every second angle change in order to keep the elastically scattered electrons at roughly a constant position on the focal plane of the spectrometers.\
For most of the individual points, the required time to achieve the envisaged statistics of below 0.2% was around 30 min. Most settings were divided into two 5- to 20-min-long submeasurements. This reduces the statistical accuracy per submeasurement (which is compensated by the higher number of measurements) but increases the accuracy of the luminosity determined by the pA-meter, which measures the beam current before and after each submeasurement and facilitates the search and elimination of time dependent effects.
The measurements were performed during three beam time periods, summarized in Table \[tabbeamtimes\].
08/2006 11/2006 05/2007
----------------------- ----------------- -------------- ------------------
Duration 10 days 11 days 17 days
Setup / calibration 2 days 2 days 6 days
Beam energies \[MeV\] 585, 855 180, 720 315, 450, 720
Target cell used long short long
No. of setup changes 152 173 217
No. of measurements 358 490 574
Beam currents 585: 11 nA 180: 2.8 nA 315: 28 nA
to 5.5 $\mu$A to 360nA to 1.6 $\mu$A
855: 0.8 $\mu$A 720: 90 nA 450: 30 nA
to 10 $\mu$A to 14 $\mu$A to -4.8 $\mu$A
720: 8-10 $\mu$A
: Overview of the beam times. Setup changes are changes of momentum and/or angle of at least one spectrometer.[]{data-label="tabbeamtimes"}
Theory for elastic electron proton scattering
=============================================
Cross section in first Born approximation {#chpttfecs}
-----------------------------------------
The kinematic parameters of the elastic scattering of an electron on a target at rest is depicted in Fig. \[figlabkin\].
![\[figlabkin\]The kinematic parameters for the elastic scattering of an electron on a target initially at rest.](kinematics)
The incident electron has a four-momentum $k_1=(E_1=E,\vec{p_1})$. It is scattered in the direction $\Omega=(\theta,\phi)$ with four-momentum $k_2=(E_2=E',\vec{p_2})$. In the scattering process, the four-momentum $q=k_1-k_2$ is transferred to the target via the exchange of a virtual photon. The target of mass M is initially at rest, $P_1=(M,\vec{0})$.\
The unpolarized cross section is independent of the azimuthal angle $\phi$. Therefore, there are only two degrees of freedom and the cross section can be expressed in terms of the energy $E$ of the incoming electron and the scattering angle $\theta$ or, equivalently, by the (negative) four-momentum transfer squared $Q^2$ and the photon polarization $\varepsilon$.
In the one-photon-exchange approximation, the unpolarized cross section for the elastic scattering of an electron on a proton with internal structure is given as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
&\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}\Omega}\right)_{0}=\nonumber\\
&\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}\Omega}\right)_\mathrm{Mott}\left[\left(F_1^2 +\tau\left(\kappa F_2\right)^2\right) + 2\tau\left(F_1+\kappa F_2\right)^2\tan^2\frac{\theta}{2}\right],\end{aligned}$$ with the dimensionless quantity $\tau=Q^2/(4m_P^2)$ and where $$\label{eqmott}
\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}\Omega}\right)_\mathrm{Mott}=\frac{4\alpha^2E'^2}{Q^4}\frac{E'}{E}\left(1-\beta^2\sin^2\left(\frac{\theta}{2}\right)\right)$$ is the recoil-corrected Mott cross section, which is the cross section for the scattering of a point-like spin-$\frac{1}{2}$-particle on a scalar point-like target. The internal structure is expressed here in terms of the Dirac and Pauli form factors, $F_1$ and $F_2$, respectively.
The relations $$\begin{aligned}
G_E&=F_1-\tau \kappa F_2\nonumber,\\
G_M&=F_1+\kappa F_2\end{aligned}$$ translate the Dirac $F_1$ and Pauli $F_2$ form factors into the Sachs form factors $G_E$ and $G_M$. They were first proposed by Yennie [*et al.*]{} [@yennie57]. Sachs [*et al.*]{} [@Ernst; @Sachs] proposed that this choice provides a more physical insight than $F_1$ and $F_2$ since in the Breit frame, defined as $P^B_1+P^B_2=(2E_B,\vec{0})$, the transition current reduces to $$J_B=e\chi^T_{p_2}\left(2M\cdot G_E,i\vec{\sigma}\times\vec{q}\cdot G_M\right)\chi_{p_1}.$$ In this frame, $G_E$ and $G_M$ are the Fourier transforms of the spatial charge and magnetization distributions. A frequent criticism of this idea is that the Breit frame is equivalent to an infinitely heavy proton or alternatively, a proton affixed to the coordinate origin and, therefore, the charge and magnetization distributions are not “real,” i.e., frame dependent. A more detailed discussion of this point can be found in Ref. [@Vanderhaeghen:2010nd].
With the Sachs form factors, the cross section is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}\Omega}\right)_{0}&=\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}\Omega}\right)_\mathrm{Mott}\times\nonumber\\
&\left[\frac{G_E^2\left(Q^2\right)+\tau G_M^2\left(Q^2\right)}{1+\tau}+2\tau G_M^2\left(Q^2\right)\tan^2\frac{\theta}{2}\right] \nonumber\\
&=\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}\Omega}\right)_\mathrm{Mott}\frac{\varepsilon G_E^2+\tau G_M^2}{\varepsilon\left(1+\tau\right)}
\label{eqrosen}.\end{aligned}$$ The choice of the Sachs form factors eliminates the mixed term in the cross section, which now depends on the squares of $G_E$ and $G_M$ only.
In the static limit $Q^2=0$, the form factors normalize to the charge and magnetic moment of the proton in units of the electron charge and of the nuclear magneton $\mu_K$, $G_E(0)=1$ and $G_M(0)=\mu_p$.\
The standard method to extract the form factors from measured cross sections is the Rosenbluth separation [@Rosenbluth]. It exploits the linear structure in $\varepsilon$ of Eq. (\[eqrosen\]) and separates the form factors by measurements at constant $Q^2$ but different $\varepsilon$ values.
The somewhat unfamiliar method used in this paper consists in inserting many distinctly different form-factor models into Eq. (\[eqrosen\]) and fitting their parameters directly to the measured cross sections. This will be discussed in detail in Sec. \[chptmodels\] and following subsections.
As mentioned above, in the Breit frame the Sachs form factors are the Fourier transforms of the charge and magnetization distributions. Expanding the kernel of the Fourier integrals in terms of $Q^2$ yields $$G\left(Q^2\right)/G\left(0\right)=1-\frac{1}{6}\left<r^2\right>Q^2+ \frac{1}{120}\left<r^4\right>Q^4 -\dots,$$ where $<r^n>$ is the $n$-th moment of the electric or magnetic distribution. Therefore, the second moments can be determined by $$\label{eqradius}
\left<r^2\right>=-\frac{6}{G\left(0\right)}\left.\frac{\mathrm{d}G\left(Q^2\right)}{\mathrm{d}Q^2}\right|_{Q^2=0},$$ i.e., from the slope of the form factors at $Q^2=0$.
Radiative corrections {#chapterbrems}
---------------------
\(b)  (v1) \
(v2)  (v3)  (v4)  (v5) \
(r1)  (r2)  (r3)  (r4) 
It is not possible to measure the lowest for-order cross section directly since higher-order diagrams, as depicted in Fig. \[figfeyn\], always contribute to the elastic scattering process. It is common practice to divide these contributions into groups with an additional virtual (v1–v5 in Fig. \[figfeyn\]) or real photon (r1–r4). However, this grouping is problematic: Divergences in one group cancel against divergences in the other group, hence all graphs have to be evaluated at once. This leads to a correction $\delta$ to the one-photon-exchange calculation $$\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}\Omega}\right)_{1}=\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}\Omega}\right)_0\left(1+\delta\right).$$ Here $\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}\Omega}\right)_0$ is the cross section for one-photon exchange alone \[Fig. \[figfeyn\](b)\] as given by Eq. (\[eqrosen\]), while $\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}\Omega}\right)_{1}$ is the cross section when next-to-leading-order contributions are taken into account (graphs v1–v5 and r1–r4 in Fig. \[figfeyn\]).\
Conversely, the non-radiative cross section $\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}\Omega}\right)_0$ can be determined in a first-order approximation by identifying the experimental cross section with $\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}\Omega}\right)_{1}$ and dividing it by $(1+\delta)$.
The integrals over the internal four-momenta of the graphs v1–v3 are logarithmically divergent for large momenta. This can be treated theoretically by charge and mass renormalization. Details can be found in Ref. [@Maximon2000; @Vanderhaeghen2000]. Graph v2 leads to an infrared divergence, but it can be shown [@Bloch1937; @Jauch1954] that this cancels with corresponding divergences of the graphs r1 and r2.
In the following, the formulas for the contributions from different groups of diagrams used in this work will be presented. For details of the calculation see Refs. [@Maximon2000; @Vanderhaeghen2000].\
The vacuum polarization (v1) gives rise to the term $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_\mathrm{vac}&=\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\frac{2}{3}\left\{\left(v^2-\frac{8}{3}\right)+v\frac{3-v^2}{2}\ln\left(\frac{v+1}{v-1}\right)\right\},\label{eqtruevac}\\
&\stackrel{Q^2\gg m_l^2}{\longrightarrow}\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\frac{2}{3}\left\{-\frac{5}{3}+\ln\left(\frac{Q^2}{m_l^2}\right)\right\},\label{eqapproxvac}\end{aligned}$$ with $v^2=1+\frac{4m_l^2}{Q^2}$, where $m_l$ is the mass of the particle in the loop. The approximation (\[eqapproxvac\]) is valid for loop electrons. However, at the energy scales of this experiment and within the envisaged accuracy, the vacuum polarization via muon and tau loops has to be accounted for and must be evaluated with Eq. (\[eqtruevac\]).\
The finite part of the electron vertex correction (v2, the infinite part cancels later on) is given in the ultrarelativistic limit by $$\delta_\mathrm{vertex}=\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\left\{\frac{3}{2}\ln\left(\frac{Q^2}{m^2}\right)-2-\frac{1}{2}\ln^2\left(\frac{Q^2}{m^2}\right)+\frac{\pi^2}{6}\right\}.$$\
In the same limit, the contribution from real photon emission by the electron (r1, r2) yields the following: $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_R=&\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\left\{\ln\left(\frac{\left(\Delta E_s\right)^2}{E\cdot E'}\right)\left[\left(\frac{Q^2}{m^2}\right)-1\right]-\frac{1}{2}\ln^2\eta\right.\nonumber\\
&\left.+\frac{1}{2}\ln^2\left(\frac{Q^2}{m^2}\right)-\frac{\pi^2}{3}+\mathrm{Sp}\left(\cos^2\frac{\theta_e}{2}\right)\right\},\end{aligned}$$ where $\eta=E/E'$, $\Delta E_s=\eta\cdot \Delta E'$. $E'$ is the energy of an electron scattered elastically through an angle $\theta$ when no photon is emitted. An electron which radiates a photon has a lower energy than $E'$. $\Delta E'$ is the maximum difference to $E'$ allowed by the radiative tail cut-off; it is called the cut-off energy. Details about the Spence function $\mathrm{Sp}\left(x\right)$ can be found in Appendix B of Ref. [@friedjm00].
The terms where the proton contributes (v3–v5, r3, and r4) are complicated and an exact calculation requires the knowledge of the internal structure of the proton. Maximon and Tjon [@Maximon2000] divide the correction in three parts, one proportional to the charge $Z$ ($\delta_1$), one to $Z^2$ ($\delta_2$), and a third part in which they include all of the structure dependence ($\delta^{(1)}_{el}$). The last part is believed to be small for the kinematics of this work and is therefore neglected. The other two correction terms (the $Z$-dependence is divided out) are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_1=&\frac{2\alpha}{\pi}\left\{\ln\left(\frac{4\left(\Delta
E_s\right)^2}{Q^2x}\right)\ln\eta+\mathrm{Sp}\left(1-\frac{\eta}{x}\right)\right.\nonumber\\
&\hspace{5em}\left.-\mathrm{Sp}\left(1-\frac{1}{\eta x}\right)\right\},\\
\delta_2=&\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\left\{\ln\left(\frac{4\left(\Delta E_s\right)^2}{m^2_p}\right)\left(\frac{E'_P}{\left|\vec{p'}_P\right|}\ln x-1\right)+1\right.\nonumber\\
&\left. +\frac{E'_P}{\left|\vec{p'}_P\right|}\left(-\frac{1}{2}\ln^2x-\ln x\ln\left(\frac{\rho^2}{m^2_P}\right)+\ln x\right.\right.\nonumber\\
&\left.\left. -\mathrm{Sp}\left(1-\frac{1}{x^2}\right)+2\mathrm{Sp}\left(-\frac{1}{x}\right)+\frac{\pi^2}{6}\right)\right\},\end{aligned}$$ with $$x=\frac{\left(Q+\rho\right)^2}{4m^2_P},\hspace{1cm}\rho^2=Q^2+4m^2_P.$$
For vanishing cut-off energies and, hence, $\Delta E_s$, the corrections $\delta_R$, $\delta_1$, and $\delta_2$ get infinitely large. In this case, however, more photons than just one are emitted in each scattering event. It has been shown in Refs. [@Bloch1937; @Yennie1961] that this can be approximately taken into account by exponentiation of the corresponding correction terms as well as for the vertex correction. For the vacuum polarization contribution, Vanderhaeghen [*et al.*]{} [@Vanderhaeghen2000] iterate the first order contribution to all orders, which does not lead to an exponentiation. In total, they find $$\label{oldcorr}
\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}\Omega}\right)_\mathrm{exp}=\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}\Omega}\right)_0\frac{e^{\delta_\mathrm{vertex}+\delta_R+Z\delta_1+Z^2\delta_2}}{\left(1-\delta_\mathrm{vac}/2\right)^2},$$ which, for the kinematics used in the present work, differs marginally (below 0.05%) from the fully exponentiated form, which will therefore be used in the analysis of the measured cross sections as follows ($Z$ has been set to 1): $$\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}\Omega}\right)_\mathrm{exp}\hspace{-1em}\left(\Delta E'\right)=\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}\Omega}\right)_0e^{\delta_\mathrm{vac}+\delta_\mathrm{vertex}+[\delta_R+\delta_1+\delta_2]\left(\Delta E'\right)} .$$
It will be described in Sec. \[chptradtail\] how these higher-order contributions are accounted for in the determination of the first-order cross section from the measured data.
Coulomb distortion and two-photon exchange {#chpttpe}
------------------------------------------
The Coulomb distortion, i.e., the scattering process via the exchange of many soft photons, and the related two-photon exchange, where both photons have a sizable momentum, is not fully included in the radiative corrections. There is yet some theoretical uncertainty in the modeling of these two effects. For the two photon effect, the off-shell nucleon and its excited states have to be modeled. For a discussion of the Coulomb distortion, see Ref. [@friedjm00]. A complete treatment of these effects is not the topic of this paper.\
Nevertheless, the Coulomb distortion can not be ignored completely, especially for the determination of the radius, as has been shown by Rosenfelder [@Rosenfelder99]. He finds that the extracted radius is enlarged by about 0.018 fm when Coulomb distortion is accounted for. For $Q^2=0$, the correction is in agreement with the simple additional correction factor $(1+\delta_F)$, the so-called Feshbach correction [@McKinley:1948zz; @tsai61], by McKinley and Feshbach as follows: $$\delta_F=Z\alpha\pi\frac{\sin\frac{\theta}{2}-\sin^2\frac{\theta}{2}}{\cos^2\frac{\theta}{2}}.
\label{feshbach}$$ This correction has been applied to the measured cross sections and is maximal for $180^\circ$ scattering yielding a downward correction of 1.2%.\
The TPE becomes more important at larger $Q^2$ and may explain the difference between polarized and unpolarized measurements at large $Q^2$ [@Guichon03]. Therefore, a lot of theoretical work focuses on the energy scales above 1 GeV. In 2007, Arrington [*et al.*]{} [@Arrington07] have reanalyzed the world data set with a model for two-photon-exchange corrections and made two fits, one with the corrections applied and one without. The ratio of these fits represents an estimate of the two-photon effect on the form-factor ratio in the higher $Q^2$ region of the present experiment, which can be used to compare the form-factor ratio from fits to Rosenbluth data with previous polarized measurements. However, one has to keep in mind that these fits rely on just one model [@Arrington:2011kv; @Bernauer:2011zz] and a generalization is uncertain. Therefore, we have chosen a different phenomenological approach (Sec. \[fwaextdata\] and \[fwextdata\]).
Determination of the cross sections
===================================
Overview {#dcslum}
--------
In order to calculate the cross section from counting rates one has to know the luminosity and the acceptance of the detector. However, the acceptance is not just a fixed number given purely by the collimator geometry; it also depends on the target length and position and on the spectrometer angle and the momentum of the particles. The only feasible way to determine the cross section from the measured number of scattering events is by comparing this number to the result of a full simulation of the experiment, $\sigma_\mathrm{sim}$, including all aspects of the detector response, external energy loss of the electrons in the target material and all radiative corrections. The measured cross section is then found as $$\label{eqsigma}
\sigma_\mathrm{rel,exp}=\frac{A-B}{\sigma_\mathrm{sim}\mathcal{L}}.$$ Here, $A$ is the number of counts in the peak region integrated to the cut-off energy $\Delta E^\prime $, $B$ is the estimated background in this region, $\sigma_\mathrm{sim}$ is the simulated cross section including radiative corrections integrated over the acceptance of the spectrometers, and $\mathcal{L}=\int\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{eff}\mathrm{d}t$ is the time-integrated effective, i.e., prescaling and dead-time corrected, luminosity. For the calculation of $\sigma_\mathrm{sim}$, one has to make use of an assumed cross section which should be sufficiently close to the true one. As a result, Eq. (\[eqsigma\]) yields the measured cross section relative to the assumed one.
We define the data taken at one energy and angle over some time as a “run.” The runs are grouped into a “set of runs,” where the relative normalizations of the runs to each other in the same set are determined by the luminosity-monitor measurements (see Sec. \[lumi\]). With the setup of this experiment, as well as with any other, the absolute normalization of each run, i.e., the luminosity, which comprises the absolute knowledge of the target length, the absolute current calibration and the absolute detector efficiencies, can be determined only to the few-percent level. Therefore, the relative normalization between different sets of runs will be left floating in the fits of the final analysis. The absolute normalization, finally, is fixed by the known values of the form factors at $Q=0$, as already mentioned.
Cross section simulation {#chptsim}
------------------------
Instead of correcting the measured number of events for efficiencies, acceptance problems, and the radiative processes, as was the case in the classical electron-scattering experiments, these ingredients are better incorporated into the simulated cross section as discussed in the following.
### Internal radiative corrections {#chptradtail}
As described above, the extraction of the first-order Born cross section $\left(\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}\right)_0$ of the process $ep\longrightarrow e^\prime p^\prime$ also requires the calculation of a (radiation) correction factor $f_\mathrm{corr}$. This factor depends on the kinematics and cut-off energy $\Delta E^\prime $ in the spectrum of the scattered electrons, $$\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}\Omega}\right)_\mathrm{exp}=\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}\Omega}\right)_0 \cdot f_\mathrm{corr}\left(\Delta E^\prime, E, \theta\right),$$ or, differential in the cut-off energy, $$\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}\Omega\mathrm{d}\Delta E^\prime }\right)_\mathrm{exp}=\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}\Omega}\right)_0\cdot\frac{\mathrm{d}\,f_\mathrm{corr}}{\mathrm{d}\Delta E^\prime },$$ where $\frac{\mathrm{d}\,f_\mathrm{corr}}{\mathrm{d}\Delta E^\prime }$ is the radiative tail. A generator algorithm for a Monte Carlo calculation has to produce events replicating this cross section in an efficient manner, i.e., without too great computational costs and with a choice of the kinematic quantities so the variance of the weights of the individual events is minimized. The generator is based on a generator for events for a virtual Compton-scattering experiment described in Ref. [@Jovas03]. In its original form, it was limited to a description of the shape of the tail without correct global normalization. In the course of the present work, it was extended to also describe accurately the peak region and to have the correct normalization. The generator first generates a vertex position, a scattering angle, and an azimuthal angle from pseudorandom number sequences. Then, it follows the principles laid out in Vanderhaeghen [*et al.*]{} [@Vanderhaeghen2000] in calculating the energy of a radiated photon. In the next step, a direction of this photon has to be generated. Since the cross section depends strongly on the photon angle, peaking close to the directions of the electrons, but vanishing at the exact directions, it is important to generate the photon direction with importance sampling, that is, generating more events where the cross section is higher so the weights of the events are nearly constant. To this end, one generates the directions using a suitable approximation of the Bethe-Heitler part of the cross section. Such an approximation is given by the sum of individual cross sections for radiation off the incoming or outgoing electron, neglecting the interference, $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}\Omega}\right)_\mathrm{approx.}&=\left(\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}\Omega}\right)_e+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}\Omega}\right)_{e^\prime }\right)\nonumber\\
\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}\Omega}\right)_{e}&=\frac{1}{\mathrm{N}\left(E,\vec{p}\right)}\cdot \frac{1-\cos^2\theta_{e,\gamma}}{\left(\frac{E}{\left|\vec{p}\right|}-\cos\theta_{e,\gamma}\right)^2}\label{eqBHapprox}\\
\mathrm{N}\left(E,\vec{p}\right)&=-4-2\frac{E}{\left|\vec{p}\right|}\cdot\ln\left(\left(\frac{E}{\left|\vec{p}\right|}-1\right) \left/ \left(\frac{E}{\left|\vec{p}\right|}+1\right)\right) \right.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and the same expressions for $E^\prime $, $p^\prime $, and $\theta_{e^\prime \gamma}$. $E\ (E^\prime )$ is the incoming (outgoing) electron energy, $\vec{p}\ (\vec{p^\prime })$ the corresponding momentum, and $\theta_{e\gamma}\ (\theta_{e^\prime \gamma})$ the angle between the incoming (outgoing) electron and the photon. The generator selects with equal probability whether the photon is radiated from the incoming or outgoing electron.\
Then the transformation method is used to generate random values with a distribution according to Eq. (\[eqBHapprox\]). The cumulative distribution is given by $$\begin{aligned}
F\left(\theta_{e,\gamma}\right)&=\frac{\int_{-1}^{\cos(\theta_{e,\gamma})}\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}\Omega}\right)_{e}\mathrm{d}\cos\theta_{e\gamma}}{\int_{-1}^1\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}\Omega}\right)_e \mathrm{d}\cos\theta_{e\gamma}}\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{\mathrm{N}\left(E,\vec{p}\right)}\left(\frac{1-\left(\frac{E}{\left|\vec{p}\right|}\right)^2}{\frac{E}{\left|\vec{p}\right|}-\cos\theta_{e,\gamma}}-\cos\theta_{e,\gamma}\right. \nonumber\\
&\left.-2\frac{E}{\left|\vec{p}\right|}\ln\frac{\frac{E}{\left|\vec{p}\right|}-\cos\theta_{e,\gamma}}{\frac{E}{\left|\vec{p}\right|}+1}-2+\frac{E}{\left|\vec{p}\right|}\right).\end{aligned}$$ A uniformly distributed number $r$ between 0 and 1 is now transformed by solving $r=F(\theta_{e,\gamma})$ to the new random variable $\theta_{e\gamma}$ with the correct distribution (see Ref. [@NR], Sec. 7.2). The required inversion of $F$ is realized numerically via a bisection method.
The innermost part of the generator calculates the Feynman graphs of the lowest order describing the Bethe-Heitler (radiation from the electron) + Born (radiation from the proton) processes for the now-fixed kinematics. Here a Jacobian for the transformation $\mathrm{d}\Omega_k^{Lab}$ to $\mathrm{d}\Omega_k^{c.m.}$ has to be taken into account. It is calculated numerically using finite differences.\
The cross section calculated with these graphs is infrared divergent. This is accounted for by a modification of the propagators. Their denominators are $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{Bethe\textrm{-}Heitler:}&2k_1\cdot q^\mathrm{rad} ,\,&-2k_2 \cdot q^\mathrm{rad} \\
\mathrm{Born:}&-2p\cdot q^\mathrm{rad} ,\,&p^\prime \cdot q^\mathrm{rad} ,\end{aligned}$$ where $k_1 (k_2 )$ is again the four-vector of the incoming (outgoing) electron and $q^\mathrm{rad} $ the four-vector of the radiated photon evaluated in the center-of-mass (c.m.) system. Here, $q^\mathrm{rad} $ is replaced with $q^\mathrm{rad} _{mod}=q^\mathrm{rad} /\left|\vec{q}^\mathrm{rad}\right|$. Hence, the calculation yields the correct cross section multiplied with a factor $K^2=\left|\vec{q}^\mathrm{rad}\right|^2$ since the matrix element enters quadratically into the cross section. One order of $K$ is then divided out at the cross section level, and the remaining order has to be accounted for later when the different parts of the generator are combined.
### External radiation
In an extended target, the material in the path of the particles before and after the scattering inflict an energy loss in addition to the internal processes. When the cryogenic target is used, the incoming beam has to pass through different layers of matter until the scattering process occurs. This includes the walls of the target and the liquid hydrogen inside the target. Additionally, the cold target acts as a cold trap. “Snow,” i.e., frozen water and nitrogen from the residual gas inside the vacuum chamber, can build up on the target surface and is easily identified as additional peaks in the scattering spectrum. Switching to high current melts the snow where the beam enters and exits the target. However, snow remains on the sides of the cell. The outgoing electron has to pass part of the hydrogen, the wall of the target, possibly snow, and then the windows between the spectrometer and vacuum chamber and a short distance of air between them. In all these layers, the electron loses energy by external bremsstrahlung and ionization of the atoms. These processes have to be folded with the internal bremsstrahlung spectrum; the simulation does this numerically.
### Resolution
The resolution of the drift chambers, the characteristics of the electronics, and the knowledge of the transport inside the magnetic system give rise to specific error distributions for the extracted kinematical variables of the detected particles at the target. In the simulation, we employ a simple Gaussian to model the error-distribution in the reaction vertex and the sum of two Gaussians with different weights and width to model the error distributions in the in-plane and out-of-plane angles and in the momentum. With two Gaussians, the longer tails in the distributions of the errors in these variables are better reproduced than by a single Gaussian.
### Test of the description of the radiative tail
In the classical electron scattering experiments the radiative correction was calculated from a cut-off energy by Eq. (\[oldcorr\]). By contrast, we calculate in the simulation the full radiative tail, accounting for the convolution over the complicated acceptance of the spectrometers, for the convolution of internal and external energy loss, and for the dependence of the cross section on the energy. With the classical radiative correction one meets a dilemma: A large cut-off is favored by the then-small correction; however, there comes in the unaccounted dependence of the cross section on the energy. The latter disadvantage is minimized by a small cut-off, but then one has fewer events, the correction is large, and there enters an uncertainty from the resolution of the spectrometer. Compared to the evaluation of the old measurements, the specific choice of the cut-off energy is considerably less important in our method, where the measured cross section is given by a comparison of the simulated and measured spectrum, giving full account to the acceptance and to the energy dependence of the cross section. We demonstrate the quality of the description of the radiation tail in Fig. \[figtail1\], which shows a comparison of the measured $\Delta E^\prime_\mathrm{exp}$ spectrum and the simulated tail. For this comparison, the background in the measured spectrum is suppressed by a vertex cut. The upper panel compares the two spectra directly in a logarithmic scale. The downward bend at large $\Delta E^\prime_\mathrm{exp}$ is due to the finite momentum acceptance of the spectrometer. The lower panel shows the ratio of the integrals over the two distributions which, finally, gives the experimental cross section: Over the wide range of cut-off energies the result depends on $\Delta E^\prime_\mathrm{exp}$ by less than $10^{-3}$.
![\[figtail1\] (a) Comparison of experimental (black) and simulated (gray) $\Delta E^\prime $ histogram in the region of the tail. A cut on the vertex position was applied to suppress background from reactions off the walls. (b) Ratio of the integral of the experimental data to the integral of the simulation integrated up to the cut-off energy $\Delta E^\prime $. The ratio varies by less than 0.1% for cut-off energies up to 75 MeV. The ratio is scaled to start at 1. Data: Spectrometer A, $53^\circ$, and 855-MeV incident beam energy. ](esdehist "fig:") ![\[figtail1\] (a) Comparison of experimental (black) and simulated (gray) $\Delta E^\prime $ histogram in the region of the tail. A cut on the vertex position was applied to suppress background from reactions off the walls. (b) Ratio of the integral of the experimental data to the integral of the simulation integrated up to the cut-off energy $\Delta E^\prime $. The ratio varies by less than 0.1% for cut-off energies up to 75 MeV. The ratio is scaled to start at 1. Data: Spectrometer A, $53^\circ$, and 855-MeV incident beam energy. ](esinta85 "fig:")
Determination of the experimental cross sections {#chptana}
------------------------------------------------
In this section we discuss the determination of the number of events $A$, the background $B$, and of the luminosity $\cal{L}$ for Eq. (\[eqsigma\]) and of some further corrections and anomalies.
### Data selection
Electrons scattered elastically without the emission of a photon have an energy $$E^\prime\left(\theta\right)=\frac{E}{1+\frac{E}{m_p}\left(1-\cos\theta\right)}.$$ Internal and external bremsstrahlung as well as ionization reduce the energy of the detected electron. In order to identify the elastic scattering, one defines $$\Delta E^\prime_\mathrm{exp}=E^\prime\left(\theta_\mathrm{exp}\right)-E^\prime_\mathrm{exp},$$ the difference of the detected energy $E^\prime_\mathrm{exp}$ to the energy calculated from the detected scattering angle, $E^\prime(\theta_\mathrm{exp})$.
The angular acceptance of the spectrometer is given by the collimator. In order to reduce the background we apply cuts on the reconstructed in-plane ($\Phi_0$) and out-of-plane ($\Theta_0$) angles relative to the central trajectory. The cuts are chosen to be outside of the nominal acceptance so the acceptance is still defined by the geometry. However, these cuts suppress badly reconstructed tracks and noise hits. The momentum acceptance is not well defined by the physical construction of the spectrometer. We therefore apply cuts on $\Delta p_c$, i.e., the deviation of the particle momentum from the spectrometer’s central momentum, to have a well defined momentum acceptance. Figure \[figcuts\] shows a typical measured spectrum of $\Delta E^\prime_\mathrm{exp} $ and the effect of these cuts, which are summarized in Table \[tblcuts\]. To select the elastic reaction for the extraction of the cross section, we apply a cut in $\Delta E^\prime_\mathrm{exp}$ accepting events only in the elastic peak region up to a certain cut of $\Delta E^\prime_\mathrm{max}$.
![\[figcuts\] Typical $\Delta E_\mathrm{exp}^\prime$ spectrum for a measurement with spectrometer A at $90.5^\circ$ at an incident energy of $E=585$ $\mathrm{MeV}$. (a) Spectrum without any cut. (b) After all cuts except a cut in $\Delta E_\mathrm{exp}^\prime $. (c) Events that are rejected by the cuts. Random events give rise to the nearly constant level between $-$30 and 15 MeV. The bump around 30 MeV originates from events detected near the edges of the detector plane.](cuts1 "fig:") ![\[figcuts\] Typical $\Delta E_\mathrm{exp}^\prime$ spectrum for a measurement with spectrometer A at $90.5^\circ$ at an incident energy of $E=585$ $\mathrm{MeV}$. (a) Spectrum without any cut. (b) After all cuts except a cut in $\Delta E_\mathrm{exp}^\prime $. (c) Events that are rejected by the cuts. Random events give rise to the nearly constant level between $-$30 and 15 MeV. The bump around 30 MeV originates from events detected near the edges of the detector plane.](cuts2 "fig:") ![\[figcuts\] Typical $\Delta E_\mathrm{exp}^\prime$ spectrum for a measurement with spectrometer A at $90.5^\circ$ at an incident energy of $E=585$ $\mathrm{MeV}$. (a) Spectrum without any cut. (b) After all cuts except a cut in $\Delta E_\mathrm{exp}^\prime $. (c) Events that are rejected by the cuts. Random events give rise to the nearly constant level between $-$30 and 15 MeV. The bump around 30 MeV originates from events detected near the edges of the detector plane.](cuts3 "fig:")
Cut spec. A spec. B spec. C
-------------------- --------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------
$\Delta p_c$ $-10\%<\Delta p_c<9\%$ $\left|\Delta p_c\right|<7.3\%$ $\left|\Delta p_c\right|<12.3\%$
$\Phi_0$ $\left|\Phi_0\right|<6.5^\circ$ $\left|\Phi_0\right|<3^\circ$ $\left|\Phi_0\right|<6.7^\circ$
$\Theta_0$ $\left|\Theta_0\right|<5^\circ$ $\left|\Theta_0\right|<3^\circ$ $\left|\Theta_0\right|<6.5^\circ$
$y_\mathrm{snout}$ – $\left|y_\mathrm{snout}\right| < 30\ \mathrm{mm}$ –
: \[tblcuts\]Overview of the cuts used in the analysis. We apply a cut in $\Delta p_c$ to define our momentum acceptance. Additionally, events with reconstructed in-plane ($\Phi_0$) and out-of-plane ($\Theta_0$) angles outside of the acceptance are cut to suppress background. For spectrometer B, an additional cut removes trajectories which stem from scattering off the inner surfaces of the spectrometer snout.
For spectrometer B, an additional cut has to be applied. With this spectrometer particles can be detected whose initial trajectory between target and spectrometer lies outside the acceptance defined by the collimator. These particles hit the long snout in front of the collimator and may be scattered back into the acceptance and arrive at the focal plane. They are identified by the horizontal coordinate at the entrance of the snout, $y_\mathrm{snout}$. Figure \[figsnoutcolli\] shows a two-dimensional histogram of the horizontal coordinate at the collimator, $y_\mathrm{colli}$, versus $y_\mathrm{snout}$. The events around $y_\mathrm{snout}=0$ correspond to good events. On the other hand, one identifies a shadow on the right and a dimmer shadow on the left side belonging to events from snout scattering. In the final analysis, a cut with $\left|y_\mathrm{snout}\right|<30\ \mathrm{mm}$ was applied. As one can see in Fig. \[figsnoutcut\] showing the distribution of the events that are suppressed by this cut, the electrons scattered by the entrance snout are located in the region of the radiative tail.
![\[figsnoutcolli\] Histogram of $y_\mathrm{colli}$ versus $y_\mathrm{snout}$ of the measurement with spectrometer B at $32.5^\circ$ at an incident energy $E=180\ \mathrm{MeV}$. The events around $y_\mathrm{snout}=0$ correspond to good events, and the sidebands result from back scattering from the snout walls. The black vertical lines indicate the cut used in the analysis. The gray scale is logarithmic to emphasize the events in the left and right sideband. The diagonal ridges seen in the good events are caused by scattering off the target walls.](snoutcolli)
![\[figsnoutcut\] $\Delta E^\prime_\mathrm{exp}$ histogram of the same measurement as shown in Fig. \[figsnoutcolli\]. The events cut away (black) contribute over the complete acceptance with an increase toward smaller energies. The peak at $-5\ \mathrm{MeV}$ (gray curve) originates from elastic scattering off the entrance and exit walls of the cryogenic target cell.](snoutcut)
### Determination of resolution and central momentum {#chptexpsimmatch}
In the simulation, the accuracy of the determination of the particle coordinates is parameterized in the target reference frame, i.e., the simulation contains parametrizations for the resolution in the vertex position, in the momentum and in the in-plane and out-of-plane angles. These parametrizations include parameters for the width of the distributions, which depend on the kinematics and which are determined for each run individually.
It is particularly important that the peak position in the $\Delta E^\prime_\mathrm{exp}$ histogram matches between experiment and simulation, otherwise the cut in $\Delta E^\prime_\mathrm{exp} $ would fail to select the equivalent part of the peak and tail region in both the experiment and the simulation. This is governed by the knowledge of the central momentum of the spectrometer, determined by the strength of the magnetic field.
The determination of the central momenta and resolutions is done in a two-step process. The first step is to find the vertex resolution and, together with this, a possible target offset. For this, a standard nonlinear least-squares optimization is performed: For each variation of the parameters, the simulation is run, and the vertex histograms of experiment and simulation are compared. Since the reconstruction of the measured data is not dependent on these values, only the simulation has to be updated at each fit iteration.
In the second step, the central momentum and the remaining resolutions are optimized. To this end, the spectra of $\Delta E^\prime_\mathrm{exp} $, of the angles, and of $\Delta p_c$ (the momentum relative to the central momentum) are compared. Since the central momentum value affects the reconstruction of the electron kinematics from the measured data, both data analysis and simulation have to be updated at each step.
### Background subtraction {#chptbackgroundsubtract}
As mentioned in Sec. \[secexperiment\], the liquid hydrogen is contained in a cryo cell. The electron beam has to pass through the walls of this cell, a $10$-$\mathrm{\mu m}$-thin foil made of HAVAR, an alloy of several metals, and also possibly pass through a layer of snow. Scattering off the wall or snow nuclei produces background in the energy region of the elastic peak of the hydrogen, both from the radiative tail from elastic scattering and from quasi-elastic scattering.
The shapes of the background from both elastic and quasi-elastic scattering are taken from simulations based on a physical model, while their amplitude is fitted to the data. As verified by empty target measurements, the inelastic peaks are either so small that they can be ignored ($\leq$ 0.035% of the elastic hydrogen peak in the worst case) or they are outside the region around the elastic hydrogen peak accepted for the cross-section determination. In the latter case, the region of the inelastic peak is excluded from the fit of the background amplitudes.
Figure \[figbackpeak\] displays a measured spectrum and the difference spectrum, i.e., the data histogram minus the three simulated and scaled spectra, elastic off hydrogen, elastic off wall or snow atoms, and quasi-elastic off wall or snow atoms. One sees the excellent agreement in the region of the radiative tail from elastic scattering off the proton, while there are slight imperfections at $\Delta E^\prime_\mathrm{exp}=0$ around the steep fall offs of the hydrogen peak, which, however, level out to zero in the integral (cf. Fig. \[figbackpeak\] bottom). The first measurement at this kinematic, shown in the upper plots and in black in the bottom plot, has about half of the statistics of the second measurement, which was taken shortly after. The depression close to the peak is caused by a minuscule offset in the peak position—the second measurement is better in this regard. It has to be noted that for both measurements, the integral ratio varies less than $\pm0.15\%$ between 7 and 30 MeV. (N.B.: In Ref. [@Bernauer:2010wm], the same data were erroneously labeled differently.)
![\[figbackpeak\] (a) $\Delta E^\prime_\mathrm{exp}$ spectrum measured with spectrometer A at $28^\circ$ and 450-MeV incident beam energy. (b) Same spectrum (light gray), background estimate (dark gray), and difference of the data to the sum of simulated hydrogen peak and background (black). (c) The ratio of the integration of the peak in data and simulation as a function of the right limit, i.e., of the cut-off energy. Black: First of two measurements, same data as the upper two panels. Gray: Second measurement. The curves are scaled to start at 1. ](backpeak "fig:") ![\[figbackpeak\] (a) $\Delta E^\prime_\mathrm{exp}$ spectrum measured with spectrometer A at $28^\circ$ and 450-MeV incident beam energy. (b) Same spectrum (light gray), background estimate (dark gray), and difference of the data to the sum of simulated hydrogen peak and background (black). (c) The ratio of the integration of the peak in data and simulation as a function of the right limit, i.e., of the cut-off energy. Black: First of two measurements, same data as the upper two panels. Gray: Second measurement. The curves are scaled to start at 1. ](backpeakdiff "fig:") ![\[figbackpeak\] (a) $\Delta E^\prime_\mathrm{exp}$ spectrum measured with spectrometer A at $28^\circ$ and 450-MeV incident beam energy. (b) Same spectrum (light gray), background estimate (dark gray), and difference of the data to the sum of simulated hydrogen peak and background (black). (c) The ratio of the integration of the peak in data and simulation as a function of the right limit, i.e., of the cut-off energy. Black: First of two measurements, same data as the upper two panels. Gray: Second measurement. The curves are scaled to start at 1. ](backpeakint "fig:")
### Luminosity {#lumi}
In order to determine the integrated luminosity, the beam current is continuously measured during data taking with a fluxgate magnetometer. At the start and end of each run, the beam current measurement is compounded with the pA-meter measurement on the collimator as described above. This reduces the uncertainty for small currents and short runs.
The target density is calculated from continuous pressure and temperature measurements. In order to avoid local overheating of the liquid hydrogen due to the heat load of the passing electron beam, at high currents the beam is rastered over the (curved) frontal face of the target. The small change in the effective target thickness due to this rasterization is accounted for by the simulation. Still, the absolute length of the cooled-down cryo cell is hard to determine to better than 1%. Uncertainties in its determination, however, enter as a constant factor in the normalization which will be taken as a fit parameter as already mentioned.
For all measurements, one of the three spectrometers was used as a luminosity monitor, i.e., this spectrometer stayed with the same field at the same angle, thus measuring the count rate for a fixed momentum transfer for a time where many runs at different angles were taken with the other spectrometers, i.e., for one set of runs. This spectrometer thus monitors the relative luminosity. In the course of the measurements at one energy, only a few changes of the monitor angle are necessary to ensure that its event rate is high enough.\
Each measurement of the luminosity monitor is analyzed in the same way as the normal cross section measurements, that is, the normal procedure of background subtraction, dead time correction and normalization to the estimated luminosity is performed.
From the $n$ individual luminosity results in a set of runs, the average cross section is calculated and the cross section values $\sigma_{\mathrm{exp},i}$, measured with the other spectrometers, are now normalized: $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{\mathrm{exp,norm},i}&=&\sigma_{\mathrm{exp},i}\cdot\frac{\sigma_\mathrm{lum,avg}}{\sigma_{\mathrm{lum},i}}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, the common factors in the calculation of $\sigma_\mathrm{exp,i}$ and $\sigma_{\mathrm{lum}},i$, i.e., beam current, target density, and target length, cancel out and uncertainties in their determination play no role apart from the set-to-set normalization taken as a fit factor in the final analysis.
In this procedure, the statistical error of the normalized data is enhanced by the statistical error of the luminosity measurement, $$\frac{\Delta\sigma_{\mathrm{exp,norm},i}}{\sigma_{\mathrm{exp,norm},i}}=\sqrt{\left(\frac{\Delta \sigma_{\mathrm{exp},i}}{ \sigma_{\mathrm{exp},i}}\right)^2+\left(\frac{\Delta \sigma_{\mathrm{lum},i}}{\sigma_{\mathrm{lum},i}}\right)^2}.$$
This method provides a stable and precise determination of the relative normalization. It is therefore applied to all data points with exception of the 315-MeV data set. In the analysis of this subset, an error was found in the setup of spectrometer C, which was used as the luminosity monitor for most of these data. Therefore, for this subset we rely on the luminosity provided by the pA meter, as described in Sec. \[pameterdesc\]. This leads to slightly larger uncertainties (cf. Sec. \[ptpebcs\] ). Compared to the pA-meter-based luminosity, we observe changes with a one-$\sigma$ width of about 0.1–0.2% for energies of 450 MeV and higher. We find a similar width for the higher currents at 180 MeV. For the lowest currents, the pA-meter measurement and the beam current itself are more noisy and the corrections have a width of about 0.6%.
As described in Sec. \[dcslum\], the absolute normalization will be determined by fitting normalization constants to groups of cross sections, determined in a first step with the measured beam currents and target thickness and corrected by the relative luminosity measurements. It is reassuring, that the normalizations of the different sets of measurements are in the expected range of $\pm$3.5% and that they do not depend on the form factor model used in the fit in any significant way. The largest model spread of the normalization constants is 0.26% for the flexible models discussed below and 0.74%, including the Friedrich-Walcher model. This large difference occurs for cross sections with the highest $Q^2$ and is caused by the different high-$Q^2$ behavior of this model (see Sec. \[moddep\]). The average standard deviation is 0.074%.
### Further corrections and anomalies
The statistical precision achieved in this experiment together with the conceptual design of overlapping acceptances made several anomalies apparent, which would have been missed in a traditional type of experiment. In the course of the analysis it was found that the acceptances of spectrometers A and C are not completely given by the sheer geometry of the collimators, instead, they depend to some extent on the vertex position. A corresponding correction has been developed and implemented in the simulation software.
Furthermore it was found that the stray magnetic field of spectrometer C influences the measurement with spectrometer B when the spectrometers are close to each other. In a dedicated beam time, a correction formula has been determined which has been applied to the data. Further details can be found in Ref. [@bernauerphd].
Data analysis
=============
World data basis {#chworld}
-----------------
In order to provide a coherent analysis and fit of all world data based on the methods developed by this work we included all readily available data related to the determination of the proton form factors known up to today. The inclusion of experiments with polarized electrons [@Ron:2011rd; @Crawford07; @Gayou01; @Gayou02; @Puckett:2011xg; @Jones00; @Jones06; @MacLachlan06; @Meziane:2010xc; @Milbrath98; @Pospischil01; @Puckett10; @Punjabi05; @Ron07; @Zhan11] allows us, in particular, to extract a phenomenological two-photon effect. To this end we simply add the published form factor ratios to the database, with systematic and statistic errors added linearly. Some of the listed references are reanalysis of older measurements—we then only include the updated values.
For Rosenbluth-type measurements [@Christy04; @Janssens65; @Qattan; @Sill93; @Simon80; @Walker; @Andivahis; @Borkowski74; @Borkowski74-2; @Goitein70; @Litt69; @Price71; @Bosted90; @Rock92; @Stein75] we include the cross sections instead of extracted form factors in order to make full use of the available information without any bias. We use the quoted statistical errors and let the normalization of the different data sets float. These data sets were taken over the time period of several decades and naturally include a diverse set of radiative corrections. We divided the old corrections out and applied the updated corrections as far as possible to a common standard, following the Maximon-Tjon prescription [@Maximon2000], with the extension to muon and tau loops and exponentiation of the correction to account for higher orders, matching the treatment of the new data as close as possible.
In Refs. [@Christy04; @Janssens65; @Qattan; @Sill93; @Simon80; @Walker], the radiative corrections are based on Ref. [@MoTsai], in different variations, and they are straight forward to update. Reference [@Andivahis] also belongs to this group. For this data set, we include two normalization constants; the data were taken with two different spectrometers and the two subsets show a clear normalization mismatch in the overlap.
The corrections in Refs. [@Borkowski74; @Borkowski74-2; @Goitein70; @Litt69; @Price71] are based on Ref. [@MeisterYennie]. For the two Borkowski [*et al.*]{} data sets [@Borkowski74; @Borkowski74-2] we assume independent normalizations and include a normalization parameter for each data set.
For Ref. [@Bosted90; @Rock92; @Stein75] the radiative corrections could not be updated since no details on the applied corrections could be obtained.
Form factor models {#chptmodels}
------------------
For a direct fit of the measured cross sections, an ansatz has to be made for the description of the form factors. Since the true form-factor functional form is unknown, we have to rely on a subjective choice, possibly introducing a bias. However, we can reduce the impact of this by employing a wide variety of models. The model bias can then be judged in this context.
In the frequentist picture, each of these models, together with a specific choice of the parameters, constitutes a hypothesis we can test against the data. For each model we then choose the parameter set with the highest $p$-value via a least-squares fitter. From the goodness of fit of the different models, we can rule out some of them; however, this actually leaves the domain of the strict frequentist view. In the Bayesian picture, a selection of a model constitutes a prior. From the infinite function space, we reduce our selection to those which are representable by the model, attributing zero probability to all the others. Additionally, the fit essentially assumes a flat prior for the probability distribution for the parameters.
In the following the models used in this work will be discussed. For the magnetic form factor, $G_M$, the factor $\mu_p$ has been suppressed to improve readability. All models are normalized to 1 at $Q^2=0$. This will be used by the fit to fix the global normalization.
### Dipole
The designation “standard dipole,” $$G_\mathrm{standard\ dipole}(Q^2)=\left(1+\frac{Q^2}{0.71\mathrm{GeV}^2}\right)^{-2}$$ was coined by Hand [*et al.*]{} [@hand63]. For a long time it was the accepted form for the electric form factor of the proton and—scaled with $\mu_{p/n}$— also for the magnetic form factor of both the proton (“scaling relation”) and the neutron, and it is today found in many text books (e.g., Ref. [@povh04]). While the choice of the dipole form was originally purely phenomenological, the related exponential falloff in $r$-space comes about as the probability function of a quantum mechanical particle trapped in a narrow potential well.
In the present analysis, the scaling relation is not enforced. Instead different parameters for the electric and magnetic form factor are used, $$\label{singledipole}
G^{E,M}_\mathrm{dipole}(Q^2)=\left(1+\frac{Q^2}{a^{E,M}}\right)^{-2}.$$ With only two free parameters, $a^E$ and $a^M$, this model is very rigid, and it will be seen that it is not able to describe the data of this experiment, as was the case already for earlier data (e.g., Simon [*et al.*]{} [@Simon80]).
### Double dipole {#ddipol}
A somewhat more flexible ansatz consists of the sum of two dipoles, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{doubledipole}
G^{E,M}_\mathrm{double\ dipole}(Q^2)=&
a^{E/M}_0\left(1+\frac{Q^2}{a^{E/M}_1}\right)^{-2}\nonumber\\
&+\left(1-a^{E,M}_0\right)\left(1+\frac{Q^2}{a^{E/M}_2}\right)^{-2}.\end{aligned}$$
### Polynomials {#chptp}
#### Simple polynomial.
A polynomial is a simple model without theoretical idea of the nature of the form factors except some level of continuity or smoothness. The constant term is fixed to 1 by the normalization. With a polynomial of the order $n$, the form factors are parameterized as follows: $$G^{E,M}_\mathrm{polynomial,n}(Q^2)=1+\sum_{i=1}^n a^{E,M}_i Q^{2\, i}.$$ Since the form factors drop rapidly with $Q^2$, high orders are needed to describe them adequately over a larger $Q^2$ range.
#### Polynomial $\times$ dipole. {#polymaldipol}
\[chptpmd\] In order to free the polynomial from the necessity to describe the gross behavior of the form factors, the latter may be accounted for by multiplying the polynomial by the standard dipole as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
&G^{E,M}_{\mathrm{polynomial} \times \mathrm{dipole,n}}(Q^2)=\nonumber\\
&\hspace{1em} G_\mathrm{standard\ dipole}(Q^2)\times \left(1+\sum_{i=1}^na^{E,M}_i Q^{2\, i}\right).\end{aligned}$$ In principle, it would be possible to optimize also the parameter of the dipole. It was found, however, that this additional freedom does not improve the fits and has a high computational cost.
#### Polynomial + dipole. {#chptpad}
A variation of the aforementioned splitting-off of the gross behavior of the form factors is the sum of a polynomial and the standard dipole instead of the product, $$\begin{aligned}
&G^{E,M}_{\mathrm{polynomial} + \mathrm{dipole,n}}(Q^2)=\nonumber\\
&\hspace{1em}G_\mathrm{standard\ dipole}(Q^2) + \left(\sum_{i=1}^na^{E,M}_i Q^{2\, i}\right).\end{aligned}$$ While the multiplication parameterizes the relative deviation from the standard dipole, the sum parametrizes the absolute deviation.
#### Inverse polynomial. {#chptip}
A variation of the polynomial model is the inverse polynomial ansatz as in Ref. [@Arrington03], $$G^{E,M}_\mathrm{inv.\ poly.,n}(Q^2)=\frac{1}{1+\sum_{i=1}^n a^{E,M}_i Q^{2\, i}}.$$
### Splines {#chptspline}
In all other models described in this section, the behavior of the function in different $Q^2$ regions is highly correlated. Therefore, possible shortcomings in the description of the data in one $Q^2$ region may influence negatively the description in other regions. Functions that decouple the behavior in different $Q^2$ regions to a great extent are splines.
A spline ansatz has multiple advantages. Depending on the number of knots, a spline can be very flexible. Nevertheless, the fit converges even for a large number of knots quickly since each parameter essentially affects a limited part of the curve only without long-range biases.
#### Cubic spline.
Cubic splines are assembled from polynomials of the third order. Due to the C2 continuity constraint, a cubic spline with $k$ knots ($k-1$ polynomials with four parameters each) has only $k+2$ parameters. The spline segment between the $i$th and $(i+1)$th knot can be written in matrix notation as follows: $$S_i\left(t\right)=\frac{1}{6}\left[\begin{array}{cccc}t^3&t^2&t&1\end{array}\right]
\left[\begin{array}{cccc}-1&3&-3&1\\3&-6&3&0\\-3&0&3&0\\1&4&1&0\end{array}\right]
\left[\begin{array}{c}p_{i-1}\\p_{i}\\p_{i+1}\\p_{i+2}\end{array}\right].$$ Here $t\in\left[0,1\right]$ denotes the position between the two knots $Q^2_i$ and $Q^2_{i+1}$ as follows: $$t=\frac{Q^2-Q^2_i}{Q^2_{i+1}-Q^2_i}.$$ For the fits to our new data alone, we use uniform splines, i.e., constant knot spacing. To impose the normalization constraint the ansatz is chosen as $$G^{E,M}_\mathrm{spline}(Q^2)=1+Q^2 S^{E,M}(Q^2).$$
#### Cubic spline $\times$ dipole. {#chptsmd}
Following the same considerations as in Sec. \[polymaldipol\] it is advantageous to multiply the spline ansatz with the standard dipole. This leads to the ansatz $$\begin{aligned}
&G^{E,M}_{\mathrm{spline} \times \mathrm{dipole}}(Q^2)=\nonumber \\
&\hspace{3em} G_\mathrm{standard\ dipole}(Q^2) \times \left(1+Q^2 S^{E,M}(Q^2)\right).\end{aligned}$$
### Friedrich-Walcher parametrization {#chptfw}
In their analysis of the before-2003 world data of the proton and neutron form factors, Friedrich and Walcher [@fw03] used an ansatz that is composed of a smooth part and a “bump.” The smooth part is identical to the double dipole ansatz as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
&G_S\left(Q^2,a_0,a_1,a_2\right)=\nonumber \\
&\hspace{3em}a_0\left(1+\frac{Q^2}{a_1}\right)^{-2}+\left(1-a_0\right)\left(1+\frac{Q^2}{a_2}\right)^{-2}.\end{aligned}$$ The bump contribution consists of a Gaussian in $Q^2$ with an amplitude $a_b$, position $Q_b$ and a width $\sigma_b$. To suppress odd powers in $Q$ in the Taylor expansion of the Gaussian for $Q_b\neq0$, another Gaussian is added which is mirrored at $Q^2=0$, as has been done by Sick [@Sick74] for a model independent analysis of nuclear charge distributions in r-space. The bump contribution is hence described by the following: $$G_b\left(Q^2,Q_b,\sigma_b\right)=e^{-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{Q-Q_b}{\sigma_b}\right)^2}+e^{-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{Q+Q_b}{\sigma_b}\right)^2}$$ To attribute the full normalization to the smooth part, the bump contribution is multiplied by $Q^2$. The complete model is, therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
&G^{E,M}_\mathrm{Friedrich-Walcher}(Q^2)=\nonumber \\
&G_S\left(Q^2,a^{E/M}_{0,1,2}\right)+a^{E/M}_b\cdot Q^2 G_b\left(Q^2,Q^{E/ M}_b,\sigma^{E/M}_b\right).\end{aligned}$$
### Continued fraction
A popular model introduced by Sick [@Sick03] is the continued fraction ansatz. However, it turns out that this model produces slowly converging fits and the results are difficult to control due to poles in the denominator. While this was studied in some detail, it was not included into the final analysis.
### Extended Gari-Krümpelmann model {#chptgk}
While all previous models are just mathematical procedures with no physical meaning for the description of the data, the extended Gari-Krümpelmann model [@Gari92; @Lomon01; @Lomon02; @Lomon06]—actually a group of models which differ in their details—is based on physical considerations. In this work, the version called DR-GK‘(1) [@Lomon01] (respectively, GKex(01) [@Lomon02; @Lomon06]) is selected, since it had the best results in Ref. [@Lomon06] for existing proton form factor data when the normalization of the data sets is not varied.\
Under the assumption that QCD is the fundamental theory of the strong interaction, the $Q^2$ dependence of the electromagnetic form factors can be calculated in perturbative QCD (pQCD) for very high momentum transfers. For small momentum transfers, the confinement property of QCD leads to an effective hadronic description with vector meson dominance (VMD), the coupling of a photon to a vector meson which itself couples to the nucleon.\
Earlier models that were based solely on VMD introduced multiple, phenomenological poles of higher mass in addition to the $\rho$, $\omega$, and $\phi$-poles. Gari and Krümpelmann limit the VMD contributions to these three poles but enforce the asymptotic $Q^2$ behavior dictated by the scaling behavior of pQCD by additional terms.\
In the model used here, the dispersion integral approximation of the $\rho$-meson contribution is replaced by an analytical form. The model was extended to include the $\rho'(1450)$ pole (for details see Refs. [@Gari92; @Lomon01]).\
As mentioned in Sec. \[chpttfecs\], the Sachs form factors can be rewritten in terms of the Dirac and Pauli form factors $F_1$ and $F_2$, which are preferred by VMD models. Those can be divided into an isoscalar and an isovector component as follows: $$2F^p_{1,2}=F^{is}_{1,2}+F^{iv}_{1,2},\ \ \ \ \ \ 2F^n_{1,2}=F^{is}_{1,2}-F^{iv}_{1,2}.$$ The model GKex(01) is formulated in terms of these four form factors with the poles for $\rho$, $\rho'$, $\omega$, $\omega'$, and $\phi$ mesons, $$\begin{aligned}
F_1^{iv}\left(Q^2\right)=&\frac{N}{2}\frac{1.0317+0.0875\left(1+\frac{Q^2}{0.3176~\mathrm{GeV}^2}\right)^{-2}}{\left(1+\frac{Q^2}{0.5496~\mathrm{GeV}^2}\right)}F_1^\rho\left(Q^2\right)\nonumber\\
&+\frac{g_{\rho'}}{f_{\rho'}}\frac{m_{\rho'}^2}{m_{\rho'}^2+Q^2}F_1^\rho\left(Q^2\right)\nonumber\\
&+\left(1-1.1192\frac{N}{2}\frac{g_{\rho'}}{f_{\rho'}}\right)F_1^D\left(Q^2\right),\nonumber\\
F_2^{iv}\left(Q^2\right)=&\frac{N}{2}\frac{5.7824+0.3907\left(1+\frac{Q^2}{0.1422~\mathrm{GeV}^2}\right)^{-1}}{\left(1+\frac{Q^2}{0.5362~\mathrm{GeV}^2}\right)}F_2^\rho\left(Q^2\right) \nonumber\\
&+\kappa_{\rho'}\frac{g_{\rho'}}{f_{\rho'}}\frac{m_{\rho'}^2}{m_{\rho'}^2+Q^2}F_2^\rho\left(Q^2\right)\nonumber\\
&+\left(\kappa_\nu-6.1731\frac{N}{2}-\kappa_{\rho'}\frac{g_{\rho'}}{f_{\rho'}}\right)F_2^D\left(Q^2\right),\nonumber\\
F_1^{is}\left(Q^2\right)=&\sum_{\alpha=\omega,\omega',\phi}\frac{g_{\alpha}}{f_{\alpha}}\frac{m_{\alpha}^2}{m_{\alpha}^2+Q^2}F_1^\alpha\left(Q^2\right)\nonumber\\
&+\left(1-\frac{g_{\omega}}{f_{\omega}}-\frac{g_{\omega'}}{f_{\omega'}}\right)F_1^D\left(Q^2\right),\nonumber\\
\label{eqgekff}
F_2^{is}\left(Q^2\right)=&\sum_{\alpha=\omega,\omega',\phi}\kappa_\alpha\frac{g_{\alpha}}{f_{\alpha}}\frac{m_{\alpha}^2}{m_{\alpha}^2+Q^2}F_2^\alpha\left(Q^2\right)\nonumber\\
&+\left(\kappa_s-\kappa_\omega\frac{g_{\omega}}{f_{\omega}}-\kappa_\omega'\frac{g_{\omega'}}{f_{\omega'}}-\kappa_\phi\frac{g_\phi}{f_\phi}\right)F_2^D\left(Q^2\right).\end{aligned}$$
In this model, the form factors $F_i^\alpha$ ($\alpha=\rho$, $\omega$, $\omega'$, $\phi$, meson-nucleon) and $F_i^D$ (quark-nucleon) are parameterized as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
F_1^{\alpha,D}\left(Q^2\right)&=\frac{\lambda_{1,D}^2}{\lambda_{1,D}^2+\tilde{Q}^2}\frac{\lambda_2^2}{\lambda_2^2+\tilde{Q}^2},\nonumber\\
F_2^{\alpha,D}\left(Q^2\right)&=\frac{\lambda_{1,D}^2}{\lambda_{1,D}^2+\tilde{Q}^2}\left(\frac{\lambda_2^2}{\lambda_2^2+\tilde{Q}^2}\right)^2,\nonumber\\
F_1^\phi\left(Q^2\right)&=F_1^\alpha\left(Q^2\right)\cdot\left(\frac{Q^2}{\lambda_1^2+Q^2}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}},\nonumber\\
F_2^\phi\left(Q^2\right)&=F_2^\alpha\left(Q^2\right)\cdot\left(\frac{\lambda_1^2}{\mu_\phi^2}\frac{Q^2+\mu_\phi^2}{\lambda_1^2+Q^2}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}},\end{aligned}$$ with $$\tilde{Q}^2=Q^2\frac{\ln\left[\left(\lambda_D^2+Q^2\right)/\lambda^2_\mathrm{QCD}\right]}{\ln\left(\lambda_D^2/\lambda_\mathrm{QCD}^2\right)}.$$ The parametrization fulfills the normalization constraint for $Q^2=0$. The constants $\kappa_\nu$ and $\kappa_s$ and the masses $m_\rho$, $m_\omega$, $m_\phi$, $m_{\rho'}$, and $m_{\omega'}$ are taken as $\kappa_\nu=3.706$, $\kappa_s=-0.12$, $m_\rho=0.776\ \mathrm{GeV}$, $m_\omega=0.784\ \mathrm{GeV}$, $m_\phi=1.019\ \mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\rho'}=1.45\ \mathrm{GeV}$ and $m_{\omega'}=1.419\ \mathrm{GeV}$.\
There remain at most 14 free parameters: eight couplings (four $g_\alpha/f_\alpha$, four $\kappa$); four cut-off masses ($\lambda_1$, $\lambda_2$, $\lambda_D$, and $\mu_\phi$); the mass $\lambda_\mathrm{QCD}$, which gives the size of the logarithmic $Q^2$ behavior; and the normalization parameter $N$ for the dispersion relation part of the $\rho$ meson.\
In Ref. [@Lomon02], at most 12 of these parameters were varied, since either the $\omega'$-meson contribution was neglected or $N$ and $\lambda_\mathrm{QCD}$ were fixed to $N=1$ and $\lambda_\mathrm{QCD}=0.150\ \mathrm{GeV}$, the physical value. The latter constraints are also used in the present work. Still, the fit shows slow convergence and a high time complexity because of the type of mathematical operations used and the mathematical properties of the formulas.
### Other models not described in this paper
The new high-precision Mainz data were used in several fits not described in this paper, including simultaneous fits to both proton and neutron form factors. Bauer [*et al.*]{} [@Bauer:2012pv] calculate the electromagnetic form factors of the nucleon to third chiral order in manifestly Lorentz-invariant effective field theory and fit to the Mainz data for the proton and the world data for the neutron. Lorenz [*et al.*]{} [@Lorenz:2012tm] use a dispersion relation approach to analyze the Mainz data.
Fits to cross sections and polarization measurements {#chptmodsel}
----------------------------------------------------
### Fit strategy
The experimentally determined cross sections are analyzed performing a direct fit of the different models for the form factors.
For the new Mainz data, the fit minimizes the sum of the weighted deviations squared, $$M^2=\sum_i\left(\Pi_i\cdot r_i-\frac{\int_{A_i}\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}\Omega}\right)_\mathrm{model}\mathrm{d}\Omega}{\int_{A_i}\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}\Omega}\right)_\mathrm{std.\ dipole}\mathrm{d}\Omega}\right)^2/(\Pi_i\cdot\Delta r_i)^2.
\label{eq:MM}$$ By dividing the measured count rate by the simulated count rate, we have extracted the cross sections from the measurement as ratios $r_i$ to the cross sections for the standard dipole. This is compared to the ratio of $\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}\Omega}\right)_\mathrm{model}$ and $\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}\Omega}\right)_\mathrm{std.\ dipole}$, the cross sections calculated with the fit model and with the standard dipole, respectively, individually integrated over the acceptance $A_i$ of run $i$. $\Delta r_i$ is the uncertainty of $r_i$ and $\Pi_i$ the product of normalization parameters to be discussed further below. As discussed, it is not possible to determine the normalization of the different measurements, i.e., runs, to much better than 2%, an order of magnitude larger than the statistical errors. However, the overall normalization can be determined from the measured data themselves due to the knowledge of the cross section at $Q^2=0$. Furthermore, the relative normalization of sets of runs, grouped by the relative luminosity determination method described above, are well constrained through the kinematical overlaps of the different sets and can be easily determined as free parameters in the fit. Overall, 31 normalization constants $n_j$ are used as free parameters in addition to the model parameters in the fit to a total of 1422 measurements from this experiment (not yet including the external world data). These parameters model the overall normalization difference between spectrometers and between different sets of runs. Each individual measurement by a spectrometer has an individual combination, i.e., a product $\Pi_i$, of a subset of these normalization constants. For example, to a measurement of spectrometer B might belong the product of the overall efficiency of spectrometer B compared to A, and a constant for the normalization of the set this measurement belongs to. All normalization parameters are used in different combinations for a large number of individual measurements.
$M^2$ can be identified with $\chi^2$ only when we compare with a known true theory curve and when the deviations from the true theory curve are Gaussian distributed with a true variance matching our estimated errors $\Pi_i\cdot\Delta r_i$, which one cannot prove. For the problem at hand the true theoretical curve is not known and it has to be estimated by the best fit curve which is nonlinear in the fit parameters by construction. As is so often the case in experimental physics, the frequentist interpretation of $M^2$ is problematic and the identification $\chi^2 = M^2$ can be only approximate. It is, however, customary to use $\chi^2 \approx M_\mathrm{min}^2$ or, better, the reduced $\chi^2$, $\chi^2_\mathrm{red}=\chi^2/(N_\mathrm{data\ points}-N_\mathrm{parameters})$, as an approximate measure of the quality of the different fit models.
The external cross-section data are included in a similar way. In addition, for each data set, we add a term $[(1-n_{\mathrm{ext},j})/\Delta n_{\mathrm{ext},j}]^2$ with the normalization fit parameter $n_{\mathrm{ext},j}$ and the normalization uncertainty quoted in the corresponding paper, $\Delta n_{\mathrm{ext},j}$. For the form factor ratio results from experiments using polarization techniques, we use terms of the form $[(G_E/G_M)_\mathrm{model}(Q^2_i)-R_i)/\Delta R_i]^2$, where $R_i$ is one of the externally measured ratios and $\Delta R_i$ the quoted error, with systematic and statistic errors added linearly.
### Point-to-point errors beyond counting statistics {#ptpebcs}
Besides the errors from counting statistics, different additional effects contribute to the point-to-point error of the cross sections. These include the dead-time estimation, the uncertainty of the current measurement for the 315-MeV data (see Sec. \[lumi\]), the uncertainty of the background estimation, and undetected slight variations of the detector and accelerator performance. At this level of precision these effects are hard to quantify, even with direct measurements. In order to estimate these effects we group the data by incident beam energy and by the spectrometer with which the data sre measured. We then inspect for each group the distribution of the deviation of the data points from the fit divided by the error from the counting statistics. These distributions follow a bell-shape curve and it is therefore safe to assume that the point-to-point errors are, to a large extent, also normally distributed. We therefore scale the statistical errors of the different data groups by the width of the bell curve to account for the additional point-to-point uncertainty. This effectively assumes that the additional error contribution scales with the statistics of the individual measurement, which should be true for the dominant source, the background estimation, and also for the dead-time estimation. Iterating the fit with updated scaling factors leads to a meta-stable situation, in which the scaling factors oscillate between two solutions, without significant changes in the fit function. We suppress these oscillations by hand and find a set of factors which, when iterated, are stable but result in a $\chi^2$ slightly larger than 1. In order to achieve a $\chi_\mathrm{red}^2$ of unity for the best models the statistical errors would need to be increased further by less than 7%. In view of the smallness of this change, we choose not to apply such a further modification. The factors are determined using the spline fit, which gives the best $\chi_\mathrm{red}^2$ without any scaling, and the same set of factors is used for all models.
The scaling factors of the point-to-point errors lie in the range between 1.07 and 1.8 with exception of the 315-MeV data. For these the luminosity could only be determined by the less precise measurement of the beam current and target density, hence the errors had to be scaled by 1.7 to 2.3.
It has to be noted that an overall scaling of the errors by a common factor does not change the best fit. However, since the factors differ for each group, we observe that cross-section values calculated from the fits with and without these error renormalizations change at most by 0.3%. In any case, it is possible to rank the fits by the $\chi^2_\mathrm{red}$ when the same set of fixed scaling factors are used for all fits. This ranking is almost independent of the chosen set of scaling factors—only widely varying scaling factors from data set to data set can change the rank of a fit. Such a large variation in the point-to-point uncertainty can be ruled out from the data.
### Fits without external data
The spline and polynomial models allow for a varying number of parameters. For the determination of the optimal number, one encounters the basic fact that it is not possible to determine simultaneously which model describes the data and how statistically pure a data sample is. In the extreme case, a model goes through all data points, i.e., it interpolates the data. The choice of the number of parameters is therefore a trade-off: With too few parameters, the model cannot describe the gross behavior of the data and the deduced quantities cannot be trusted; on the other hand, a fit with too many parameters starts to follow local random deviations instead of averaging over fluctuations.
$\chi^2_\mathrm{red}$ as a function of the parameter number reaches a plateau at around 10 parameters per form-factor model, signaling that the underlying functional shape has been approached and any further reduction in $\chi^2$ is from fitting statistical fluctuations. In each group, the model with the standard dipole multiplied in reaches the plateau with one to two fewer parameters. Interestingly, for the spline models, $\chi^2_\mathrm{red}$ starts to drop again when the parameter number reaches 12; the fits then start to show oscillations at a $Q^2$ above 0.4 $\mathrm{GeV}^2$.
The number of parameters were selected as the lowest number where the plateau was surely reached. While not directly visible in the $\chi^2$ value, the polynomial $\times$ dipole model starts to oscillate at higher $Q^2$ for orders above nine, so an order of eight has been chosen. The inverse polynomial reaches a plateau already with seven parameters. Table \[tabparam\] summarizes the used parameter numbers.
Poly. Poly.+dip. Poly.$\times$dip. Inv. poly. Spline S.$\times$dip.
------- ------------ ------------------- ------------ -------- ----------------
10 10 8 7 8 7
: \[tabparam\]Chosen orders for polynomial and spline models.
The flexible spline and polynomial models reach $\chi^2$ values below 1600 (for 1422 data points). This is the baseline against which the other models have to be judged. Table \[tabchi\] lists the achieved $\chi^2$ value and the number of parameters of the different models.
Model $\chi^2$ Number of param. $\chi^2_\mathrm{red}$
----------------------------- ---------- ------------------- -----------------------
Single dipole 3422 $2\times 1 + 31$ 2.4635
Double dipole 1786 $2\times 3 + 31$ 1.2893
Polynomial 1563 $2\times 10 + 31$ 1.1399
Poly. + std. dipole 1563 $2\times 10 + 31$ 1.1400
Poly. $\times$ std. dipole 1572 $2\times 8 + 31$ 1.1436
Inv. poly. 1571 $2\times 7 + 31$ 1.1406
Spline 1565 $2\times 8 + 31$ 1.1385
Spline $\times$ std. dipole 1570 $2\times 7 + 31$ 1.1403
Friedrich-Walcher 1598 $2\times 7 + 31$ 1.1588
ext. Gari-Krümpelmann 1759 $14+31$ 1.2777
: \[tabchi\]The achieved total $\chi^2$, the number of parameters (factor 2: two form factors; 31: number of normalization parameters) and $\chi^2_\mathrm{red}$ for the different models. The degree of freedom is given by 1422 minus the number of parameters.
The single-dipole fit results in a $\chi^2$ of more than 3400 and is therefore excluded. The double dipole achieves a $\chi^2$ of 1786, which is much closer to the results with the flexible models. Nevertheless, the model dependency analysis (see Sec. \[moddep\]) shows that the extraction of the radius by the double dipole is not reliable and, depending on the exact shape of the true form factor, the deviations of the double-dipole fit from the true value can be large.
The Friedrich-Walcher model reaches a $\chi^2$ that is less than 2.5% larger than the best flexible model, well below the width of the $\chi^2$ distribution ($\sigma_{\chi^2}\approx 58$); it is therefore included in the analysis.
The extended Gari-Krümpelmann model achieves a $\chi^2$ of 1759, which is only slightly better than the double dipole. This fit is rather unstable and it seems that there are ambiguities in the solutions. Since the calculation and convergence is slow due to the large number of logarithms and the numerical properties of the model, it was not possible to perform a full study of this model. Such a study would require varying the starting conditions and constraints. For a reliable fit of this model, it may be necessary to fix the 31 normalization parameters obtained with one of the flexible models beforehand. Subsequently, the data could be used for a fit with this model. This has not been pursued further in this work.
Figure \[figcs180\] shows the measured cross section divided by the cross section calculated with the standard dipole and with the scaled statistical errors, compared to the different fits. The measured cross sections are normalized with the normalization parameters extracted with the spline fit. The precision is better than 0.4% (average) per data point. It is noted that the normalization parameters depend slightly on the model. Therefore, for a comparison of the data to a fitted model, the normalization found in the fit of that model should be used. However, the models that achieve a small $\chi^2$ yield very similar normalizations, so it is reasonable to present the data normalized only to the spline model which has the smallest $\chi^2_\mathrm{red}$. For the flexible models the maximum difference in a normalization parameter is 0.26% and the average standard deviation is 0.073%. The largest difference for the “good” models occurs for the 855 MeV data, where the (less flexible) Friedrich-Walcher model shifts the data slightly upwards by 0.7% for the data measured with spectrometer C.
For the models that do not yield a $\chi^2 < 1600$, i.e., the double-dipole and the extended Gari-Krümpelmann model, the differences in the normalizations are larger (up to 1.6% in the case of the double-dipole fit). Both models would shift the cross sections down, therefore both fit curves are below the data with normalizations from the spline fit (see Fig. \[figcs180\]).
The analyses with the “good” models yield cross sections which differ by less than 1% for almost all of the $Q^2$ range of the data. In the high-$Q^2$ range the fits start to diverge. Above 0.55 $\mathrm{GeV}^2$ only data from 720 and 855 MeV contribute. Therefore, the separation into $G_E$ and $G_M$ is not well determined. In the $Q^2$ region covered only by 855-MeV data, the allocation of the cross-section strength to the electric or magnetic part is undetermined, giving rise to the larger spread of the models.
![\[figcs180\] (Color) The cross sections and the fits for 855, 720, 585, 450, 315 and 180 MeV \[(a)-(f)\] incident beam energy divided by the cross section calculated with the standard dipole, as functions of the scattering angle (red: measured with spectrometer A; blue: spectrometer B; green: spectrometer C). The normalization parameters $n_j$ applied to the measured cross section data are taken from the spline fit. The cross sections of the fits that achieve a good $\chi^2 < 1600$ differ by at most 0.7%. The normalization parameters $n_j$ from the double-dipole fit would shift the data down by 1.6% at most. Accordingly, its curve lies below the data with the normalizations from the spline fit.](cs "fig:") -1cm
### Fits including the world cross section and polarization data; possible two-photon exchange effect {#fwextdata}
The addition of the world data extends the range in $Q^2$ considerably, with data points reaching above $30\ \mathrm{GeV}^2$. However, their uncertainty and density vary widely. Fits with high-order polynomials are therefore problematic and spline fits with a constant knot spacing small enough to accommodate the low-$Q^2$ data are impossible. We therefore extended the spline $\times$ dipole model to nonconstant knot spacing and placed knots roughly according to the data point density at 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.5, 3, 5, 10, and 40 $\mathrm{GeV}^2$.
A fit including only external Rosenbluth data in addition to the new Mainz data results in $\chi_\mathrm{red}^2=2074.64/1810=1.146$, well comparable to the numbers above.
Including all available data, i.e., also polarization data on the form factor ratio, raises this to $\chi_\mathrm{red}^2=2282.24/1868=1.222$, a rather large increase in $\chi^2$ of 207.6 for only 58 additional data points. This demonstrates that the difference between the Rosenbluth and polarization methods seen at higher $Q^2$ does not vanish with our floating normalization of the cross-section data.
The most likely explanation for this discrepancy is the effect of hard two-photon exchange which is believed to have a larger effect on the Rosenbluth separation than on the ratio determined from polarization measurements [@Guichon03]. The data basis is not broad enough to disentangle the contributing amplitudes over the whole $Q^2$ range as has been done in Refs. [@Guttmann:2010au; @Borisyuk:2010ep] for a single $Q^2$ point. In fact, the experimental information is just enough to constrain rather simple models. Therefore, we assume a simple linear dependence on $\varepsilon$ which vanishes at $\varepsilon=1$ and a logarithmic dependence on $Q^2$, similarly to Ref. [@Blunden:2003sp], as an additional multiplicative term $(1+\delta_\mathrm{TPE} )$ on top of Feshbach’s Coulomb correction Eq. (\[feshbach\]), $$\delta_\mathrm{TPE}=-(1-\varepsilon) \, a\, \ln(b\,Q^2+1),
\label{eq:TPE}$$ where $a$ and $b$ are fit parameters. The global fit of Alberico [*et al.*]{} [@alberico09] uses a similar approach, with a two-parameter model introduced by Chen [*et al.*]{} [@Chen07]. In contrast to our approach, their model assumes a given $Q^2$ dependence, but gives more freedom in the epsilon dependence. The fit including our TPE parametrization to all data gives $\chi_\mathrm{red}^2=2151.72/1866=1.153$ now as good as the “good” fits above.
We also performed fits of all data with a low order Padé model, $$G^{E,M}_\mathrm{Pad\acute{e}}(Q^2)=\frac{1+\sum_{i=1}^3 a^{E,M}_i\, Q^{2\cdot i}}{1+\sum_{j=1}^5 b^{E,M}_j\, Q^{2\,j}},
\label{eq:Pade}$$ i.e., the same parametrization as in Ref. [@Arrington07]. This model has only 8 instead of 11 parameters per form factor and therefore has much lower flexibility and the achieved $\chi^2$s are considerably higher. Table \[wdchitable\] gives an overview over the achieved $\chi_{\mathrm{red}}^2$s.
Data base Model $\chi^2_\mathrm{red}$
---------------- ------------------------ -------------------------------
cross sections Spline with var. knots $\frac{2074.64}{1810}=1.146$
c.s.+pol. Spline with var. knots $\frac{2282.76}{1868}=1.222$
c.s.+pol. ” + TPE $\frac{2151.72}{1866}=1.153$
cross sections Padé $\frac{2289.14}{1816}=1.261$
c.s.+pol. Padé $\frac{ 2465.51}{1874}=1.316$
c.s.+pol. Padé + TPE $\frac{2360.81}{1872}=1.261$
: \[wdchitable\] The $\chi^2_\mathrm{red}$ for several fits to 1) all cross section data, i.e., to the new data of this paper and previous cross section world data, 2) all cross section and polarization results without any TPE model, 3) same as 2) with the simple TPE model. All fits where performed for the variable spline model and the Padé model.
Statistical significance and model dependence \[significance\]
--------------------------------------------------------------
Our model for uncertainties divides up all sources into three parts: the first part is the global component, i.e., uncertainties which affect all points in a normalization group the same way. These are automatically corrected for by the floating normalization. The next component affects each measurement individually—we treat those via the scaling of the counting statistics errors described above and in the following subsection. The third, and most critical, component covers effects which change the cross sections in a systematic way. We describe this in Sec. \[npperrors\]. A given source of uncertainty does not necessarily fall into only one of these categories. For example, the detector efficiencies bulk contribution is a global effect, but we also treat this source in the third category. While point-to-point efficiency differences are less probable, they are taken care of by the error scaling.
A source of systematic error is the selection of models used in the fit which needs special attention. We describe our approach in Sec. \[moddep\].
### Point-to-point uncertainties {#mcbands}
To express the uncertainty in the result due to uncertainties in the data and extraction procedure we must construct a confidence region around the best fit. However, the meaning of this region is a delicate point.
As described above the uncertainties from counting statistic are scaled to account for point-to-point uncertainties from other sources like the luminosity determination and detector efficiency fluctuations. Classically, such point-to-point uncertainties are treated by standard error propagation, which assumes a linear approximation. In order to circumvent this limitation, we calculate the confidence bands using a Monte Carlo technique: From the best fit, we generate a large number of pseudo data sets, with data varied according to the individual uncertainties. We additionally vary the normalization of the data groups with a $\pm5$% uncertainty. Each of these data sets is now fitted, and from the resulting fit ensemble one can construct envelopes as the confidence bands to a selected confidence level.
For the interpretation of this band, it has to be noted that it is dependent on the model function. One uses an implicit prior assumption, namely, that the true curve can actually be expressed by the model function. From this, it is clear that a less flexible model will have a smaller uncertainty; the assumption is then a stronger statement and therefore reduces the uncertainty. It is also clear that it is impossible to define a model-independent band: Without any prior, that is, allowing any function (or distribution), the uncertainty at positions off the exact points of the input data is infinite.
Per se, standard error propagation and the Monte Carlo method construct the pointwise confidence bands, that is, one expects the value derived from the experiment to be inside the confidence band around the true value at a given $Q^2$ with the specified confidence level without any limitation on the behavior at a different $Q^2$. In the linear approximation, this is commonly reformulated in the not-quite-precise inversion: One expects that the unknown true value is inside the confidence band around the experimentally determined value. In a non-linear model, this inversion is even less accurate, a fact which can not be cured without the introduction of further prior assumptions.
However, with our method, it is possible to overcome the other limitation, i.e., the reduction to single $Q^2$ points. We can construct simultaneous confidence bands, i.e., the statement is extended to express that, with the chosen confidence level, the true function is inside the band for a chosen $Q^2$ range and not just at a single point. These bands are therefore strictly wider than the point-to-point bands of the same confidence level. Assuming the same shape of the bands, the Monte Carlo technique allows us to find scaling factors: for the models at hand, a 68% simultaneous band is about 2.3 times wider than the pointwise band with the same confidence level. To achieve 95%, one has to scale the 68% pointwise bands by a factor of around 3.
In this paper, we present pointwise bands with a confidence level of 68%, the usual “one-$\sigma$ errors.”
### Non point-to-point uncertainties {#npperrors}
Besides statistical errors, one has to take into account uncertainties which affect several measurements in a systematic way. Most of these are irrelevant as they affect either all points or all points of a set in the same way. For example, an error in the target density or thickness will shift all points up or down. Due to the way the fits are constructed these shifts are subsumed in the fitted normalization constants. A $\pm 5\%$ uncertainty of this normalization scaling is included in the simulation and therefore also in the confidence bands as described above. What remains are slow drifts over time or scattering angle which may affect the outcome of the fits. We identified several experimental sources:
- Energy cut in the elastic tail. This error can be estimated by varying the cut-off energy. It changes the form-factor results by at most 0.2% for high $Q^2$ and by less than 0.1% for $Q^2<0.55\ \mathrm{GeV}^2$.
- Drift of the normalization. This error might occur due to unaccounted dead-time effects in the detectors or electronics when the event rate changes. From the long-term experience with the detector setup, this error on the cross sections is estimated to be below 0.05%.
- Efficiency change due to different positions of the elastic peak on the focal plane. The detector efficiency is position dependent because of different wire tension, missing wires or quality of the scintillators. By adjusting the central momentum, the position of the electron trajectories in the focal plane was almost constant. This effect on the cross sections is estimated to be at most 0.05%.
- The vertex-dependent acceptance correction for spectrometers A and C. A comparison of the 720-MeV data, measured with the long and short target cells, leads to a cross-section uncertainty below 0.1%.
- The influence of spectrometer C on the measurement with spectrometer B. We split this uncertainty in a part which is effectively point to point, reflected by the error scaling, and a part which behaves systematically as a function of the angle. The latter is estimated to be below 0.1%.
- The background estimation. Depending on the size of the background below the elastic hydrogen peak this error is estimated to be between 0.1% and 0.5%.
While the first point can be tested directly by fitting data with varied cut-off energy, the other uncertainties have to be treated by hand. To this end the cross sections are grouped by the energy and by the spectrometer with which they are measured. For each group, we define a linear function $c(\theta)=a\cdot (\theta-\theta_\mathrm{min})$ interpolating from 0 for the smallest scattering angle to the full estimated uncertainty at the maximum angle of the group. The cross sections are then multiplied by $1+c(\theta)$. The sign of $a$ was kept constant for all energies. The so modified cross sections were then refitted with the form factor models. In order to determine an upper and a lower bound the fits were repeated with negated $a$. The uncertainties found in this way are added quadratically to the uncertainties from the radiative tail cut-off. The choice of a linear function in $\theta$ is certainly arbitrary, but we checked several different reasonable functional dependencies on $\theta$ and $Q^2$ , e.g., imitating the effect of a spectrometer angle offset or target position offset. They all produced similar results. The so-determined uncertainties are reflected by the experimental systematic confidence bands presented in this paper.
A possible source of uncertainty not from data but from theory are the radiative corrections. The absolute value of the radiative corrections should already be correct to better than 1% and a constant error in the correction will be absorbed in the normalization. Any slope introduced as a function of $\theta$ or $Q^2$ by the radiation correction will be contained in the slope-uncertainty discussed above up to a negligible residual; it is therefore not considered.
In order to evaluate the influence of the applied Coulomb correction, the amplitude of the correction was varied by $\pm 50\%$. The so-modified cross sections are refitted with the different models. The differences of the extracted form factors to the results for the data with the unmodified correction are shown as a band in Fig. \[fig\_emem\].
Except for the phenomenological TPE model included in the fit to the full data set, we do not include any theoretical correction of the hard two-photon exchange to the cross sections in our analysis but apply Feshbach’s Coulomb correction. Published Rosenbluth data normally do not include a Coulomb correction. This has to be considered for comparisons of our fits with old Rosenbluth separations.
![\[fig\_emem\] (Color) The form factors $G_E$ and $G_M$, normalized to the standard dipole, and $G_E/G_M$ as a function of $Q^2$. Black line: Best fit to the new Mainz data, blue area: statistical 68% pointwise confidence band, light blue area: experimental systematic error, green outer band: variation of the Coulomb correction by $\pm 50\%$. The different data points depict the previous measurements [@Arrington07; @fw03; @Christy04; @Simon80; @Price71; @Berger71; @Hanson73; @Janssens65; @Bartel73; @Bosted90; @Gayou01; @Gayou02; @Milbrath98; @Punjabi05; @Jones00; @Jones06; @Zhan11; @Crawford07; @Pospischil:2000pu; @Dieterich01] as in Refs. [@fw03; @Arrington07] with the data points of Refs. [@Borkowski74-2; @Murphy74; @Ron:2011rd] added. ](ffnowq)
### Model dependence {#moddep}
An important issue is the question of whether the form-factor functions are sufficiently flexible to be a suitable estimator for the unknown true curve or whether they introduce any bias, especially in the extraction of the radius. We have studied this problem in two ways:
First, we used a Monte Carlo technique similar to the method described in Sec. \[mcbands\]. We analyzed Monte Carlo data sets produced at the kinematics of the data of the present experiment with a series of published form factors: the standard dipole, the Padé and polynomial descriptions of Refs. [@Arrington03; @Arrington07] and the Friedrich-Walcher parametrization [@fw03]. For each model, we produced roughly 50000 data sets. By construction, we know the “truth” we have to compare with and can evaluate the suitability of our fits. All flexible models and the Friedrich-Walcher model were able to reproduce the input form factors from these simulated data to a high precision without any notable bias. This is also reflected in the average $\chi^2_\mathrm{red}$ values obtained, presented in Table \[tablchi\], which deviate minimally from 1. The inflexible single-dipole model failed as expected for any input model except the standard dipole itself. The double-dipole model reproduces the general shape for most models surprisingly well; however, one cannot extract the radii reliably as can be seen in the Tables \[tabradiffge\] and \[tabradiffgm\] listing the bias of the radius extraction. All flexible models exhibit only a small bias here except for the spline for a single input parametrization. These tables also list the $1\sigma$ width of the distributions, i.e., these values are not the error of the bias, but describe what kind of precision one can expect from the model for a single experiment. In that sense, the spline models are more efficient than the polynomial models.
------------------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
Fit model
Single dipole $1.000$ $2.193$ $2.227$ $2.230$ $3.216$
Double dipole $1.002$ $1.033$ $1.001$ $1.003$ $1.162$
Polynomial $1.000$ $1.000$ $1.000$ $1.000$ $1.000$
Poly. + dipole $1.000$ $1.000$ $1.000$ $1.000$ $1.000$
Poly. $\times$ dipole $1.000$ $1.000$ $1.000$ $1.000$ $1.000$
Inv. poly. $1.000$ $1.000$ $1.000$ $1.000$ $1.000$
Spline $1.000$ $1.000$ $1.002$ $1.002$ $1.000$
Spline $\times$ dipole $1.000$ $1.000$ $1.000$ $1.000$ $1.000$
Friedrich-Walcher $1.005$ $1.004$ $1.004$ $1.004$ $1.002$
------------------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
: \[tablchi\]The average achieved $\chi^2_\mathrm{red}$ of the different model combinations. Columns: Input parametrizations. Rows: Models used in the fit.
------------------------ ------ ------- ------ ----- ------ ----- ------- ----- ------ ------
Fit model
Single Dipole $0$ $0.7$ $29$ $1$ $-6$ $1$ $-15$ $1$ $-2$ $1$
Double Dipole $0$ $1$ $10$ $1$ $0$ $2$ $3$ $3$ $81$ $27$
Polynomial $0$ $7$ $0$ $7$ $0$ $6$ $0$ $6$ $0$ $6$
Poly. + dipole $0$ $7$ $-1$ $7$ $0$ $6$ $-1$ $6$ $0$ $6$
Poly. $\times$ dipole $0$ $5$ $0$ $5$ $0$ $4$ $0$ $4$ $0$ $5$
Inv. poly. $-1$ $5$ $-1$ $5$ $0$ $5$ $-1$ $5$ $0$ $5$
Spline $-1$ $3$ $-1$ $3$ $-3$ $3$ $-5$ $3$ $0$ $3$
Spline $\times$ dipole $0$ $3$ $1$ $3$ $-1$ $3$ $-2$ $3$ $1$ $3$
Friedrich-Walcher $0$ $1$ $3$ $2$ $-1$ $2$ $+2$ $3$ $-1$ $3$
------------------------ ------ ------- ------ ----- ------ ----- ------- ----- ------ ------
: \[tabradiffge\] Bias of the different models for the charge radius extraction and the width of the radius distribution. Positive values correspond to an extracted radius larger than the input radius. Values are in atm.
---------------------- ------ ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------ -------
Fit model
Single dipole $0$ $0.3$ $-32$ $0.4$ $-50$ $0.4$ $-53$ $0.4$ $5$ $0.4$
Double dip. $0$ $1$ $12$ $2$ $2$ $3$ $3$ $4$ $49$ $2$
Polynomial $-1$ $18$ $-1$ $17$ $-1$ $17$ $-2$ $17$ $-2$ $17$
Poly. + dip. $0$ $15$ $-1$ $15$ $-1$ $14$ $-1$ $12$ $-1$ $15$
Poly. $\times$ dip. $-1$ $14$ $-1$ $14$ $-1$ $13$ $-2$ $14$ $-2$ $14$
Inv. poly. $0$ $13$ $0$ $13$ $0$ $13$ $0$ $12$ $0$ $13$
Spline $1$ $7$ $1$ $7$ $1$ $6$ $-1$ $7$ $0$ $7$
Spline $\times$ dip. $0$ $6$ $0$ $6$ $-1$ $6$ $-2$ $6$ $-1$ $6$
F.-W. $0$ $2$ $1$ $5$ $0$ $6$ $2$ $5$ $-1$ $6$
---------------------- ------ ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------ -------
: \[tabradiffgm\] As Tab. \[tabradiffge\] but for the magnetic radius.
Second, we compare the form factors determined with our broad set of models. Figures \[figmodelgegm\] show the relative deviation of the different models from the spline fit. The flexible models have a very small spread between themselves, at least in the region where a reliable disentanglement of the form factors is possible. The less flexible fits exhibit larger deviations, especially above 0.5 $\mathrm{GeV}^2$. The Friedrich-Walcher parametrization has good agreement at lower $Q^2$, similarly to the flexible models, but exhibits the same bias as the other less flexible fits at higher $Q^2$.
 Relative deviation of the different models to the spline fit. ](modelgegm)
For the fits which include the world data we use the mentioned variation of the spline model. The additional freedom of picking the location of the knots gives local flexibility of the model function. This variation provides an alternative handle on testing model dependencies since the flexibility of the model can be varied in an almost continuous way. For the purpose of this paper we kept the number of knots constant and only varied the positions with a Monte-Carlo approach. We select for each knot a random position between half the distance to the previous and half the distance to the next knot with a uniform distribution and refit. The distribution of $M^2$s of this ensemble of models is presented in Fig. \[figmwq\]. It has to be stressed here that, besides the points we raised earlier, this is not a $\chi^2$-like distribution—it is not a distribution of $M^2$ fitting an ensemble of repeated experiments with the same model, but the distribution of $M^2$ fitting the same data with an ensemble of models. As can be seen from Fig. \[figmwq\] the original choice of the knot positions (“nominal knots”) was already close to optimal. We construct a confidence band by taking the envelope for the 68% best models. The result is displayed in Figs. \[figmsplinewq\] and \[figmsplinewqrt\] together with the other contributions to the uncertainty.
![\[figmwq\] Probability distribution of $M^2$ when the knot position of the variable splines are varied as described in the text.](m_wq)
![\[figmsplinewq\] Results for a global fit with the data of this work together with external cross section data. Black line: Best spline fit with nominal knot values. Light gray: Statistical 68% pointwise confidence band. Dark gray: model dependency from knot variation. Dashed line: Padé model. Dotted lines: edges of statistical confidence band for Padé model.](mspline_wq)
![\[figmsplinewqrt\] As in Fig. \[figmsplinewq\], but for fits to the data of this work and the external data from unpolarized and polarized measurements under the inclusion of the TPE parametrization Eq. (\[eq:TPE\]).](mspline_wqrt)
Results for the form factors {#ffffitssec}
============================
Fits to the new Mainz data alone
--------------------------------
In Fig. \[fig\_emem\] we present the results for $G_E$ and $G_M$ and of their ratio for fits of the spline model to the new data without additional external data. In the same figure we show previous measurements and fits to old data. It has to be noted that the previous measurements are plotted as given in the original publication without the update to the radiative corrections described above. The error bars of the previous data shown for $G_E$ and $G_M$ represent only the statistical error, the normalization uncertainties are typically of the order of a few percent. Since TPE corrections are not applied to any of the data the corresponding non-TPE-corrected fit of Ref. [@Arrington07] is shown. In the plot of the ratio the fit to the TPE-corrected data of Ref. [@Arrington07] is also included. We show the Friedrich-Walcher fit from Ref. [@fw03] to the data before 2003, which now has to be regarded as superseded by the fit to the new data.
The results for $G_E$ exhibit some peculiar structure for small $Q^2$, therefore we show this form factor also with an extended scale \[Fig. \[fig\_emem\] (a)\]. First, $G_E$ exhibits a significant negative slope relative to the standard dipole at $Q^2 \approx 0$, giving rise to the larger electric radius. After the slope levels out around 0.1 $\mathrm{GeV}^2$, there is an indication of a bump around 0.15 $\mathrm{GeV}^2$, however, at the limit of significance. Further, the ratio to the standard dipole remains constant up to 0.55 $\mathrm{GeV}^2$ when the slope again becomes larger. In that region, however, only measurements at large scattering angles for only two beam energies contribute so the fit becomes less reliable and more sensitive to systematic errors such as the neglect of TPE. For even higher $Q^2$ measurements have been taken only at one energy and a separation of $G_E$ and $G_M$ is not possible.
The magnetic form factor $G_M$ deviates from earlier measurements. We relate this to the normalization depending on the extrapolation with an assumed analytical form which—in previous analyses—does not include the wiggle first seen by this experiment. The specifics of the maximum and the minimum of the wiggle structure depend, of course, on the functional form one divides by—in our case, the standard dipole.
The structure at small $Q^2$ seen in both form factors corresponds to the scale of the pion of about $Q^2 \approx m_{\pi}^2 \approx 0.02\ \mathrm{GeV}^2$ and may be indicative of the influence of the pion cloud [@Vanderhaeghen:2010nd].
While the deviation of $G_M$ from previous measurements seems surprising at first glance, it reconciles the form factor ratios from experiments with unpolarized electrons, like this one, with those found with polarized electrons, especially with the high-precision measurements in Refs. [@Ron07; @Zhan11; @Ron:2011rd].
Due to the deviation of the results of $G_M$ from most of the previous determinations the geometric reliability of the spectrometer motion has been questioned by some experimenters after the publication of Ref.[@Bernauer:2010wm]. The verification of the rotational axes of the spectrometers in 2013 found them to be within the assumed limits and is far of from explaining the change in $G_M$ from previous measurements.
A possible general concern with fits is the question of convergence. In the time-like region, the form factors have poles which limit the convergence of a polynomial expansion around 0 to $\left|Q^2\right|<4m_\pi^2$. To test this, we modified the spline model; we add to the spline model a calculation of the non-analytic terms [@Ledwig:2011cx]. In effect, the splines will then only have to fit the remaining, analytical part. The result is almost indistinguishable from the spline fit without this addition with a relative change of below $6\times10^{-4}$.
Form factors via Rosenbluth separation {#chptextrosen}
--------------------------------------
The classical way of determining $G_E$ and $G_M$ is the Rosenbluth separation of cross sections measured at fixed $Q^2$ for different polarization $\varepsilon$. Rewriting the cross section \[Eq. (\[eqrosen\])\] as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqrosenred}
\sigma_\mathrm{red}&=&\varepsilon \left(1+\tau
\right)\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}\Omega}\right)_{0}/\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}\Omega}\right)_\mathrm{Mott}\nonumber\\
&=&\left(\varepsilon G^2_E\left(Q^2\right)+\tau
G^2_M\left(Q^2\right)\right)\end{aligned}$$ makes it obvious that, for constant $Q^2$, the reduced cross section $\sigma_\mathrm{red}$ depends linearly on $\varepsilon$ with $G_E^2(Q^2)$ as slope and $\tau G_M^2(Q^2)$ as ordinate intercept. Hence, a linear fit can be used to extract $G_E$ and $G_M$. We have discussed in Sec. \[sec:intro\] the advantages of extracting the form factors through a global fit to the cross sections. Nevertheless, we also perform a classic Rosenbluth separation of our data in order to reconcile our analysis with the expectation the community might have.
One of the problems with a direct Rosenbluth separation of measured cross sections is a coherent inclusion of a normalization of the data. We handle this by first fixing the cross section with the normalizations extracted by the spline fit.
Another problem is the necessity of several data points at constant $Q^2$ but varied $\varepsilon$. Due to the large number of measurements with overlapping acceptances, it is possible to find a set of 77 narrowly spaced $Q_i^2$ with measurements at at least three different $\varepsilon$, so the linearity can be tested. Obviously, not all of the measured data are being used in this case—especially unfortunate is the loss of information on the lower end of $Q^2$: The lowest point is 4 times larger than what is available in the data. To project the cross section, which has been averaged over a finite-size $Q^2$ range given by the spectrometer acceptance, to the nearest $Q_i^2$ point, we divide by the numerically integrated result of the Monte Carlo simulation with the standard dipole for $G_E$ and $G_M$ and multiply by the differential cross section evaluated with the same form factors at the given $Q_i^2$ point.
This procedure implies an error which, to first order, depends on the difference of the curvature of the true cross section and the one used in the Monte Carlo calculation, multiplied by the square of the acceptance [@Hanson:1951zz], when the cross section is attributed to the central $Q^2_\mathrm{central}$; this error is found to be negligible for our measurements. Attributing the resulting cross section to an off-central value, say $Q^2_i$, results in an additional error proportional to the difference in the slopes of the true and the reference cross sections and on the projection distance $Q^2_i - Q^2_\mathrm{central}$. Our measurements are so narrowly spaced in $Q^2$ that this uncertainty is below 0.15% for the highest $Q_i^2$ presented here and considerably less for lower $Q_i^2$.
The Rosenbluth-separated form factors are shown in Fig.\[figrosvgl\], together with the result of the global fit (spline model). For the lowest $Q^2$ points, where $G_M$ is less well determined, $G_M/(\mu_pG_\mathrm{std.\ dip.})$ was not determined by the Rosenbluth fit but, for each point, set once to 1 and once to 1.05, as one would expect it to be in that range and not larger. For each point, the difference in $G_E$ of the two constraint fits and the errors of the individual fits give the error of $G_E$ shown in Fig. \[figrosvgl\]. The points from the unconstrained fits are presented in gray for reference. The use of the prior knowledge that the magnetic form factor cannot differ too much from the standard dipole for $Q^2 \sim 0$ helps to reduce the error bars on $G_E$ for low $Q^2$ considerably.
![\[figrosvgl\]$G_E$ and $G_M$ determined via the Rosenbluth separation technique (black points) compared to the spline fit (gray curve). For the lowest points, $G_M/(\mu_pG_\mathrm{std.\ dip.})$ was varied between 1 and 1.05 (the results of the unconstrained Rosenbluth fits are shown in gray). For details see text.](rosenvgl_ge "fig:") ![\[figrosvgl\]$G_E$ and $G_M$ determined via the Rosenbluth separation technique (black points) compared to the spline fit (gray curve). For the lowest points, $G_M/(\mu_pG_\mathrm{std.\ dip.})$ was varied between 1 and 1.05 (the results of the unconstrained Rosenbluth fits are shown in gray). For details see text.](rosenvgl_gm "fig:")
The agreement of the Rosenbluth-separated form factors with those from the global fits has been tested by calculating a reduced $\chi^2$ from the differences of the Rosenbluth data points to the spline fit. The rather large value of 2.2 is found, with similar numbers for a comparison of $G_E$ or $G_M$ alone. Fits of polynomials (order 10) to $G_E$ and $G_M$ from the Rosenbluth separation yield also $\chi^2_\mathrm{red}$ values above 2. In order to put these numbers into perspective, one has to note that the $\chi^2_\mathrm{red}$-distribution is much wider for the fit to the Rosenbluth-separated form factors, due to the lower number of degrees of freedom. In fact, interpreting the deviation of the flexible fits from the expectancy value 1 as purely statistical, $\chi^2_\mathrm{red}$ values up to 1.7 for the fit to the Rosenbluth-separated form factors would have the same probability as $\chi^2_\mathrm{red}$ values up to 1.14 for the global fits.
While the “ingredients” of the global fit and the Rosenbluth separation are in principle similar, the explicit Rosenbluth separation differs fundamentally from the global fit since it (a) has to contract the large acceptance of the measurements to single $Q^2$ points and (b) acts on subsamples of the complete data set. In this way a large part of the dependence on the primary kinematic variables, the scattering angle and the incident energy, disappears and the information is lost. This is exacerbated by the fact that the set of $Q^2$ values has to be the same for all energies. The consequences of these differences have not been studied fully, however, the robustness (see Sec. 8.7 of Ref. [@james]), i.e., the insensitivity to unaccounted non-Gaussian errors of the input data, has been tested for both estimators, i.e., the form factors determined via the global fit and via the Rosenbluth separation. To this end, statistically pure pseudo data are generated from the spline fit and then perturbed with systematic errors. Unperturbed, both methods result in an average $\chi^2_\mathrm{red}$ of 1. Adding systematic shifts, however, increased the $\chi^2_\mathrm{red}$ for the Rosenbluth method more than for the global fit method.
In fact, if we shift 5% of the data points by a systematic “not normal distributed” shift of 0.5%, the fits yield a difference in the $\chi^2$ increase comparable to the difference seen for the measured data. We therefore conclude that the global fit is a much more robust estimator of the form factors with respect to non-normal errors in the measured cross sections.
![\[figrosdev1\] The relative deviation of the measured $\sigma_\mathrm{red}$ from the Rosenbluth straight-line fit for three different $Q^2$ values. No systematic deviation from the linear fit is indicated.](rosen_6 "fig:") ![\[figrosdev1\] The relative deviation of the measured $\sigma_\mathrm{red}$ from the Rosenbluth straight-line fit for three different $Q^2$ values. No systematic deviation from the linear fit is indicated.](rosen_24 "fig:") ![\[figrosdev1\] The relative deviation of the measured $\sigma_\mathrm{red}$ from the Rosenbluth straight-line fit for three different $Q^2$ values. No systematic deviation from the linear fit is indicated.](rosen_50 "fig:")
As to other systematic insufficiencies in the measurement, the Rosenbluth separation is also prone to errors in theoretical corrections of the cross sections. Such insufficiencies might show up as deviations of the reduced cross section from Eq. (\[eqrosenred\]), i.e., from a straight line in the Rosenbluth plot. Figure \[figrosdev1\] shows the relative deviations of the measured $\sigma_\mathrm{red}$ from the Rosenbluth fit for 3 of the 77 $Q^2$-values. At the (quite high) level of statistical accuracy of this experiment no systematic deviations from the straight line are visible. This was tested further for all 77 points by fitting polynomials of second order, where the coefficient of the quadratic term was found to be compatible with zero.
Fits including external data {#fwaextdata}
----------------------------
### Unpolarized elastic scattering only
For global fits with the addition of external data we have to adapt the models to be usable with the drastic change in data point density over $Q^2$ as already described. We use a flexible spline $\times$ dipole model with variable knots described above and the less flexible Padé model given by Eq. (\[eq:Pade\]). Figure \[figmsplinewq\] shows both form factors and the form-factor ratio from both models.
The overall behavior of the Padé model is quite similar to the spline model up to 5 $\mathrm{GeV}^2$, without following the small-scale wiggles of the spline fit.
Differences in the gross behavior appear in $G_E$ for $Q^2>5\ \mathrm{GeV}^2$, where the existing data start to determine $G_E$ badly. Here the Padé model does not exhibit the downward bend, however, without leaving the model confidence band of the spline model. For $G_M$, there is a distinct knee between 1 and 2 $\mathrm{GeV}^2$ for the spline model, which appears slightly washed out but clearly visible also in the Padé model. The high-$Q^2$ behavior of both models is closer together in trend in $G_M$ than in $G_E$; however, the confidence band of the spline fit does not overlap the Padé fit over the complete range.
The large model-dependency estimate for larger $Q^2$ illustrates a point which is often underestimated: The standard error propagation used for the construction of the confidence bands gives an estimate of the statistical error [*for the chosen model*]{} only.
### Unpolarized and polarized elastic scattering
Adding additional information in the form of form-factor-ratio data from polarized experiments can help to reduce the uncertainty in the form factor separation, especially affecting the uncertainty of $G_E$ at large $Q^2$. As discussed in Sec. \[fwextdata\], we need to introduce additional parameters for a TPE parametrization given by Eq. (\[eq:TPE\]) to reconcile the two measurement methods. Figure \[figmsplinewqrt\] shows the results of these fits, again for both models. While $G_E/G_\mathrm{std.dip}$ now decreases more or less linearly, $G_M$ is shifted upward for $Q^2>1\
\mathrm{GeV}^2$. As a result, the ratio also decreases almost linearly. This behavior is similar for both the spline as well as the Padé model. In spite of the added parameters, the widths of the confidence bands are reduced.
Figure \[figtpecontrib\] shows the contribution from our TPE parametrization as a function of $Q^2$ at $\varepsilon=0$ where the correction is maximal. This contribution is similar for both models. Table \[tabab\] lists the fit result for the parameters $a$ and $b$.
Model $a$ $b$
------------------------ ----------- ------------------------------
Spline with var. knots $0.069$ $0.394\ \mathrm{GeV}^{-2}$
Padé $0.104$ $0.188\ \mathrm{GeV}^{-2}$
: \[tabab\] The values of $a$ and $b$ of the TPE parametrization, extracted from the fits to all data.
It is clear that the TPE model used is simple and only weakly motivated by theoretical considerations. However, it gives much better fits for the wide $Q^2$ region in which the ratio $G_E/G_M$ derived without accounting for TPE from the unpolarized scattering and from the polarized measurements differs significantly. While the total $\chi^2$ increases by 207 when adding 58 polarization data points without any TPE parametrization taken into account, the increase is reduced to 77 by the inclusion of only two free parameters (for the detailed numbers cf. Table \[wdchitable\]).
Figure \[figtpecomp\] shows the TPE correction as a function of $\varepsilon$ for selected $Q^2$ values in comparison with the calculation of Borisyuk [*et al.*]{} [@Borisyuk:2006uq] and the calculation by Blunden [*et al.*]{} [@Blunden05; @Arrington:2011dn; @blundenpc].. Both calculations are valid in the low-$Q^2$ region. Our simple parametrization can evidently not reproduce the strong curvature of these particular calculations in the low-$\varepsilon$ region. Most of the data however are situated in the mid-range of $\varepsilon$, where the calculations are almost linear and our parametrization gives a similar slope, but a different overall normalization of about 0.5%, growing slightly with $Q^2$. Such a correction linear in $\varepsilon$ cannot be tested for with the Rosenbluth separation as it is indistinguishable from a change in $G_E$. The change of the overall normalization is mostly absorbed in our floating normalization of the fits.
![\[figtpecontrib\]The TPE contribution to the cross section (excluding the Feshbach-term) as determined by the fit to the complete world data set as a function of $Q^2$ for $\varepsilon=0$. Same nomenclature as in Fig. \[figmsplinewq\].](tpe)
![\[figtpecomp\] Comparison of the complete TPE correction $\delta_\mathrm{F+TPE}$ (without the soft part included in Maximon-Tjon) for four different $Q^2$ values. Solid: Fit to data, dashed: calculation with the approximation of Ref. [@Borisyuk:2006uq]. dotted: TPE corrections from Refs. [@Blunden05; @Arrington:2011dn; @blundenpc].](tpecomp)
![\[fignorm\] Shifts of the normalization $n_{\mathrm{ext},j}-1$ of the external cross section data found by the spline fits. (a) Fits to the data of this work and external data from unpolarized scattering. (b) Data from polarized measurements are additionally included and the fit is extended with the TPE parametrization. (c) The difference of the normalization shift $[\mathrm{(b)}-
\mathrm{(a)}]$ . The numbers in the legend indicate the normalization uncertainty we assumed in the fit.](normplotcs)
An indication for such a normalization effect can be seen by a comparison of the normalization factors of the external data found in the fits: In Fig. \[fignorm\] the shift of the cross section normalization $n_{\mathrm{ext},j}-1$ of the external data is displayed. Figure \[fignorm\](a) shows the result when only the external unpolarized cross-section data are added to the data set used for the fit. As can be seen, all shifts are positive, i.e., the actual cross sections as reconstructed by the fit are larger than the values quoted in the original publication. The spread of the shifts is quite large. However, a fit to just the previous data sets without the new Mainz data shows a similar spread of almost the same shifts for the low-$Q^2$ data sets and shifts smaller by about 4% absolute for the large-$Q^2$ data. While it may look strange that all shifts are positive, the mean of the normalization falls together with the shift of the oldest measurement [@Janssens65], for which the absolute normalization was certainly not better than a few percent, and the other older measurements may have checked their normalization with regard to Ref. [@Janssens65].
Figure \[fignorm\](b) shows the normalization when, in addition, the polarization data and the TPE parametrization are taken into account. Figure \[fignorm\](c) shows the difference in the normalization introduced by this. While there is virtually no change in the normalization with respect to the analysis without the polarization data for the data sets at $Q^2$ below 0.2 GeV$^2$, we find a shift of about 1% for the large-$Q^2$ data sets, similarly to the spread of the curves in Fig. \[figtpecomp\].
![\[figmsplinewqrtzoom\] The spline fit with variable knots from Fig. \[figmsplinewqrt\], zoomed in to $Q^2<1\ (\mathrm{GeV}/c)^2$. The dashed-dotted line represents a fit of all data up to $5 (\mathrm{GeV}/c)^2$, with TPE corrections according to Refs. [@Blunden05; @Arrington:2011dn; @blundenpc] applied.](mspline_wqrt_zoom)
Figure \[figmsplinewqrtzoom\] shows the low-$Q^2$ region of the spline fit. We find similar features as in the fits to the Mainz data alone which did not include a TPE correction: Both the change in slope of $G_E$ and the bump-dip structure in $G_M$ are visible.
The figure also shows a fit of the data without our empirical TPE-correction model but with the Feshbach correction replaced by a TPE calculation by Blunden [*et al.*]{} [@Blunden05; @Arrington:2011dn], who provided us with a numeric evaluation [@blundenpc]. Since this calculation is valid on;y up to around $5\ (\mathrm{GeV}/c)^2$, we fit data only up to this value. The correction reduces the disagreement between unpolarized and polarized data: the $\chi^2$ reduces from 2232 for a fit with the Feshbach correction to 2142 with the Blunden correction, equal to an increase of about 1.85 for each data point from polarization experiments. Our full fit achieves 2107, i.e. 1.22 for each data point from polarization. Fits up to $3\ (\mathrm{GeV}/c)^2$ produce similar results.
The fit for $G_E$ with the Blunden TPE correction lies higher at around $Q^2=0.2\ (\mathrm{GeV}/c)^2$, making the change in slope even more pronounced. On the other hand, the bump in $G_M$ is much reduced. However, the fit still indicates that the following dip compared to the dipole does not start at $Q^2=0$, like previous fits extracted, but at slightly higher $Q^2$ values.
Electric and magnetic radii {#secradii}
===========================
Extraction method and model dependence
--------------------------------------
According to Eq. (\[eqradius\]), the electric and magnetic rms radii, $r_E=\sqrt{\left<r_E^2\right>}$ and $r_M=\sqrt{\left<r_M^2\right>}$, are given by the slopes of the corresponding form factors at $Q^2=0$. Therefore the accuracy with which they are determined by the measurement is given by the accuracy of the data in particular at low $Q^2$. Since the accuracy of $G_E$ is high at low $Q^2$, $r_E$ will be determined with good precision, while $G_M$ and therefore $r_M$ is less well determined due to its small contribution to the cross section at low $Q^2$. In any case, the determination of $r_E$ and $r_M$ corresponds to an extrapolation of $G_E$ and $G_M$ to $Q^2=0$, and one has to ask the question to which extent the result depends on the ansatz for the fit model, in particular on its flexibility which depends on functional form and number of parameters, $N_p$. For too low flexibility, the resulting radii are not trustworthy since the data are not correctly reproduced. If the flexibility is too high, the fit can follow the smallest statistical fluctuations, which results in erratic determinations of the radii. In fact, one has to compromise between these two extremes, as we did for the choice of the number of parameters $N_p$ by looking at the development of $\chi^2$ as a function of $N_p$. Here, we also inspect the resulting values of the radii and search for the range of $N_p$ in which the extracted radii are stable.
For both the electric and the magnetic radius the polynomial and the polynomial + dipole model produce a stable result for $N_p>9$. The polynomial $\times$ dipole model works comparably well for the electric radius for $N_p>8$, but shows erratic behavior for the magnetic radius already for $N_p>9$. The inverse polynomial, which has a quicker convergence to the $\chi^2$ plateau, also deteriorates faster into such erratic behavior for $r_M$. Nevertheless, these models agree quite well for both radii when one confines oneself to $N_p$ at the beginning of the plateau.
The erratic behavior of the magnetic radius stems from the less stringent determination of the magnetic form factor at low $Q^2$, where the magnetic contribution is small and where, with enough flexibility (large $N_p$), the fit follows smallest statistical deviations, resulting in larger uncertainties. Low $N_p$ give the fit enough stability to extrapolate $G_M$ from higher $Q^2$ values, where the magnetic contribution is sizable, down to $Q^2=0$, but may be not flexible enough to capture the true behavior. It has to be noted that in previous determinations of $r_M$ only models with much less flexibility have been used and that the data had been taken at $Q^2 > 0.0053$ GeV$^2$ only and they had significantly larger errors.
The spline fits based on polynomials of third order tend to give a smaller electric radius than the rest of the models, they additionally exhibit a depression in the value of the radius of about 0.015 fm, that is, about 2.5 times the statistical uncertainty, for $N_p$ around 10. This difference between the result from the splines and the polynomials was further investigated, but no conclusive cause was found. The spline model’s tendency to underpredict, albeit less pronounced, was already seen in the model dependency analysis described in Sec. \[moddep\]. The curvature of the spline models is limited by the order of the base polynomial. To test for a possible bias, we also use splines based on polynomials of fourth and fifth order. They produce progressively larger radii.
Focusing on the $\chi^2$ of points below $Q^2=0.06\ \mathrm{GeV}^2$ (543 data points) the spline fits yield a $\chi^2$ around 581 while the rest of the models give around 576. While this might indicate a worse fit of the low-$Q^2$ region by the spline models, the $\Delta \chi^2$ of 5 is small compared to the 1$\sigma$ width of the $\chi^2$ distribution \[$\sigma_{\chi^2}(N_\mathrm{d.o.f}\approx543)\approx33$\].
In order to estimate the model dependency for the extracted radii, the radii are determined with all models described before and for some variation in $N_p$. The results are shown in Fig. \[figradalle\].
The results for the charge radius fall somewhat apart into two groups according to the model of the analysis, namely those determined with the spline-based models and those from the polynomial-based models. For each group, the electric and magnetic radius and their statistical and systematic error have been determined as the weighted average over the results from the single fits, where the weights are the linear sum of statistical and systematical error. The model error has been calculated from the weighted variance of the values.
The final result is the (unweighted) arithmetic average of the values of the two groups. An additional error (labeled “group”), accounting for the difference of the two groups, is attributed to the result. Since it cannot be assumed that this error is normal-distributed, it is taken as half of the difference of the two groups.
For most of the results below we applied the radiative corrections described above, that is, with the Feshbach Coulomb correction. In order to get a feeling for the effect of different corrections, we repeated the fits with a TPE calculation using the approximation of Ref. [@Borisyuk:2006uq], yielding the values already published in Ref. [@Bernauer:2011zz], and also using the calculation from Refs. [@Arrington:2011dn; @blundenpc; @Blunden05].
Electric radius
---------------
As the average of the flexible models, we obtain $$\label{refinal}
r_E=0.879 (5)_\mathrm{stat.}(4)_\mathrm{syst.}(2)_\mathrm{model}(4)_\mathrm{group}.$$ This value is in complete agreement with the CODATA06 [@Mohr08] value of $0.8768 (69)$ fm based mostly on atomic measurements. It is also in complete accord with the old Mainz result [@Simon80] when the Coulomb corrections [@Rosenfelder99; @Sick03] are applied. However, the results from recent Lamb shift measurements on muonic hydrogen [@pohl; @Antognini:1900ns] are 0.04 fm smaller, i.e., 5 standard deviations from our result (quadratically added errors) and almost 8 from the updated CODATA value from 2010 [@Mohr12] which combines our data and earlier scattering and atomic level measurements.
Since this difference is unexplained yet, despite a multitude of efforts, we looked whether other ways of analysis of the scattering data would yield different results.
The Friedrich-Walcher model gives a slightly larger, but fully compatible radius.
For small $Q^2$, the contribution of the magnetic form factor to the cross section is so small that one can adopt one parametrization for $G_M$, subtract the magnetic contribution from the cross section and then fit the resulting $G_E$ at low $Q^2$ only using a simple model like a low-order polynomial. This technique is similar to the method employed by Simon [*et al.*]{} [@Simon80], where $G_M$ was set to $\mu_pG_E$ (scaling relation). In the present work, we apply it to the 180-MeV data alone, using different parametrizations, different cut-off values in $Q^2$, and different $G_M$ models. The normalization was left floating, but the fit recovered the normalization given by the global fit on the 0.1% level. This approach yields radii between 0.870 and 0.895 fm, with most values close to 0.880 fm, thus in excellent agreement with the final result of the global fit.
The two different TPE calculations we applied change the result by significantly less than the statistical uncertainty alone. In Ref. [@Arrington:2012dq], Arrington compares several recent calculations and finds all of them in good agreement for low-$Q^2$ and high $\varepsilon$. A full evaluation of the effect of all available calculations on the fit and the extracted radii is beyond the scope of this paper.
The inclusion of external data changes the value marginally for the spline model with variable knot positions. The Padé model is not sufficiently flexible to achieve a comparably small $\chi^2_\mathrm{red}$. Hence, it’s extracted radius is unreliable and we refrain from quoting its result.
Table \[taberad\] summarizes the electric radii determined with the different approaches together with the final result Eq. (\[refinal\]). Despite all these efforts, we do not see a way to reconcile our result with those from muonic hydrogen. We do not expect that a future calculation of TPE corrections can reconcile our result with the muonic measurement completely, but we cannot rule out that such calculations may reduce the discrepancy. We want to note, however, that a large shift in the radius from TPE would in turn create tension with atomic measurements with electric hydrogen, albeit probably with less significance.
[l|c]{}Method& Electric radius $r_E$ in fm\
Spline models (1) &$0.875(5)_\mathrm{stat.}(4)_\mathrm{syst.}(2)_\mathrm{model}$\
Polynomial models (2) & $0.883(5)_\mathrm{stat.}(5)_\mathrm{syst.}(3)_\mathrm{model}$\
Friedrich-Walcher & $0.884( ^{+7}_{-8})_\mathrm{stat.}(^{+7}_{-5})_\mathrm{syst.}$\
\
+ Rosenbluth data & $0.878$\
+ all external data & $0.878$\
&$0.879(5)_\mathrm{stat.}(4)_\mathrm{syst.}(2)_\mathrm{model}(4)_\mathrm{group}$\
With TPE from [@Borisyuk:2006uq]&$0.876(5)_\mathrm{stat.}(4)_\mathrm{syst.}(2)_\mathrm{model}(5)_\mathrm{group}$\
With TPE from [@Arrington:2011dn; @blundenpc; @Blunden05]&$0.875(5)_\mathrm{stat.}(4)_\mathrm{syst.}(2)_\mathrm{model}(5)_\mathrm{group}$\
Magnetic radius \[sec:V.C\]
---------------------------
Table \[tabmrad\] gives an overview of the results for the magnetic radius of the proton. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are larger, since the radius is determines as an extrapolation for $Q^2\rightarrow 0$ where the cross section is less sensitive to magnetic scattering. Interestingly, the difference between splines and polynomials is much smaller than for the electric form factor. This gives some confidence that the wiggle in $G_M$ at small $Q^2$ (see Fig. \[fig\_emem\]) is not an artifact of the fitted models. The only experimental reason for this wiggle, which we could think of and not rule out directly, would be a systematic error with the angular rotation of the spectrometers around the target. From the precision of the setup of the spectrometer turntable [@Blomqvist:1998xn], which we have rechecked, and the checks with the overlapping angular settings of the spectrometer described above, in particular the measurements on the left and right side, we can exclude such an explanation.
On the other hand, the change is relatively large when applying the two different TPE corrections. This may be due to the somewhat unexpectedly large deviations of the TPE calculations from a linear behavior at small $\varepsilon$, i.e., larger scattering angles. The Coulomb calculation from Refs. [@arringtonsick04; @Arrington:2011kv] does not show this behavior at small $\varepsilon$ and it has been argued in Ref. [@Arrington:2012dq] that calculations beyond second Born might be needed, reflecting the uncertainty in current TPE calculations. The phenomenological determination of TPE effects in this work may serve as a help for a better theoretical description.
Future results from direct measurements of the TPE effect are expected from several experiments [@vepp3; @classtpe; @olympus] for large $Q^2$ and from Ref. [@Gilman:2013fk] for low $Q^2$. They will help resolve this issue.
We observe that larger parameter numbers tend to produce larger magnetic radii. We do not believe that this stems from insufficient flexibility for the lower $N_p$, as a plateau in $\chi^2_\mathrm{red}$ is clearly already reached for the smaller parameter numbers. However, more flexible fits are more susceptible to follow statistical fluctuations. These possibly less reliable fits have larger uncertainties than fits with smaller parameter numbers. Hence, with the chosen weighted averaging, the impact of these fits is lessened. However, this choice and the choice of the parameter number are somewhat subjective. For comparison, an unweighted average would enlarge the radius by 0.008 fm.
Previous determinations from elastic electron scattering give a significantly larger magnetic radius (see Ref. [@Ron:2011rd] and references therein). However, since available data for $Q^2 < 0.2$ GeV$^2$ had large error bars and could not resolve the structure the new data indicates, the validity of the extrapolation of these previous determinations is questionable. The values for $G_E$ of Ref.[@Borkowski74] indicate a $\sim1\%$ deviation in the normalization of the form factors—the extrapolation to $Q^2$ aims at 0.99. Applying the same shift to the $G_M$ data of that paper, one might even recognize the wiggle in this old data set.
The hyperfine splitting in electric hydrogen represents an alternative method to determine $r_M$. The radius $r_M$ enters in the hyperfine splitting via the Zemach radius $r_Z$. For the extraction, one has to make an ansatz for the electric and magnetic form factor shape. The corresponding analysis in Ref. [@volotka] was performed with the standard dipole with $r_E=0.8750(68)$ fm and $r_M$ was left as a fit parameter. The measured value is $r_Z=1.045(16)$ fm and the variation resulted in $r_M=0.778(29)$ fm in complete agreement with the value we obtain. However, Carlson [*et al.*]{} [@Carlson:2008ke] elaborated an update of this analysis by including better polarization corrections, i.e., TPE effects, and more recent form factor parametrizations. These parametrizations yield $r_Z=1.069$ fm [@Kelly:2004hm], 1.091 fm[@Arrington:2006hm], and 1.089 fm [@Arrington07]. It is somewhat model dependent to convert these $r_Z$ to $r_M$, but one gets as an indication $r_M=0.82(1)$ fm, 0.86(1) fm, and 0.86(1) fm for the $r_Z$s above, respectively. Their analysis did not yet take our new data into account and, hence, has to be taken with the poor knowledge of $G_M$ at small $Q^2$ from the previous measurements and, consequently, also of $r_Z$ in mind.
The most recent determination of the magnetic radius stems from the laser spectroscopy of muonic hydrogen [@Antognini:1900ns]. From the measurement of two transition frequencies the Zemach radius $r_Z=1.082(37) \ \mathrm{fm}$ has been extracted and the charge radius has been reevaluated as $r_E=0.84087(39)\ \mathrm{fm}$. Using the analytical ansatz with the standard dipole the authors determine $r_M=0.87(6)\ \mathrm{fm}$ and claim consistency with electron scattering. However, assuming the dipole parametrization they used for the extraction, these values predict a form-factor ratio at odds with that of polarization experiments (e.g., Ref. [@Ron:2011rd]). One would need to shift $r_M$ down to resolve this discrepancy, and then be at odds with the scattering experiments they compared to, or assume a different form-factor shape, which could in turn invalidate the extraction. Electron scattering provides more information than just the radii, and only if simultaneous agreement in additional moments of the charge and magnetization distribution is reached, one can claim consistency.
The Zemach radius derived from the form factors presented in this paper is $r_Z=1.045(4)$ fm [@Distler:2010zq], i.e., within the error margin of the laser spectroscopy of muonic hydrogen and identical to the value from normal hydrogen. Putting this Zemach radius into the calculation of Carlson [*et al.*]{}, one gets $r_M=0.777(10)$ fm, in perfect agreement with the result from the elastic electron scattering of this work.
[l|c]{} Method& Magnetic radius $r_M$ in fm\
Spline models (1) &$0.775(12)_\mathrm{stat.}(9)_\mathrm{syst.}(4)_\mathrm{model}$\
Polynomial models (2) & $0.778(^{+14}_{-15})_\mathrm{stat.}(10)_\mathrm{syst.}(6)_\mathrm{model}$\
Friedrich-Walcher & $0.807(2)_\mathrm{stat.}(^{+4}_{-1})_\mathrm{syst.}$\
\
+ Rosenbluth data & $0.772$\
+ all external data & $0.769$\
&$0.777(13)_\mathrm{stat.}(9)_\mathrm{syst.}(5)_\mathrm{model}(2)_\mathrm{group}$\
With TPE from [@Borisyuk:2006uq]&$0.803(13)_\mathrm{stat.}(9)_\mathrm{syst.}(5)_\mathrm{model}(3)_\mathrm{group}$\
With TPE from [@Arrington:2011dn; @blundenpc; @Blunden05]&$0.799(13)_\mathrm{stat.}(9)_\mathrm{syst.}(5)_\mathrm{model}(3)_\mathrm{group}$\
Conclusions
===========
This paper presents the details of the highly precise measurement of elastic electron scattering off the proton performed at MAMI, the first results of which have already been published in Ref. [@Bernauer:2010wm]. The analysis differs in some respects from the customary approach as follows:
- The Rosenbluth separation and classic error propagation are given up as they are unnecessary steps limiting the precision and the amount of information extracted from the data. Instead, we perform a direct fit of sufficiently flexible models for the form factors to the whole body of measurements, avoiding the unnecessary limitation for the Rosenbluth separation and the badly controlled correlation in the resulting form factors. However, we also show the consistency of the two methods. We extracted sensible confidence bands without any approximation to a linear behavior using Monte Carlo techniques and performed an extensive study of model dependency.
- The calibration problem present in any determination of absolute cross sections has been overcome by fitting the normalization of sets of cross sections of which the relative measurement-to-measurement normalization was well under control by an explicit luminosity measurement using an extra spectrometer. The absolute normalization was fixed by the well-known form-factor values at $Q^2 = 0$. This procedure only needs a weak assumption on the smoothness of the form factors for the $Q^2=0$ limit. Our data has the furthest reach toward lowest $Q^2$ to date, minimizing the impact of this assumption. The use of a spectrometer as luminosity monitor to fix the relative normalization between individual measurements and the large overlap between our data sets makes a precise determination of the absolute normalization for all measurements possible.
- We have only applied the standard radiative corrections but not the hitherto debated two-photon-exchange contributions. However, an empirical form has been derived from the inconsistency of the $G_E$ and $G_M$ data, extracted from measurements with polarized and unpolarized electrons, respectively, which may be interpreted by radiative corrections as TPE or other physics (see also Ref. [@Bernauer:2011zz]).
The new method has been also applied to the world data set together with the data of this paper. The analysis represents a coherent summary of the present knowledge of the form factor of the proton.
From the slopes of the form factors for $Q^2\rightarrow 0$ we determined the electric and magnetic radii of the proton. The values extracted here from the whole body of electron-scattering data are at variance with those determined recently with very high precision from muonic hydrogen. In spite of a multitude of efforts, there is no generally accepted explanation yet.
The discrepancy for the magnetic radius determined with the different methods is somewhat less dramatic. While its determination from the hyperfine splitting in electric hydrogen requires the knowledge of the Zemach radius (which, in turn, needs the information from the electric and magnetic form factors), the determination from electron scattering is hampered by the limited sensitivity of the cross section to magnetic scattering at low $Q^2$. In contrast to some (re-)analyses of the hyperfine splitting and to a new measurement on muonic hydrogen, we determine a magnetic radius for the proton which is substantially smaller than the electric radius. While this result fits well to the direct measurement of the ratio $G_E/G_M$ using polarized degrees of freedom at quite small $Q^2$, the muonic result does not.
The larger slope (with respect to the dipole) observed in $G_E$ gives rise to a larger charge radius, compatible with older extractions. While the data clearly exhibits this feature, the conflict with the muonic Lamb-shift measurements certainly warrants further study. The wiggles in $G_M$ are at the limit of significance and further measurements are needed for an independent verification. If the results of this paper would be confirmed confirmed and if these structures would survive other efforts for an explanation like the application of TPE, they would hint at the existence of effective degrees of freedom which may be a yardstick feature to be replicated by theory, for example in lattice calculations (we refer to Refs. [@Alexandrou:2013joa; @Syritsyn:2009mx; @Green:2013hja] for current results).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The hysteresis curves of systems composed of small interacting magnetic particles, regularly placed on stacked layers, are obtained with Monte Carlo simulations. The remanence as a function of temperature, in interacting systems, presents a peak that separates two different magnetic states. At low temperatures, small values of remanence are a consequence of antiferromagnetic order due to the dipolar interaction. At higher values of temperature the increase of the component normal to the lattice plane is responsible for the small values of remanence. The effect of the number of layers, coordination number and distance between particles are investigated.'
author:
- 'Paola R. Arias, D. Altbir'
- 'M. Bahiana'
title: Geometric Aspects of the Dipolar Interaction in Lattices of Small Particles
---
Introduction {#sec:Intro}
============
In the past decade the magnetism of fine particles embedded in a non magnetic matrix has been a topic of interest because of their uses on chemical catalysis and magnetic recording [@recording]. The appearance of new experimental techniques capable of generating samples with controlled nanostructures[@luis1; @dots] has led to important advances in the preparation and understanding of the behavior of granular materials. However, at the nanometer scale, magnetic systems are not easily reproduced and characterized, introducing difficulties for the investigation of these systems. Experimental and theoretical results over the past years show that there are clearly many factors that influence the magnetic and magnetotransport behavior of these systems, such as the distribution of grain sizes, the average size and shape of the grains and the magnetic anisotropy of the individual grains. Also the role of magnetic interactions among crystallites is a topic full of controversies, despite the intense research on the subject. One of the most used methods to investigate the role of interactions has been Monte Carlo simulations. El-Hilo [*et al.*]{}[@el-hilo] had used it for determining the magnetoresistance dependence on the mean intergranular distance, or rather, the particle concentration, using a simple expression previously obtained by Gittleman [*et al.*]{}[@gittleman] Also Garcia-Otero [*et al.*]{}[@garcia1] analyzed the interplay between anisotropy and magnetic interactions and Chantrell [*et al.*]{}[@chantrell] calculated the susceptibility and ZFC-FC (Zero Field Cooled-Field Cooled) magnetization curves for superparamagnetic particles. Some simple models taking the dipolar interaction into account have been proposed. For example, Mørup and Tronc [@morup1] have formulated a description for weakly interacting particles, and Dormann [*et al.*]{}[@dormann2] have proposed the Dormann-Bessais-Fiorani (DBF) model, valid for weak and medium strength of the interactions. Both models lead to contradictory results, as analyzed in Ref. \[10\]. The discrepancy arises when we try to determine if increasing concentration, the interactions leads to increase or decrease the energy barrier of the system. More recently, Allia [*et al.*]{}[@allia] have proposed analytical models that take explicitly into account the correlation arising from the dipolar interactions on nearly superparamagnetic systems and Pike [*et al.*]{}[@Pike] investigated the role of magnetic interactions on low temperature saturation remanence of fine magnetic particles. From the experimental point of view, while dilute systems are well understood, results for denser ones, where the interactions between particles play an important role, are still not clear. The main reasons are the unavoidable particle size distribution and difficulties in controlling and replicating geometrical arrangement and orientation of easy axis for higher concentrations. In particular we can mention that for Fe particles embedded in an alumina matrix[@sahoo] and for $\gamma-Fe_2O_3$[@exp2] particles, an increase of the blocking temperature $T_B$ with interaction strength is obtained. However, also for $\gamma-Fe_2O_3$ particles investigated by Mossbauer spectroscopy $T_B$ decreases with increasing concentration, as presented in \[14\]. Apart from the influence of concentration, or interparticle distance, in systems for which the dipolar interaction may not be neglected, it is important to consider the effect of dimensionality, specially when one deals with systems formed from sequential deposition of layers. [@luis1; @sahoo; @comluis1] Luis [*et al.*]{}[@luis1] investigated the role of dipolar interactions on the magnetization of Co clusters grown in a quasi-ordered layered structure, and showed that the affective activation energy increases linearly with the number of nearest neighbor clusters. These results have been interpreted in terms of a transition from 2D to 3D collective in Ref. \[15\]. Bahiana [*et al.*]{}[@ordering] investigated the effect of interactions on a 2D lattice of grains and found a peak on the remanence as a function of temperature, which can be interpreted as an evidence of the existence of two low magnetization states: one due to an in-plane alignment perpendicular to the field direction at low temperatures, and a high temperature disordered state. In this paper we have extended these results to 3D systems, considering the effect of increasing the number of stacked layers, and lattice geometry. The hysteresis curves are simulated by means of Monte Carlo method.
Simulation conditions
=====================
A ferromagnetic particle becomes a monodomain when its linear size is below a critical value $D_c$ determined by the minimization of the total energy, including magnetostatic, exchange and anisotropy contributions.[@bertotti] Such monodomain ferromagnetic particles can be viewed as large magnetic units, each one having a magnetic moment of thousands of Bohr magnetons. For neighboring particles separated by $10 - 30$ nm, direct and indirect exchange (like RKKY) can be neglected [@altbir1],thus, the magnetic properties of such assembly of nanoparticles are determined by the dipolar interaction energy among the particles along with thermal and magnetic anisotropy energies. The magnetic irreversibility of an isolated nanomagnet is conventionally associated to the energy required for the particle moment reorientation, overcoming a barrier due to shape, magnetoelasticity, and/or crystalline anisotropy.[@bertotti] In the presence of relevant dipolar interactions, this simplified picture no longer holds, as each particle is subject to a complicated energy landscape.
To investigate the magnetic behavior of interacting grains we have examined two simple systems consisting of $M$ layers of $N \times N$ magnetic 3D monodomain particles. Each layer is parallel to the $xy$ plane and has free boundary conditions. Two nearest neighbors arrangements were considered, with square and triangular symmetries, as shown in Fig. \[fig-redes\]. The distance between particles on each layer is defined by the lattice parameters $a_x$ and $a_y$, for square lattices, and $a_t$ for triangular lattices, the layers separation is given by $a_z$. From now on the terms in-plane and out-plane refer to the $xy$ plane.
![Different geometries considered in the simulations. (a) $xy$ planes with rectangular arrangement. In this case the grains are separated by $a_x$ and $a_y$ along the $x$ and $y$ axis respectively, separated by $a_z$ on the $z$ direction.(b) $xy$ planes with a triangular symmetry and nearest neighbor distance $a_t$ are separated by a distance $a_z$. \[fig-redes\]](rede1.eps)
The particles have uniform magnetization, $m=869\mu_B$, and anisotropy constant, $K=1.32 \times 10^6$ erg/cm$^3$, corresponding to slightly elongated Cobalt grains with about 511 atoms and linear dimensions of the order of 20 Å.[@cullity] Each particle is described by the position of its center of mass and the direction of the randomly chosen 3D easy magnetization axis, $\widehat{e}_{i}$, and are coupled by means of dipolar interactions. Since we seek to understand the role of lattice geometry, we prefer to control the distance between grains through the parameters $a_x$, $a_y$, $a_z$ and $a_t$, instead of concentration. The values of lattices parameters are such that the particles surfaces are more than one Cobalt lattice parameter apart. [@ordering] The external field is always in the $x$ direction.
In the presence of an external magnetic field $\overrightarrow{H}$, the total energy of the system is written as $$\mathcal{E}=\sum_{i}\left[-\overrightarrow{m}_{i}\cdot \overrightarrow{H}-
\kappa \left( \frac{\overrightarrow{m}_{i}\cdot \widehat{e}_{i}}{m_{i}}\right)^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j\neq i} E_{ij} \right] \; \;,
\label{hamiltonian}$$ where $\kappa = K V$, $V$ being the volume of each grain. $E_{ij}$ is the classical dipolar energy between grains $i$ and $j$ given by $$E_{ij}=\frac{\overrightarrow{m }_{i}\cdot \overrightarrow{m }_{j}-3(
\overrightarrow{m }_{i}\cdot \widehat{n}_{ij})(\overrightarrow{m }
_{j}\cdot \widehat{n}_{ij})}{r_{ij}^{3}}\;\;.$$ Here $r_{ij}$ is the distance between the centers of particles ${i}$ and $j$, and $\widehat{n}_{ij}$ is the unit vector along the direction that connects them. Using this expression for the energy we have simulated hysteresis curves for different values of temperature and lattice symmetries. Hysteresis curves correspond to sequences of nonequilibrium states of the system, and therefore depend on the field variation rate. In terms of a Monte Carlo simulation this means that we have to avoid equilibrium by a sufficiently fast variation of the field, and the usual mechanism of time averaging instead of ensemble averaging is not valid. Monte Carlo simulations were carried out using Metropolis algorithm with local dynamics in which the new orientation of the magnetic moment was chosen within a solid angle around the previous moment direction, with aperture $d\theta=d\phi=0.1$. This method was studied by Pereira Nunes [*et al.*]{}[@neqmc], applied to the simulation of ZFC-FC magnetization curves, which are also a collection of nonequilibrium states, and it is a reasonable approach for a qualitative analysis. Monte Carlo simulations of hysteresis curves have been used in a variety of magnetic systems with good qualitative agreement with experimental data, so we believe that, although not specifically created to describe nonequilibrium processes, the method provides a valuable tool for studying the dynamics of complex systems.[@sampaio; @mporto2; @chantrell] For simulating hysteresis, we started at a fixed temperature from a configuration in which the magnetic moment directions were randomly chosen. An external magnetic field $H=0.25$ kOe in the $x$ direction was turned on, one of the grains was randomly chosen, and had its magnetic moment rotated by an angle restricted to a cone, as explained above. The change in energy ($\Delta\mathcal{E}$) was calculated and the rotation accepted with probability $p=\mbox{min}[1,\exp(-\Delta \mathcal{E}/k_B T)]$. This procedure was repeated $N^2\times M$ times, comprising one Monte Carlo step. The number of Monte Carlo steps in nonequilibrium simulations is a rather arbitrary choice, as explained by Pereira Nunes [*et al.*]{} [@neqmc] Actually, the variation rate of the external field is the important quantity. In this case, we first fixed the value of the variation step for the external field, $dH$, with the objective of having enough points in the region of interest, near $H=0$, but still being able to bring the system to saturation. We found that 200 Monte Carlo steps was a good choice for $dH=0.25\;$kOe, since the system shows hysteresis for some values of temperature, and the area of the hysteresis cycle shows sensitivity to temperature variation. The virgin curve was then obtained by increasing the field until the magnetization reached at least 99.995% of its saturation value, $m_s$. Starting from this last value, the field was decreased to negative values at the same rate (200 Monte Carlo steps per $dH=0.25\;$kOe). The whole procedure was repeated 5 to 20 times, depending on the system size, for different random choices of easy magnetization axis directions, the averaged hysteresis curve was calculated, and the remanence, $m_r$, was determined as the $x$ component of the magnetization for $H=0$.
Results
=======
Square lattices
---------------
We start our calculations considering lattices with $M$ layers of $8^2$ particles and $a_x = a_y = a_z = 3.098 \AA$, as defined in Fig. \[fig-redes\]. These values of lattice parameter would correspond to a 20% concentration in a simple cubic system. Fig. \[fig-sq1\] shows the thermal variation of the reduced remanence as a function of $M$.
![Remanence as function of temperature for interacting systems with $M$ layers (full symbols), and for a noninteracting system (open symbols). Each layer is composed by $8^2$ particles, placed on a square lattice. The interlayer and intralayer nearest neighbor distance is $3.098 \AA$ The lines are guides to the eye. Error bars are smaller than the symbols. \[fig-sq1\]](remsq2.eps)
One can see from this figure that the remanence of interacting systems exhibits a maximum at low temperatures, which is not present in the noninteracting particles curve. As shown in \[17\] for the $M=1$ system, the remanence peak separates distinct states of low magnetization. At low temperatures the absolute value of the dipolar energy is much larger than the thermal energy and an ordered state, due to the dipolar interaction, appears. In this case, magnetization patterns at $H=0$ show a very small contribution of $z$ magnetization and antiparallel alignment between lines normal to the previous field direction, the $y$-axis in this case. The energy required to satisfy the dipolar coupling between lines parallel to the $x$-axis would be too large and an antiparallel alignment along the $y$-direction is favored. At the maximum, the two energies are closer, and thermal fluctuations provide enough energy to destroy the low temperature $y$ dipolar order. At higher temperatures, the thermal energy dominates, leading to a significant increase of the $z$ component of the magnetization, also resulting in a low remanence value. This behavior is numerically well described by the average values of $|m_x|$, $|m_y|$ and $|m_z|$, defined as $\mu_x$, $\mu_y$ and $\mu_z$, respectively. At $3\;$K, averaging over 10 samples, we have the values $\mu_x=503\mu_B$, $\mu_y=540\mu_B$ and $\mu_z=255\mu_B$, compatible with a mainly in-plane magnetization, with an important $y$ contribution due to the antiferromagnetic alignment. At the high temperature region, for example at $70\;$K, the average values are $\mu_x=472\;\mu_B$, $\mu_y=479\;\mu_B$ and $\mu_z=351\;\mu_B$, showing an increase of the out-of-plane component favored by thermal energy.
The remanence curves for $M > 1$ are similar to the $M=1$ curve, with two low magnetization regions, one at low temperatures dominated by the dipolar coupling, in which antiparallel alignment in the directions normal to the applied field is present, and a high temperature disordered state with magnetic moments randomly aligned. It is clear from Fig. \[fig-sq1\] that, as $M$ increases, for a given temperature the remanence decreases, and the peak slightly shifts to higher temperatures, being the interaction with out-of-plane neighbors the main cause of this behavior. Regarding the ordered low temperature state, the presence of layers below and above a given plane offers an alternative direction for antiparallel alignment leading to a decrease of the remanence. Due to the long range character of the interaction, the dipolar energy per particle increases with system size up to a saturation value, therefore, it is natural to expect that increasing the number of layers, the low temperature ordered state becomes more stable, reflecting in a shift of the peak position to higher temperatures.
In order to investigate the low temperature dependence on $M$, we have examined the magnetization patterns for systems with $M=2$ and $M=8$. Figure \[fig-snapq2\] illustrates the behavior of the individual magnetic moments at $T=3\;$K, for surface layers of a $M=2$ system. In this case, there are two alternative directions for the antiferromagnetic coupling, $y$ and $z$, but, as explained above, there is a predominance of the $y$ component since the number of neighbors in this direction is larger. This can be confirmed by looking at the average values of the magnetization components in the $x$,$y$ and $z$ directions. At $T = 3K$, considering 10 samples, the average values for the whole lattice are $\langle m_x\rangle = 403\mu_B $ and $\mu_x = 458\mu_B$, $\langle m_y\rangle = -9.47\mu_B$ and $\mu_y = 504\mu_B$, $\langle m_z\rangle = 1.85\mu_B$ and $\mu_z = 339\mu_B$. Clearly an antiparallel alignment on the $yz$ plane occurs, which is stronger along the $y$ direction.
![Snapshots of the magnetic moments at surface layers of a $8\times 8\times 2$ system. \[fig-snapq2\]](snapxyz3.eps)
For the $M=8$ system the $y$ and $z$ are equivalent directions for the antiferromagnetic coupling. The amount of $z$ alignment increases at the expense of the $x$ contribution as can be seen from the average values for the lattice, $\langle m_x\rangle =246\mu_B$ and $\mu_x = 388\mu_B$, $\langle m_y\rangle = 14.3\mu_B$ and $\mu_y = 517\mu_B$, $\langle m_z\rangle = -5.78\mu_B$ and $\mu_z = 398\mu_B$.
It is interesting to investigate the behavior of the remanence as the values of $a_y$ and $a_z$ are varied. Figure \[fig-ay\] shows the remanence curves for $M=1$ systems with $a_y = a_x, 2a_x$, $4a_x$ and $10a_x$. Since the antiparallel order in the $y$ direction is the main reason for the low value of remanence at low temperatures, as the $y$ distance is increased, the magnetic moments can follow the field more easily, and the remanence increases.
![Remanence as a function of temperature for different values of $a_y$ in $8\times 8\times 1$ lattices. \[fig-ay\]](remay4.eps)
The effect of varying $a_z$ is evident when we compare systems with $M=2$ and $a_z=a_x$, $2a_x$, $4a_x$ and $10a_x$ with a $M=1$ system. Figure \[fig-az\] illustrates the remanence curves for such systems, showing that, as the layers become more separated, the interlayer coupling decreases and the system approaches the $M=1$ behavior.
![Remanence as a function of temperature for different values of $a_z$ in $8\times 8\times 2$ lattices. The curve for a $8\times 8\times 1$ is also shown as a reference. \[fig-az\]](remaz5.eps)
Triangular lattice
------------------
For layers with triangular symmetry, the number of in-plane neighbors is higher, so that any effects related to confinement of the magnetic moments in the $xy$ plane are enhanced. Figure \[fig-tr1\] shows the remanence curves for triangular lattices with $a_t = 3.098 \AA$, obtained under the same conditions as the curves in Fig.\[fig-sq1\].
![Remanence as a function of temperature for interacting systems with $M$ layers (full symbols), and for a non interacting system (open symbols). Each layer is composed by $8^2$ particles placed on a triangular lattice. \[fig-tr1\]](remtri6.eps)
The remanence values are considerably larger than the ones in Fig. \[fig-sq1\], which is compatible with the picture of smaller $z$ component. We also analyzed the magnetization pattern for typical configurations of these triangular systems. Figure \[fig-tr2\] shows snapshots of the $x$ and $y$ components of the individual magnetic moments at $T = 3 K$ for $M = 1$. From this figure we can see that, at low temperature, the small value of the remanence is mainly caused by an antiferromagnetic ordering along the direction connecting the nearest neighbors clusters of the system. This effect, due to the predominance of the dipolar interaction, is stronger than in the square lattice since the number of in-plane nearest neighbors, 6 in this lattice, is higher, as compared to 4 in the square lattice. This behavior is numerically well described by the average values of magnetization components at $T=3$K: $\langle m_x\rangle=571\mu_B$, $\langle m_y\rangle=-88.4\mu_B$, $\langle m_z\rangle=-25.9\mu_B$, $\mu_x =586\mu_B$, $\mu_y=433\mu_B$ and $\mu_z=285\mu_B$, compatible with a mainly in-plane magnetization along the line joining nearest neighbors. At the high-temperature region, the system is disordered and the $z$ component of the magnetization increases, leading to a low remanence region.
![Snapshot of the in-plane magnetization at $H = 0$ and $T=3$K, for a system of $8\times8\times1$ particles and triangular symmetry. The previous direction of the field is indicated by the arrow. \[fig-tr2\]](trisnap7.eps)
Discussion and conclusions {#discussion-and-conclusions .unnumbered}
==========================
The above results confirm the existence of two low-remanence yet distinct behaviors, one at low temperature, where the dipolar energy dominates, and another, at higher temperatures, where the thermal energy is responsible of the magnetic disorder. The position and height of the peak separating those regimes is related to the strength of the dipolar interactions, and depends on the lattice geometry. As known, dipolar interactions favor closed circuit alignment, which may result in antiparallel alignments between lines of parallel magnetic moments in rectangular lattices. At low temperatures a small external magnetic field provides a prefered direction for the parallel coupling, leading to two possibilities of antiparallel alignment in 3D systems. On the other hand, for a 2D system, there is only one possible direction for the antiparallel alignment. Figure \[fig-sq1\] shows that for systems formed by sequential deposition of layers it is possible to observe a transition from the 2D to the 3D behavior as the number of layers increases. As an alternative direction for antiparallel alignment appears, the height of the remanence peak decreases reflecting the decrease of the magnetization along the field direction. Also, for a given number of layers, the variation of the distance between magnetic particles and coordination number can drastically chance the effective dimensionality, as the dipolar interaction is enhanced along certain directions. Figures \[fig-ay\] and \[fig-az\] show this dimensionality transition caused by variation of the lattice parameter, and Figure \[fig-tr1\] by the change in coordination number. These aspects are responsible for difficulties in the analysis of the hysteresis cycle, specially if one associates the area of the cycle to the stability of the magnetization moment. Larger values of remanence are basically a consequence of a decrease in the number of degrees of freedom, due to the confinement of the magnetic moment to a plane or to a line.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
In Chile the authors received financial support from FONDECYT under grants \# 1010127, 7010127 and Millennium Science Nucleus “Condensed Matter Physics” P02-054F. In Brazil, the authors acknowledge the support from FAPERJ, CNPq and Instituto de Nanociências/MCT. Paola R. Arias acknowledge MECESUP support under grant USA0108.
[10]{}
S. Y. Chouand M. S. Wei, P. R. Krauss, and P. B. Fischer. , 76:6673, 1994.
F. Luis, F. Petroff, J. M. Torres, L. M. Garcia, J. Bartolomé, J. Carrey, and A. Vaurès. , 88:217205, 2002.
R. P. Cowburn, A. O. Adeyeye, and M. E. Welland. , 1:1, 1999.
M. El-Hilo, K. O’Grady, and R. W. Chantrell. , 76:6811, 1994.
J. I. Gittleman, Y. Goldstein, and S. Bozowski. , 5:3609, 1972.
J. Garcia-Otero, M. Porto, J. Rivas, and A. Bunde. , 84:167, 2000.
R. W. Chantrell, N. Walmsley, J. Gore, and M. Maylin. , 63:024410, 2000.
S. Mørup and E. Tronc. , 72:3278, 1994.
J. L. Dormann, D. Fiorani, and Bessais L. , 21:2015, 1988.
P. Allia, M. Knobel, P. Tiberto, and F. Vinai. , 52:15398, 1995.
Christopher R. Pike, Andrew P. Roberts, and Kenneth L. Verosub. , 88:967, 2000.
S. Sahoo, O. Petracic, W. Kleemanna, S. Stappert, G. Dumpich, P. Nordblad, S. Cardoso, and P. P. Freitas. , 82:4116, 2003.
J. Zhang, C. Boyd, and W. Luo. , 77:390, 1996.
J. L. Dormann, F. [D’O]{}razio, F. Lucari, E. Tronc, P. Prené, J. P. Jolivet, D. Fiorani, R. Cherkaoui, and M. Noguès. , 53:14291, 1996.
M. F. Hansen and S. M$\o$rup. , 90:59705, 2003.
M. Bahiana, J. P. [Pereira Nunes]{}, D. Altbir, P. Vargas, and M. Knobel. , 281:372, 2004.
G. Bertotti. . Academic Press, New York,NY, 1998.
D. Altbir, J. [d’Albuquerque e Castro]{}, and P. Vargas. , 54:R6823, 1996.
B. D. Cullity. . Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1972.
J. P. [Pereira Nunes]{}, M. Bahiana, and C. S. M. Bastos. , 69:056703, 2004.
L.C.Sampaio, E.H.C.P. Sinnecker, G. R. C. Cernicchiaro, M. Knobel, M. Vázquez and J. Velázquez , 61:8976, 2000.
J. García-Otero, M. Porto, J. Rivas, and A. Bunde. , 84:167, 2000.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show that anomalous diffusion can result when the steps of a random walk are not statistically independent. We present an algorithm that counts all the possible paths of particles diffusing on random graphs with arbitrary degree distribution. Using this to calculate the mean square displacement, we show that in sharp contrast to continua, random walks on random graphs can exhibit anomalous behavior and yet have well-defined and predictable properties.'
author:
- Joseph Snider
- 'Clare C. Yu'
title: Anomalous Diffusion on Random Graphs
---
It is well known that a random walk on a continuous medium leads to a mean square displacement ${\left\langle x^{2} \right\rangle}$ that is linear in time as long as there are no infinitely large steps and all steps are statistically independent. L$\acute{e}$vy showed that anomalous diffusion results when the former assumption is violated. In this paper we show that anomalous diffusion results when the latter assumption is violated but the former remains, by considering random walks on random graphs.
Random graphs have been very successfully used to describe many diverse systems. For example, the spreading of diseases through a population has been modelled where people are the vertices and contact between them the edges [@Newman2000; @Liljeros1998]. The internet can be thought of as a graph with web sites as vertices and links as edges, leading to estimates of the number of clicks to surf between any two random sites and other quantities of interest [@Lawrence1998; @Albert2000]. In general, any system with interacting parts, which encompasses a vast array of diverse systems, can be mapped onto a graph [@Albert2002].
Along with to statics, dynamic properties of random graphs are of interest for many cases like protein folding [@Sokolov1997] and glassy relaxation [@Bray1988]. In this paper we consider particles diffusing along the edges of a random graph and develop a method for calculating diffusion on a random graph using an algorithm that counts all the paths.
![A simple graph. The circles represent vertices and the lines represent edges.[]{data-label="fig:Graph3Star"}](Fig1.eps){width="2in"}
The following is a brief introduction to graph theory. For a more comprehensive overview see, for example, Godsil and Royle [@Godsil2001]. Graphs consist of two sets: vertices, which are points, and edges, which join two vertices. In more mathematical terms, define for some index set $\mathbb{I}$, the vertex set
$$V = \{v_{i} \mid i \in \mathbb{I} \}.$$
Then, define the edge set as a subset of the pairs of all vertices
$$E = \{ (v_{j}, v_{k}) \mid v_{j}, v_{k} \in V \} \subseteq V \times
V.$$
These two sets can be thought of as points and lines in a plane as in Figure \[fig:Graph3Star\]. The pairs of vertices defining an edge are called endpoints of the edge. There are no real restrictions on the sets of vertices and edges, making graphs very general constructions.
Like any field, graph theory has its own lingo so here are some definitions. The degree of a vertex is the number of edges with at least one endpoint at the vertex. The degree distribution $p(k)$ is the probability that a randomly selected vertex will have degree $k$. Two vertices are adjacent if there is an edge joining them, i.e., in Figure \[fig:Graph3Star\], vertices $1$ and $4$ are adjacent but $1$ and $2$ are not. A path or walk on a graph is a set of edges connecting two vertices. For example, in Figure \[fig:Graph3Star\] paths from $1$ to $2$ would be the the set of edges $\{(1,4), (4,2)\}$ or $\{(1,4), (4,3), (3,4), (4,2)\}$.
Now, we have enough definitions to consider why it is possible for a random graph to violate the assumption that all steps of a walk are independent. Consider the graph in Figure \[fig:Graph3Star\]. There are three vertices with one edge and one vertex with three edges. Thus, the degree distribution is $$p(k) =
\begin{cases}
\frac{3}{4}& k=1\\
\frac{1}{4}& k=3\\
0 & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$
Next, put a walker on that graph that can move from vertex to vertex along the available edges. For a walker’s first step there is a probability $p(k)$ that it will have $k$ choices. However, for the second step this is not necessarily the case. Still looking at the graph in Figure \[fig:Graph3Star\], a walker starting at vertex $1$, $2$, or $3$ will end up at vertex $4$ after one step where it will have three choices of edges on which to leave. A walker starting at vertex $4$ can go to $1$, $2$, or $3$ where it will have one choice of edges on which to leave. Thus, there are a total of six nearest neighbors, one each from vertices $1$, $2$, and $3$ and three from vertex $4$, and the degree distribution for them, $q(k)$, is
$$q(k) =
\begin{cases}
\frac{3}{6} = \frac{1}{2}& k=1\\
\frac{3}{6} = \frac{1}{2}& k=3\\
0 & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$
Thus, since $p(k) \neq q(k)$ the degree distribution is a function of the number of steps taken. This means that the number of choices available to a walker on a graph will depend on how far it has gone. Therefore, the assumption that all steps are uncorrelated is violated in this graph, and it can be violated generally in graphs. Note that it is not necessarily violated; for example, in a graph where all vertices have the same degree, called a regular graph, $p(k)$ and $q(k)$ are the same.
Moving on, some more tools for dealing with graphs will be introduced. First, define $d(\mu,\nu)$ to be the distance between two vertices $\mu$ and $\nu$ which is the size of the smallest set of edges making a path starting at $\mu$ and ending at $\nu$. For example in Figure \[fig:Graph3Star\], $d(1,2)=2$ and $d(1,4)=1$. Unless otherwise noted, all distances mentioned henceforth refer to this graph distance.
Next, define the adjacency matrix $\mathbb{A}$ of the graph $G=(V,E)$ to be a square $|V| \times |V|$ matrix with $\mathbb{A}_{\mu \nu}$ equal to the number of edges joining the vertices $\mu$ and $\nu$. Note that so long as there are no edges that connect a vertex to itself, i.e. loops, the diagonal elements of $\mathbb{A}$ must be zero, and an edge connecting vertex $\mu$ to $\nu$ also connects $\nu$ to $\mu$ so $\mathbb{A}$ is symmetric.
As an example, consider the graph in Figure \[fig:Graph3Star\] which has adjacency matrix
$$\mathbb{A} =
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
1 & 1 & 1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}.$$
The adjacency matrix of a graph can be used to count all paths on the graph of a given length. By definition the element $\mathbb{A}_{\mu \nu}$ gives the number of paths of length one from vertex $\mu$ to $\nu$. It can be shown by induction that $\left(\mathbb{A}^{n}\right)_{\mu \nu}$ gives the exact number of paths of length n from $\mu$ to $\nu$ [@Godsil2001]. For example, looking at the graph in Figure \[fig:Graph3Star\], the number of paths of length exactly two between any two vertices are given by the elements of
$$\mathbb{A}^{2} =
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 1 & 1 & 0 \\
1 & 1 & 1 & 0 \\
1 & 1 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 3
\end{pmatrix}.$$
The reader is encouraged to verify this by inspection. Note that edges can be traversed more than once and are multidirectional.
![A regular ring graph. As the size grows, a walk on this graph approaches one dimensional diffusion, i.e. the drunkard’s walk.[]{data-label="fig:GraphRegular2"}](Fig2.eps){width="2in"}
Consider the regular graph in Figure \[fig:GraphRegular2\]. A random walk on this graph is just the well-known drunkard’s walk with periodic boundary conditions which is not anomalous. Let ${\left\langle x^{2}(n) \right\rangle}$ denote the average distance squared as a function of $n$, where $n$ is the number of steps taken and $x$ is the distance measured from some starting vertex on the graph. One way to calculate ${\left\langle x^{2}(n) \right\rangle}$ is to choose some starting vertex and count the fraction of paths of length $n$ that are only a distance $m<n$ away from the start, and then average over all possible starting vertices. Call this quantity $p_{m}^{n}$. Looking at the drunkard’s walk graph, Figure \[fig:GraphRegular2\], choose any vertex as the start since they are all equivalent. Then, there are two paths of length $1$, one step clockwise and one step counterclockwise, both of which are distance $1$ away from the start, so $p_{m}^{1} = \delta _{m1}$. There are four paths of length $2$ of which two are one step out and one step back, giving a distance of $0$, and two are two steps out clockwise or counterclockwise, giving distance $2$. So $p_{m}^{2}$ is given by
$$p_{m}^{2} =
\begin{cases}
\frac{1}{2} & m=0\\
\frac{1}{2} & m=2\\
0 & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$
In general, as the number of steps increases $p_{m}^{n}$ will converge to a binomial distribution leading to the standard result $$\begin{split}\label{eq:x_squared}
{\left\langle x^{2}(n) \right\rangle} &= \sum_{m}m^{2}p_{m}^{n} \\
&= Dn,
\end{split}$$ where $D$ is the diffusion coefficient [@Reif1965].
The central limit theorem says that changing the step size of the above walk only changes the diffusion coefficient, not the linear dependence on $n$. Thus, if the dependence on $n$ is the only quantity of interest, graphs can be used to calculate it even though they ignore all spatial distances and only concentrate on the number of choices available at each step.
Using an approach similar to the above example, the adjacency matrix can be used to calculate $p_{m}^{n}$, and hence the dependence of ${\left\langle x^{2} \right\rangle}$ on $n$ for any general graph. Since the adjacency matrix $\mathbb{A}$ can be used to calculate the exact number of paths of a given length between any two vertices, we can enumerate all paths on the graph and find $p_{m}^{n}$ using the following algorithm:
1. Let $n$ be the current path length, starting with $1$.
2. Raise $\mathbb{A}$ to the $n^{th}$ power.
3. Find the number of paths between any two vertices by looking at the elements of $\mathbb{A}^{n}$.
4. Keep track of the minimum distance between any two vertices by noting if this is the smallest $n$ such that a path exists.
5. For every $m \leq n$ find $p_{m}^{n}$.
6. Increment $n$ and repeat.
Once we have the distribution $p_{m}^{n}$, all the random walk properties can be calculated. In particular, equation \[eq:x\_squared\] allows the calculation of ${\left\langle x^{2}(n) \right\rangle}$.
![${\left\langle x^{2}(n) \right\rangle}$ as calculated with adjacency matrices for walks on a one dimensional ring with 1000 vertices and for a two dimensional square lattice of size $40$x$40$ with periodic boundary conditions. Note that ${\left\langle x^{2}(n) \right\rangle}$ is linear in both cases as expected, but the slope changes with the details of the system. The lines are guides to the eye.[]{data-label="fig:PlotDrunkenWalk"}](Fig3.eps){width="3in"}
The method presented here for enumerating paths to calculate random walk properties reduces to just a problem of matrix multiplication. Thus, it lends itself very well to calculation by computer where efficient and easy to use matrix multiplication algorithms are readily available.
As a first test of this method, diffusion on a ring should be equivalent to the drunkard’s walk for large enough rings. The same should be true for any graph representing a regular lattice. Figure \[fig:PlotDrunkenWalk\] shows a calculation of ${\left\langle x^{2}(n) \right\rangle}$ using adjacency matrices as described above for a ring graph with $1000$ vertices and a periodic two dimensional square lattice of size 40 by 40. From the plot it is apparent that this adjacency matrix algorithm gives the correct exponent of $1$, i.e. ${\left\langle x^{2}(n) \right\rangle}\sim n$. The slope of the lines are the diffusion coefficients which do depend on the particular system.
![A sample degree distribution generated from a random graph with $5000$ edges and $2000$ vertices as described in the text. The line is a Poisson distribution with the same mean value as the data.[]{data-label="fig:PlotDegreeDistribution"}](Fig4.eps){width="3in"}
Now, consider some graphs which are not regular and, hence, can produce anomalous diffusion. One way to generate such graphs is to begin with a set of vertices. Next, go through all the vertices once and add edges where one endpoint of the edge is on the current vertex and the other goes to a random vertex. This guarantees that no vertices are isolated. Then, randomly connect pairs of vertices until the desired number of edges are laid down. The probability that a random vertex has $k$ edges is given by $$\label{eq:Binomial}
p(k-1) = \binom{E}{k} \left( \frac{\mu}{V-1}\right)^{k} \left(
1-\frac{\mu}{V-1}\right)^{E-k},$$ where $E$ is the number of edges, and $V$ is the number of vertices and $\mu=2E/V$ is the average number of edge endpoints per vertex. As the number of edges increases, $p(k)$ in equation \[eq:Binomial\] approaches a Poisson distribution with mean $\mu$, i.e. $p(k) \rightarrow \left(\mu^{k}/k!\right)e^{-\mu}$. See Figure \[fig:PlotDegreeDistribution\].
![A sample plot of ${\left\langle x^{2}(n) \right\rangle}$ for a graph with degree distribution with a mean of $4$. ${\left\langle x^{2}(n) \right\rangle}$ for ballistic walks and Brownian walks are included for reference. The lines are guides to the eye.[]{data-label="fig:PlotSingleXSquared"}](Fig5.eps){width="3in"}
Once the random graph is constructed, apply the path counting algorithm and calculate ${\left\langle x^{2}(n) \right\rangle}$. As an example, the result of this calculation for a graph with average degree $4$ is shown in Figure \[fig:PlotSingleXSquared\]. For comparison the values of ${\left\langle x^{2}(n) \right\rangle}$ are included for a ballistic walk, ${\left\langle x^{2}(n) \right\rangle} \sim n^{2}$, and a Brownian walk ${\left\langle x^{2}(n) \right\rangle} \sim n$. As can be seen in Figure \[fig:PlotSingleXSquared\], the value of ${\left\langle x^{2}(n) \right\rangle}$ is somewhere between a Brownian walk and a ballistic walk so it is anomalous as expected.
For a large enough number of steps, ${\left\langle x^{2}(n) \right\rangle}$ of a random graph saturates because of a finite size effect. For finite random graphs such as these, there exists a finite average distance $\overline{D}_{max}$ between any two vertices which scales like the $\log$ of the number of vertices [@Newman2001b]. This means that once the walker has moved a distance equal to $\overline{D}_{max}$, every new vertex to which the walker moves is still only on average a distance $\overline{D}_{max}$ away from the starting vertex. So ${\left\langle x^{2}(n) \right\rangle}$ approaches a constant as the number of steps approaches $\overline{D}_{max}$. Below this plateau ${\left\langle x^{2}(n) \right\rangle}$ follows a power law $<x^{2}>\sim n^{\alpha}$. Figure \[fig:ExponentVsEdge\] shows a plot of the exponent $\alpha$ from a power law fit for graphs with various average degrees. As can be seen from the plot, the anomalous diffusion exponent is controlled by the average degree. Also, as the average degree increases, the degree distribution approaches a Poisson distribution. At the same time, the power law for ${\left\langle x^{2}(n) \right\rangle}$ approaches $1.6$. Thus, the exponent for a highly connected random graph with a Poisson degree distribution is $1.6$.
![ A plot of the diffusion exponent versus the average degree for random graphs with $1800$ vertices and $2000$ vertices. Each are averaged over three separate realizations. Note that the anomalous exponent can be controlled by the average degree. Errors are from fitting ${\left\langle x^{2}(n) \right\rangle}$ to find the exponent. The lines are guides to the eye.[]{data-label="fig:ExponentVsEdge"}](Fig6.eps){width="3in"}
A problem with modelling random walks with graphs is that the graph distance does not necessarily correspond to any real spatial distance. For clarification, imagine an embedding of a graph into a flat surface, i.e. random dots connected with lines on a piece of paper. Then, one can calculate ${\left\langle x^{2}(n) \right\rangle}$ directly by just following a large number of walkers and averaging their Euclidean distance on the surface measured from where they started as a function of time. Next, repeat this process for a new embedding of the same graph with different distances between the dots but the same connecting lines. It seems reasonable that this disorder averaging will lead to a well-defined value for the exponent. This can then be compared to the results from the adjacency matrix algorithm using the graph distance. The hope is that since both give well-defined power laws for the displacement squared, these two measurements will lead to the same power law, possibly with a different coefficient but with the same exponent. To justify this rigorously, one would have to show that the specific distribution of step sizes in the Euclidean embedding does not affect the diffusion exponent. In other words, graphs only keep track of the number of choices a walker has at each step, not the spatial distance it can go. So for the exponent calculated with the adjacency matrix algorithm to give the same results as a random walk in real space, the number of choices must be the only thing that matters.
One verification that the exponent is insensitive to the details of the spatial distances comes from our numerical calculation of the exponent for different realizations of random graphs with a given degree distribution. We find that the exponents obtained from these agree with each other within the error bars of the fit. On the other hand, the exponent changes when the degree distribution is changed. This means that it is the degree distribution, the distribution of the number of choices a walker has at each step, not the specific realization of the random graph which determines the exponent.
In conclusion, random walks on random graphs exhibit characteristics of anomalous diffusion which can be controlled by the degree distribution of the graph. Since this is drastically different from what one finds for a continuum, it seems that continua and random graphs are fundamentally different structures. Therefore, when restrictions are placed upon the ability of diffusing particles to sample their surroundings, anomalous behavior arises.
[9]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , ****, ().
, **, Graduate Texts in Mathematics (, ).
, ** (, ).
, , , ****, ().
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Gold-molecule-gold junctions can be formed by carefully breaking a gold wire in a solution containing dithiolated molecules. Surprisingly, there is little understanding on the mechanical details of the bridge formation process and specifically on the role that the dithiol molecules play themselves. We propose that alkanedithiol molecules have already formed bridges between the gold electrodes *before* the atomic gold-gold junction is broken. This leads to stabilization of the single atomic gold junction, as observed experimentally. Our data can be understood within a simple spring model.'
author:
- 'Everardus H. Huisman\*, Marius L. Trouwborst, Frank L. Bakker, Bert de Boer, Bart J. van Wees, Sense J. van der Molen'
title: Stabilizing single atom contacts by molecular bridge formation
---
*Zernike Institute for Advanced Materials,University of Groningen, Nijenborgh 4, 9747 AG Groningen, The Netherlands, and Kamerlingh Onnes Laboratory, Leiden University, Niels Bohrweg 2, 2333 CA Leiden, The Netherlands* [^1]
A single molecule forms a potential electronic component, offering the perspective of true bottom up engineering of nanodevices. Functionalities such as switching [@KATSONIS] [@RIEL] and rectifying [@WEBER] have been demonstrated in the past years. Nevertheless, the field of molecular electronics has been troubled by difficulties in making reliable and well-defined contacts to single molecules. Fortunately, recent times have seen a significant growth of independent techniques to contact single molecules or small ensembles of molecules [@TAO3] [@AKKERMAN]. An important contribution to this development was made by Xu and Tao, who used a scanning tunneling microscope (STM) to contact dithiolated molecules [@TAO]. In these experiments, a gold STM-tip is carefully pulled out of contact with a gold substrate in the presence of a solution. Simultaneously, the conductance $G$ of the tip-substrate junction is measured. As the tip is pulled up, the diameter of the gold neck connecting tip and substrate becomes smaller and hence $G$ decreases. This process is continued down to the limit of a single gold atom contact, in which case $G$ reaches a value around $1 G_0 = 2e^2/h=77.5 \mu$S, the quantum of conductance. Pulling further, one observes a sudden downward jump in the conductance, indicative of the breaking of the gold constriction. This ’jump out of contact’ (JOC) has been thoroughly studied by several groups [@AGRAIT; @TROUWBORST]. Xu and Tao made the remarkable observation that a gold-molecule-gold contact may form after JOC, provided molecules with suitable anchor groups (such as thiol groups) are present in the solution [@TAO]. The molecular junctions thus created have a limited life time and a conductance that varies from experiment to experiment. Therefore, it is pivotal to carefully study the statistics of many of such ’break junction’ traces. Several groups have adopted the Tao method since, either using scanning tunneling microscopy break junctions (STMBJ) [@LINDSAY; @LI; @HAISS; @VENKATARAMAN], or mechanically controllable break junctions (MCBJ) [@GONZALEZ]. Although the procedure is applied to a variety of molecules [@KAWAI2; @VENKATARAMAN2; @TAO4], many studies have focused on simple alkanedithiol molecules in order to create a well-defined reference point for molecular electronics [@LINDSAY; @LI; @HAISS; @VENKATARAMAN; @GONZALEZ; @FUJIHARA; @MARTIN; @AGRAIT2]. Despite these efforts, remarkably little is known about the mechanism of molecular bridge formation. Here, we will address this important, but relatively untouched issue.
On our quest, we focus on the moment right before the jump out of contact. At that instance, the dithiol molecule(s) that will later form the bridge are either connected to one (scenario I in Figure \[Figure1\](a)) or to both electrodes (scenario II). A situation in which no dithiol molecules are connected to the gold contacts prior to breaking is highly unlikely due to the strong tendency of Au-S bond formation. Interestingly, both scenario I and II can evolve into a metal-molecule-metal bridge. In I, the metal-molecule-metal bridge is formed after JOC, when the loose end of the molecule binds to the other electrode. In II, the molecule already bridges both sides of the electrodes before JOC. The presence of such molecular bridges would not be obvious from the conductance value itself, due to the much higher parallel current flowing through the gold neck. However, the atomic junction would be reinforced by parallel molecular bridges, leading to a higher mechanical stability of the gold constriction. After the atomic junction breaks down, the conductance of a molecular bridge can finally be determined. In this Letter, we provide evidence for scenario II. Our experimental results are discussed in the light of a simple spring model.
For our experiments, we use lithographically defined MCBJs, submerged in a toluene solution [@GONZALEZ; @GRUTER]. A schematic representation of the set-up is given in Figure \[Figure1\] (b). In short, a MCBJ consists of a gold wire with a constriction in its center, attached to a flexible substrate (see Figure \[Figure1\] (b,c)) [@AGRAIT]. The substrate is bent in a 3-point bending mechanism, by moving a pushing rod upwards with a motor. As a result, the central constriction is gently elongated, until it finally breaks. After this, the distance between the two freshly created electrodes, $d$, is related to pushing rod position, $Z$, by the attenuation factor, $r=\triangle d / \triangle
z$=$\zeta6ut/L^2$. Here $u$ is the length of the bridge, $L$ is the distance between the counter supports and t is the thickness of the substrate. For lithographic MCBJs, $r$ should incorporate a factor $\zeta$ to correct for the presence of a soft (polyimide) layer [@VROUWE]. To fabricate such MCBJs, a gold (99.99%, Umicore) wire of 100 nm wide and 120 nm thick (using a 1 nm Cr adhesion layer) is thermally evaporated on top of a pyrralin polyimide coated phosphor bronze substrate (22.5 $\times$ 10.5 $\times$ 0.5 mm) with standard lift-off based e-beam lithography. The central constriction is made free hanging by reactive ion etching with an O$_2$/CF$_4$ plasma (see Figure \[Figure1\] (c)). Calibrating the junctions in argon we find, $\zeta$= 4.5 and r $\approx 7.7 \cdot10^{-5}$ for our specific geometry ($u=2.7 \mu$m, $L=20$ mm, $t=0.42$ mm). Hence, d can be controlled with sub-Å$ $ resolution, with a drift of less than 1 pm/min at room temperature. The conductance of the junction is measured by applying a 100 mV bias, while sampling the current at 5 kHz with a 16-bit National Instruments data acquisition board via a home-built trans impedance amplifier (1$\mu$A/V) [@GONZALEZ; @GRUTER]. We add a series resistance to limit the total current (101.3k$\Omega$) at low junction resistances (thereby decreasing the effective bias felt by the junction). As a solvent, we choose nitrogen-saturated toluene (see Supporting Information) due to its good solubility for organic molecules, low conductivity and low hygroscopy. Alkanedithiol molecules, i.e., 1,4-butanedithiol (BDT) and 1,8-octanedithiol (ODT), were obtained from Sigma-Aldrich.
After mounting the sample and the liquid cell, we flush with 40 ml of toluene. Subsequently, we introduce 20 ml of the solution of interest, which is either pure toluene or toluene with a concentration of 10 mM alkanedithiols. Next, we start breaking and rejoining the gold junction by moving the pushing rod up and down. Traces of conductance versus pushing rod position, $G(Z)$, are recorded with a pushing rod speed of +15 $\mu$m/s, corresponding to a local elongation of 1.1 nm/s. After having reached the lowest measurable current (just above 10$^{-11}$ A), we push another 30 $\mu$m in Z in order to allow diffusion of molecules in between the electrodes. Then, the junction is closed again to a conductance value of $\sim$ 10 $G_{0}$ in order to randomize the atoms and molecules involved.
The inset of Figure \[Figure2\] displays 3 typical opening traces on a semilog plot in pure toluene, i.e., without dithiols (black). While breaking gold nanowires, we distinguish 2 different regimes: the contact regime and the out-of-contact regime. In the contact regime the conductance is given by the Landauer formula: $G =
G_0\sum{T_n}$, where $T_n$ is the transmission probability of the n$^{th}$ channel. A single gold atom acts as a waveguide for electrons and forms a single channel [@AGRAIT; @BEENAKKER; @KAWAI]. In our experiments this is especially visible just before breaking, when only one atom bridges the electrodes. Due to the stability of this conformation, plateaus at a constant conductance value around 1 $G_0$ appear. This plateau abruptly ends by a JOC to lower conductances (the out-of-contact regime) within 1 ms. When the junction breaks for the first time, the conductance after JOC drops to values below 10$^{-5}$ $G_0$ (the first black trace in the inset of Figure \[Figure2\]). Usually, within tens of traces the conductance just after JOC increases to values around $1
\cdot$10$^{-3}$ $G_0$. At low temperatures, we have previously showed that the size of JOC can be controlled by ’training’ the contact [@TROUWBORST]. This procedure reduces the number of atoms involved in the breaking, eventually till the ultimate limit of 2 atoms. We have explored the possibility of ’training’ electrodes at room temperature, thereby reducing JOC. We found that the high mobility of gold atoms at elevated temperatures make this procedure cumbersome. After JOC, $G$ decays roughly exponentially with $d$ as is expected for tunneling. Using the fact that the tunneling decay constant in toluene is roughly the same as in vacuum (1 dec/Å) [@GRUTER], we can relate the actual jump in conductance to a electrode distance of about 3 Å.
In the main panel of Figure \[Figure2\], a histogram for pure toluene (black, solid line) incorporating all 250 opening traces in 1000 logarithmic bins is shown. Such a representation, allows for a broad overview of the entire data set, while correcting for background tunneling in a natural way [@GONZALEZ]. We emphasize that we did not select traces. In the contact regime, the histogram shows peaks at (integer values of) 1 $G_0$, as will be discussed in more detail below. In the out-of-contact regime, the histogram is relatively featureless, except for the lack of points in the regime where the jump out of contact takes place ($1G_0>G>3 \cdot 10^{-3}
G_0$). Most importantly, we note that for $G<3\cdot 10 ^{-3} G_0$, the number of points per bin is roughly constant. This is a result of the exponential decay in $G$ due to tunnelling in pure toluene.
Next, we repeat the experiment in the presence of ODT molecules (10 mM in toluene). In that case, additional plateaus of constant conductance appear in the out-of-contact regime in about 20 % of the opening traces (red traces in the inset of Figure \[Figure2\]). These plateaus are usually shorter than the ones at 1 $G_0$ and show fluctuations in the conductance. They are interpreted as the signature of gold-molecule-gold bridges. To obtain a statistically sound value for the conductance of an ODT molecular bridge, we collect all 250 traces in a logarithmic histogram (red line in the main panel of Figure \[Figure2\]). The conductance plateaus discussed above, result in a peak around $G=4\cdot$ 10$^{-5}$ $G_0$, related to molecular bridge formation. The average conductance we find for ODT bridges is in good agreement with the work by Gonzàlez *et al.*, which was done under similar circumstances [@GONZALEZ]. Furthermore, it is in correspondence with the so-called ’low peaks’ in the work of the Tao group [@LINDSAY] and the ’medium peaks’ in the work of the Wandlowski group [@LI]. When adding a shorter molecule, i.e., BDT, an interesting contrast is found with the case of ODT. For BDT, no additional peaks appear in the out-of-contact regime (green traces and green histogram in Figure \[Figure2\]).
Having discussed the out-of-contact regime, where the conductance values of molecular bridges can be directly distinguished, we focus on another remarkable difference between toluene and dithiol experiments. For this, we concentrate on the contact regime, i.e., before the atomically thin gold neck is broken. The formation of single or few atomic gold junctions during breaking gives rise to plateaus around (multiples of) $G_0$ (inset Figure \[Figure2\]). In histograms, this translates to peaks (main panel of Figure \[Figure2\]). Interestingly, these peaks are significantly larger in the presence of BDT and ODT than for pure toluene. This effect (both in peak height and area) is especially clear around 1 $G_0$. A first, rather trivial possibility would be that the addition of dithiols to toluene may lead to a decrease in the attenuation factor $r$. A smaller $r$ would give rise to a lower local velocity $\Delta
d/ \Delta t$ and therefore to more points per bin. This effect should be especially clear in the tunnel regime, which is very sensitive to variations in distance. In a logarithmic representation, a lower $r$ should yield a higher constant background in the out-of-contact regime [@GONZALEZ]. However, besides the ODT peak around 4 $\cdot$ 10$^{-5}$ $G_0$, no apparent increase in counts is observed in the out-of-contact regime for both ODT and BDT (say for $10^{-4}G_0<G<3 \cdot 10^{-3} G_0$). This rules out a variation of $r$, indicating that the presence of dithiols truly stabilizes atomic contacts. To substantiate this, histograms of the length of the $G_0$ plateaus were constructed for all experiments (Figure \[Figure3\]). The plateau length is defined as the length (in units of $Z$) of the plateau between 0.5 and 1.5 $G_0$. We summarized the average plateau length of 7 different data sets (3 times pure toluene, 2 times 10 mM BDT and 2 times 10 mM ODT) in Table \[TABLE1\]. Clearly, the effect reproduces using different samples and the 1 $G_0$ plateau length shifts towards higher values in going from toluene (average value of 0.7 $\mu$m) to ODT and BDT (1.6 $\mu$m and 2.0 $\mu$m, respectively). Note that these plateau length values correspond to a displacement close to the diameter of a gold atom ($\frac{0.25 nm}{r} = 3.3 \mu$m), indicating that no chains of atoms are formed during the breaking procedure [@ALEX]. We conclude that, in the presence of dithiols, the electrodes have to be displaced over a larger distance to break the gold-gold junction. In other words, alkanedithiols reinforce the atomic gold junction. This is fully consistent with scenario II (Figure \[Figure1\](a)), in which molecular bridges have already formed before the gold neck breaks.
To describe how the presence of molecular bridges leads to longer $G_0$ plateaus in $G(Z)$-curves, we present a tentative model, which is depicted in the inset of Figure \[Figure3\]. Here, we have translated scenario II into a simple spring model [@TROUWBORST; @TORRES; @OLESEN]. The atomic contact itself will generally be a gold dimer [@TROUWBORST; @UNTIEDT]. The role of the $n$ molecular bridges is to form $n$ parallel springs, strengthening the junction. The attachment of the dimer to the first atomic layers of each of the electrodes can be described by a spring $k_1$ [@TROUWBORST]. The elastic properties of the remainder of the electrode (the bulk of the electrode) can also be described by a spring $k_2$. This description is similar to that of Torres *et al.*, where the contact is modeled as a series of $N$ slices with a spring, $k_n$ [@TORRES]. As for the molecular bridges, we assume that they are rigid, i.e. all displacements take place in between gold atoms [@TAO2]. We note that the Au-S bond is stronger than the Au-Au bond itself [@TAO5]. Hence, the weakest link of the molecular bridge is formed by the very gold atom that binds to the molecular S atom. This gold atom is itself attached to the first atomic layers of the electrode by a spring, with spring constant $k
\approx k_1$, which is again attached to the remainder of the electrode. In total, we have $n+1$ identical springs (1 due to the dimer, $n$ due to the dithiols), which are in turn attached to the bulk electrode spring $k_2$. The total spring constant equals $k_{tot}=\frac{a(n+1)}{a(n+1)+1}k_2$, where $a=k_1/k_2$. To break the dimer, the two gold atoms should be pulled apart by a force $F_0
\approx 1.5$nN [@RUBIO]. In the absence of dithiol molecules, this happens after the pushing rod has traveled a critical distance $Z_0$. However, in the presence of $n$ parallel springs, a greater total force $F_n$ is to be applied over the junction, i.e., $F_n=F_0(n+1)$. This force is also felt by springs $k_2$, which are consequently elongated extra. Hence, the pushing rod has to be pushed further, over a distance $Z_n$ to finally break the dimer. Our simple model yields $\frac{Z_n}{Z_0}=\frac{a(n+1)+1}{a+1}$.
From the experiment (see Table \[TABLE1\]), we find that the increase in plateau length with respect to pure toluene is consistently more pronounced for BDT and ODT data sets with $\frac{Z_n}{Z_0}\approx$ 2-3. Olesen *et al.* have shown that when making contact with a metal STM tip to a metal surface, approximately 1/4 of the initial displacement takes place between the last atom of the tip and the first layer of the surface metal atoms [@OLESEN]. The other 3/4 takes place in the neighboring metal layers. Applying these numbers, such that $a\approx 3$, we get a consistent picture in which a few (typically 1 to 3) molecules bridge the atomic junction before it breaks ($\frac{Z_1}{Z_0}=7/4$, $\frac{Z_2}{Z_0}=10/4$ and $\frac{Z_3}{Z_0}=13/4$).
After the atomic junction breaks, the metal-molecule-metal bridges become observable in the conductance, as seen for ODT. Remarkably, the stabilization effect in the contact regime is also observed for BDT (Figure \[Figure3\]), while no peak in the out-of-contact regime appears (Figure \[Figure2\]). This indicates that BDT bridges break during JOC. Most likely, this is due to an ’avalanche’ effect: a sudden strain relief at JOC disrupts all junctions present. Short molecular bridges, such as gold-BDT-gold, are likely to bridge both electrodes in a stretched conformation, without so-called gauche defects. Such a conformation is rigid and is unlikely to accommodate a sudden distance jump of a few Å. Long molecular bridges, such as gold-ODT-gold, are less rigid, especially when they are in a bent conformation due to gauche defects [@AKKERMAN; @LI]. Therefore, they are less likely to be disrupted by JOC and explain why ODT does show plateaus in the out-of-contact regime.
We are not aware of any conductance measurements using forced gold-gold contact which show formation of metal-molecule-metal bridges of alkanedithiols smaller than 1,6-hexanedithiol [@LINDSAY]. However, a slightly alternative approach was reported by Li *et al.* and Haiss *et al.* [@LI; @HAISS; @GABOR; @HAISS2]. Here, gold-gold contact was avoided and electrodes with relatively low alkanedithiol coverage were used. In this way, alkanedithiol junctions as small as 1,5-pentanedithiol were measured and a strong preference for single molecule junctions was observed. Li *et al.* could even distinguish different conformations and couplings of a *single* molecular bridge. Our simple spring model helps to qualitatively understand the differences in data quality found in literature. In the experiments of Li *et al.* and Haiss *et al.* no gold bridge is present. Therefore, molecular junctions are not disrupted by the strain release during JOC, such that clear signals of (short) alkanedithiol bridges are observed.
In summary, we discuss new aspects of molecular bridge formation in break junction experiments in solutions of dithiolated molecules. We find that, in order to break a single atom contact, the electrodes have to be displaced 2-3 times longer in the presence of alkanedithiols as compared to the displacement when only solvent is present. This observation provides evidence for a scenario in which a few molecules already span the atomically thin gold neck before breaking, thereby reinforcing the atomic contact. Although present before JOC, metal-molecule-metal bridges only become ’observable’ in the conductance when the metal bridge breaks. Our data are supported by a simple spring model. We put forward an important notion: A molecular bridge should be able to accommodate the strain release upon JOC in order to form a stable metal-molecule-metal bridge. For alkanedithiols at room temperature we find that the cross-over is between butanedithiol and octanedithiol.
#### Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge Bernard Wolfs and Siemon Bakker for technical support, Maarten Smid for his assistance in calibrating the setup and Oetze Staal for supplying purified toluene. This work was financed by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, NWO, and by the Zernike Institute for Advanced Materials.
[99]{}
Katsonis, N.; Kudernac, T.; Walko, M.; van der Molen, S.J.; van Wees, B.J.; Feringa, B.L. *Adv. Mat.* **2006**, 18, 1397-1400.
Lörtscher, E.; Ciszek, J.W.; Tour, J.; Riel, H. *Small* **2006**, 2, 973-977.
Elbing, M.; Ochs, R.; Koentopp, M.; Fischer, M.; Von Hänisch, K.; Weigend, F.; Evers, F.; Weber, H.B.; Mayor, M. *Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.* **2005**, 102, 8815-8820.
Chen, F.; Hihath, J.; Huang, Z.; Li, X.; Tao, N.J. *Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem.* **2007**, 58, 535-564.
Akkerman, H.B.; de Boer, B. *J. Phys.: Condens. Matter* **2008**, 20, 013001.
Xu, B.; Tao, N. *Science* **2003**, 301, 1221-1223.
See for a review: Agrait, N.; Yeyati, A.L.; van Ruitenbeek, J.M. *Physics Reports* **2003**, 377, 81-279 and references therein.
Trouwborst, M.L.; Huisman, E.H.; Bakker, F.L.; van der Molen, S.J.; van Wees, B.J. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **2008**, 100, 175502.
Li, X.; He, J.; Hihath, J.; Xu, B.; Lindsay, S.M.; Tao, N.J. *J. Am., Chem., Soc.* **2006**, 128, 2135-2141.
Li, C.; Pobelov, I.; Wandlowski, Th.; Bagrets, A.; Arnold, A.; Evers, F. *J. Am. Chem. Soc.* **2008**, 130, 318-326.
Haiss, W.; Nichols, R.J.; Van Zalinge, H.; Higgins, S. J.; Bethell, D.; Schriffin, D.J. *Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys* **2004**, 6, 4330-4337.
Venkataraman, L.; Klare, J.E.; Tam, I.W.; Nuckolls, C.; Hybertsen, M.S.; Steigerwald, M.L. *Nano Lett.*, **2006**, 6, 458-462.
Gonzàlez, M.T.; Wu, S.; Huber, R.; van der Molen, S.J.; Schönenberger, C.; Calame, M. *Nano Lett.*, **2006**, 6, 2238-2242.
Tsutsui, M.; Shoji, K.; Morimoto, K.; Taniguchi, M.; Kawai, T. *Appl. Phys. Lett*, **2008**, 92, 223110 (3 pp).
Venkataraman, L.; Klare, J.E.; Nuckolls, C.; Hybertsen, M.S.; Steigerwald, M.L. *Nature*, **2006**, 442, 904-907.
Xu, B.; Zhang, P.; Li, X.; Tao, N. *Nano Lett.*, **2004**, 6, 1105-1108.
Suzuki, M., Fuji, S.; Fujihara, M. *Jap. J. Appl. Phys.* **2006**, 45, 2041-2044.
Martin, C.A.; Ding, D.; Van der Zant, H.S.J.; van Ruitenbeek, J.M. *New J. Phys* **2008**, 10, 065008.
Hihath, J.; Arroyo, C. R.; Rubio-Bollinger, G.; Tao, N.J. Agraït, N. *Nano Lett.* **2008**, 8 , 1673-1678.
For a detailed description of the setup used here, see supplementary information. Also see: Grüter, L.; Gonzàlez, M.T.; Huber, R.; Calame, M.; Schönenberger, C. *Small* **2005**, 1, 1067-1070.
Vrouwe, S.A.G.; van der Giessen, E.; van der Molen, S.J.; Dulic, D.; Trouwborst, M. L.; van Wees, B.J. *Phys. Rev. B.* **2005**, 71, 35313-35319.
van Houten, H.; Beenakker, C. *Physics Today* **1996**, July, 22-29.
Tsutsui, M.; Shoji, K.; Taniguchi, M.; Kawai, T. *Nano Lett.*, **2008**, 8, 345-349.
Yanson, A.I.; Rubio Bollinger, G.; van den Brom, H.E.; Agraït, N.; van Ruitenbeek, J.M. *Nature* **1998**, 395, 783-785.
Torres, J.A. and Sáenze, J.J. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **1996**, 77, 2245-2248.
Olesen, L.; Brandbyge, M.; Sorensen, M.R.; Jacobsen, K.W.; Laegsgaard, E.; Stensgaard, I.; Besenbacher, F. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **1996**, 76, 1485-1488.
Untiedt, C.; Caturla, M.J.; Calvo, M.R.; Palacios, J.J.; Segers, R. C.; van Ruitenbeek, J.M. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **2007**, 98, 206801.
Huang, Z.; Chen, F.; Benett, P.A.; Tao, N.J. *J. Am. Chem. Soc.* **2007**, 129, 13225-13231.
Xu, B.; Xiao, X.; Tao, N.J. *J. Am. Chem. Soc.* **2003**, 125, 16164-16165.
Rubio-Bollinger, G.; Bahn, S.R.; Agraït, N.; Jacobsen, K.W.; Vieira, S. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **2001**, 87, 026101.
Xia, J.L.; Diez-Perez, I.; Tao, N.J., *Nano Lett.* **2008**, on-line, DOI: 10.1021/nl080857a.
Mészáros, G.; Li, C.; Pobelov, I.; Wandlowski, T. *Nanotechnology* **2007**, 18, 424004.
Haiss, W.; van Zalinge, H.; Bethell, D.; Ulstrup, J.; Schriffin, D.J.; Nichols, R.J. *Faraday Discuss.* **2006**, 131, 253-264.
Costa-Krämer, J.L. *Phys. Rev. B.* **1997**, 55, R4875-R4878.
![**(a)** Two possibilities for the position of a dithiolated molecule just before breaking of the gold wire. In I, the molecule is attached to one side of the electrode only. In II, the molecule is attached to both electrodes. **(b)** Schematic drawing of the MCBJ technique showing the liquid cell on top of the microfabricated gold leads on the flexible substrate clamped in a three-point bending configuration. **(c)** Scanning electron micrograph showing the suspended gold bridge on top of the polyimide layer.[]{data-label="Figure1"}](FIGURE1.EPS "fig:"){width="13.5cm"}\
![Logarithmic conductance histogram of 250 opening traces in toluene of sample TOL1 (black), in 10 mM BDT of sample BDT1 (green) and in 10 mM ODT of sample ODT1 (red). The conductances values were collected in bins of 0.0054 $^{10}Log(G/G_0)$. The inset displays 3 sample traces for each solution. The scale bar shows the actual electrode displacement $d$. The data has been corrected for an effective series resistance of 490 $\Omega$ [@COSTA]. []{data-label="Figure2"}](FIGURE2.EPS "fig:"){width="15cm"}\
.[]{data-label="Figure3"}](FIGURE3.EPS "fig:"){width="15cm"}\
Sample TOL1 TOL2 TOL3 BDT1 BDT2 ODT1 ODT2
------------------------------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ -- --
Number of traces 250 250 150 300 50 300 150
Mean plateau length ($\mu$m) 0.62 0.74 0.65 2.02 2.01 1.55 1.58
: Table summarizing the number of traces and the mean plateau length of 7 different samples. The plateau length for each trace is defined as the length (in units of $Z$) of the plateau between 0.5 and 1.5 $G_0$. The mean plateau length was determined by dividing the sum of all plateau lengths by the number of traces.[]{data-label="TABLE1"}
[^1]: University of Groningen University of Leiden and University of Groningen, \*Corresponding author email address: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The applicability of model checking is hindered by the state space explosion problem in combination with limited amounts of main memory. To extend its reach, the large available capacities of secondary storage such as hard disks can be exploited. Due to the specific performance characteristics of secondary storage technologies, specialised algorithms are required. In this paper, we present a technique to use secondary storage for probabilistic model checking of Markov decision processes. It combines state space exploration based on partitioning with a block-iterative variant of value iteration over the same partitions for the analysis of probabilistic reachability and expected-reward properties. A sparse matrix-like representation is used to store partitions on secondary storage in a compact format. All file accesses are sequential, and compression can be used without affecting runtime. The technique has been implemented within the [ <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Toolset</span>]{}. We evaluate its performance on several benchmark models of up to 3.5 billion states. In the analysis of time-bounded properties on real-time models, our method neutralises the state space explosion induced by the time bound in its entirety.'
author:
- Arnd Hartmanns
- Holger Hermanns
bibliography:
- 'paper.bib'
title: |
Explicit Model Checking of Very Large MDP\
using Partitioning and Secondary Storage[^1]
---
Introduction {#sec:Introduction}
============
Model checking [@CGP99] is a formal verification technique to ensure that a given model of the states and behaviours of a safety- or performance-critical system satisfies a set of requirements. We are interested in models that consider *nondeterminism* as well as quantitative aspects of systems in terms of *time* and *probabilities*. Such models can be represented as Markov decision processes (MDP [@Put94]) and verified with *probabilistic model checking*. However, the applicability of model checking is limited by the state space explosion problem: The number of states of a model grows exponentially in the number of variables and parallel components, yet they have to be represented in limited computer memory in some form. Probabilistic model checking is particularly affected due to its additional numerical complexity. Several techniques are available to stretch its limits: For example, symbolic probabilistic model checking [@AKNPS00], implemented in the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Prism</span>]{}tool [@KNP11], uses variants of binary decision diagrams (BDD) to compactly represent the state spaces of well-structured models in memory at the cost of verification runtime. Partial order [@BDG06] and confluence reduction [@TSP11] deliver smaller-but-equivalent state spaces and work particularly well for highly symmetric models. When trading accuracy for tractability or efficiency is acceptable, abstraction and refinement techniques like CEGAR [@HWZ08] can be applied. The common theme is that these approaches aim at reducing the state space or its representation such that it fits, in its entirety, into the main memory of the machine used for model checking. An alternative is to store this data on secondary storage such as hard disks or solid state drives and only load small parts of it into main memory when and as needed. This is attractive due to the vast difference in size between main memory and secondary storage: Typical workstations today possess in the order of 4-8GB of main memory, but easily 1TB or more of hard disk space. Moreover, with the advent of dynamically scalable cloud storage, virtually unlimited off-site secondary storage has become easily accessible. For conciseness, we from now on refer to main memory as *memory* and to any kind of secondary storage as *disk*.
In this paper, we present a method and tool implementation for disk-based probabilistic model checking of MDP. Any such approach must solve two tasks: State space *exploration*, the generation and storage on disk of a representation of the reachable part of the state space, and the disk-based *analysis* to verify the given properties of interest based on this representation. The core challenge is that the most common type of secondary storage, magnetic hard disks, exhibits extremely low random-access performance, yet standard memory-based methods for exploration and analysis access the state space in a practically random way.
### Previous work.
Exploration is an implicit graph search problem, and a number of solutions that reduce the amount of random accesses during search have been proposed in the literature. These fall into three broad categories: ($i$) exploiting the layered structure of breadth-first search (BFS) by keeping only the current BFS layer in memory while delaying duplicate detection [w.r.t.]{}previous layers until the current one has been fully explored [@PITZ02; @SD98]; ($ii$) partitioning the state space according to some given or automatically computed partitioning function over the states and then loading only one partition into memory at a time in an iterative process [@BJ05; @EK13]; ($iii$) treating memory purely as a cache for a disk-based search, but using clever hashing and hash partitioning techniques to reduce and sequentialise disk accesses [@HW06]. Exploration can naturally be combined on-the-fly with checking for the reachability of error states, and methods to perform on-the-fly verification of liveness and LTL properties exist [@BBS07; @EJ06; @ESS08].
The analysis of other logics, such as CTL model checking with satisfaction sets, and of other models, such as probabilistic model checking of MDP with value iteration, inherently require the entire state space for a dedicated analysis step following exploration. Previous work on disk-based probabilistic model checking considers purely stochastic models and focusses on the analysis phase: In absence of nondeterminism, classical block-iterative methods [@Ste94] can be used with disk-based (sparse) matrix representations of Markov models. They proceed by loading into memory and analysing one matrix block at a time (plus those that it depends on) iteratively until the method has converged for all blocks. Implementations can be divided into *matrix-out-of-core* and *complete out-of-core* approaches [@Meh04]. In the former, the vector of state values being iteratively computed is still kept in memory in its entirety [@DS97]. It is similar to how [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Prism</span>]{} [@KNP11] uses BDD in its “<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">hybrid</span>” engine for the model only, while both model and values are represented symbolically in its “<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mtbdd</span>” engine. The symbolic and disk-based approaches for Markov chains can be combined [@KMNP02]. Further work on the disk-based analysis of purely stochastic models includes different implementations that are both disk-based and parallelised or distributed [@BH06; @HK99].
For the nondeterministic-probabilistic model of MDP that we are concerned with, the default scalable analysis algorithm used in model checking is value iteration, an iterative fixpoint method that updates the values of each state based on a function over the values of its immediate successors until all changes remain below a given error. We are aware of only one explicitly disk-based approach to value iteration, which associates the values to the transitions instead of the states and is based on sequentially traversing two files containing the transitions that have been externally sorted by source and target states in each iteration [@EJB07]. However, external sorting is a costly operation, leading to high runtime.
The correctness of value iteration depends neither on the order in which the updates are performed nor on how many updates a state receives in one iteration. This can be exploited to improve its performance by taking the graph structure of the underlying model into account to perform more updates for “relevant” states in a “good” order. One such technique is topological value iteration [@DG07], based on a division of the MDP into strongly connected components. More generally, this means that value iteration can also be performed in a block-iterative manner.
### Our contribution.
The technique for disk-based probabilistic model checking of MDP that we present in this paper is a complete out-of-core method. It combines the state space partitioning approach from disk-based search with a block-iterative variant of value iteration based on a very compact sparse matrix-like representation of the partitions on disk. In light of the disk space available, compactness seems at first sight to be a non-issue, but in fact is a crucial aspect due to the low throughput of hard disks compared to main memory. Based on a given partitioning function, our approach proceeds by first exploring the partitions of the state space using an explicit state representation while directly streaming the sparse matrix-like representation to disk. When exploration is completed, the stored partitions are analysed using a block-based variant of value iteration: It iterates in an outer loop over the partitions on disk, for each of which value iterations are performed in an inner loop until convergence. All read and write operations on the files we generate on disk are sequential. We can thus easily add compression, which in our experiments reduces the amount of disk space needed by a factor of up to 10 without affecting overall runtime.
Our method has been implemented by extending the tool [@HHH14] of the [ <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Toolset</span>]{} [@HH14]. The implementation currently supports the computation of reachability probabilities and expected accumulated rewards. To the best of our knowledge, is at this point the only publicly available tool that provides disk-based verification of MDP. We have evaluated the approach and its implementation on five case studies. The largest model we consider has 3.5 billion states. It can be explored and analysed in less than 8 hours using no more than 2 of memory and 30 disk space. Our technique is particularly efficient for the analysis of time-bounded properties on real-time extensions of MDP. In these cases, the overhead of using the disk is small and the enormous state space explosion caused by the time bounds can be neutralised in its entirety.
Preliminaries {#sec:Preliminaries}
=============
The central formal model that we use are Markov decision processes:
A *probability distribution* over a countable set $\varOmega$ is a function $\mu \in \varOmega \to [0, 1]$ such that $\sum_{\omega \in \varOmega}{\mu(\omega)} = 1$. Its *support* is ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{support}({\mu})}\xspace} = {\ensuremath{\{\,s \in S \mid \mu(s) > 0\,\}}}$. We denote by ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{Dist}({\varOmega})}\xspace}$ the set of all probability distributions over $\varOmega$.
A *Markov decision process* (MDP) is a triple ${\ensuremath{\langle S, T, s_0 \rangle}}$ consisting of a countable set of *states* $S$, a *transition function* $T \in S \to {\ensuremath{2^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{Dist}({S \times R})}\xspace}}}\xspace}$ for a countable subset $R \subsetneq {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}\xspace}$ with $T(s)$ countable for all $s \in S$, and an *initial state* $s_0 \in S$. A *partitioning function* for an MDP is a function $f \in S \to {\ensuremath{\{\, 1, \dots, k \,\}}}$ for some $k \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}\xspace}$ with $f(s_0) = 1$.
For $s \in S$, we call $\mu \in T(s)$ a *transition* of $s$, and a pair $b = {\ensuremath{\langle s', r \rangle}} \in {\ensuremath{\mathrm{support}({\mu})}\xspace}$ a *branch* of $\mu$, with $s'$ being the *target state* of $b$ and $r$ being the associated *reward* value. MDP support both nondeterministic and probabilistic choices: A state can have multiple outgoing transitions, each of which leads into a probability distribution over pairs ${\ensuremath{\langle s, r \rangle}}$. A partitioning function $f \in S \to {\ensuremath{\{\,1, \dots, n\,\}}}$, $n \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}\xspace}$, divides the states of an MDP into partitions $P_i = {\ensuremath{\{\, s \in S \mid f(s) = i \,\}}}$. The *partition graph* is the directed graph ${\ensuremath{\langle P, U \rangle}}$ with nodes $P = {\ensuremath{\{\, P_i \mid 1 \leq i \leq k \,\}}}$ and edges $U = {\ensuremath{\{\, {\ensuremath{\langle P_i, P_j \rangle}} \mid i \neq j \wedge \exists\,s \in P_i, \mu \in T(s), {\ensuremath{\langle s', r \rangle}} \in {\ensuremath{\mathrm{support}({\mu})}\xspace}\colon s' \in P_j \,\}}}$. It is *forward-acyclic* if there is no ${\ensuremath{\langle P_i, P_j \rangle}} \in U$ with $j < i$.
We are interested in the probability of reaching certain states in an MDP and in the expected reward accumulated when doing so. Since an MDP may contain nondeterministic choices, these values are only well-defined under a *scheduler*, which provides a recipe to resolve the nondeterminism. The verification questions are thus: Given a set of states $F \subseteq S$, ($i$) what is the maximum/minimum probability of eventually reaching a state in $F$ over all possible schedulers (*reachability probability*), and ($ii$) what is the maximum/minimum expected accumulated reward once a state in $F$ is reached for the first time over all possible schedulers (*expected reward*)? These quantities can be formally defined using the usual cylinder set construction for the paths of the MDP [@FKNP11].
The computation of these quantities is typically done using *value iteration*, as shown in for maximum reachability probabilities. For the minimum case, we replace maximisation by minimisation in line \[alg:ValueIteration:IterationStep\]. To compute expected rewards, a precomputation step is needed to determine those states from which $F$ is reachable with probability one and zero, respectively. This can be done with straightforward fixpoint algorithms over the graph structure of the MDP [@FKNP11].
$\mathit{values} := {\ensuremath{\{\, s \mapsto 1 \mid s \in F\,\}}} \cup {\ensuremath{\{\, s \mapsto 0 \mid s \in S \setminus F \,\}}}$
Using MDP directly to build models of complex systems is cumbersome. Instead, higher-level formalisms such as [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Prism</span>]{}’s guarded command language are used. They add to MDP variables that take values from finite domains. In an *MDP with variables* (VMDP), each transition is associated with a *guard*, a Boolean expression that disables the transition when it is [$\mathit{false}$]{}. The probabilities and reward values of the branches are given as real-valued arithmetic expressions. Every branch has an *update* that assigns new values (given as expressions) to the variables of the process. The semantics of a VMDP $M$ is the MDP ${\ensuremath{[\![ M ]\!]}}$ whose states are pairs ${\ensuremath{\langle s, v \rangle}}$ of a state $s$ of $M$ and a valuation $v$ for the variables. Transitions out of $s$ that are disabled according to $v$ do not appear in ${\ensuremath{[\![ M ]\!]}}$, and the valuations of a branch’s targets are computed by applying the update of the branch to the valuation of the transition’s source state. A partitioning function $f$ for a VMDP can be determined by an upper-bounded arithmetic expression $e$ with values in [$\mathbb{N}$]{}: $f({\ensuremath{\langle s, v \rangle}}) = e(v)$ where $e(v)$ is the evaluation of $e$ in $v$. The reachability set $F$ can likewise be characterised by a Boolean expression.
### Real-time extensions of MDP
To model and analyse real-time systems, MDP can be extended with real-valued clock variables and state invariant expressions as in timed automata (TA [@AD94]), leading to the model of probabilistic timed automata (PTA [@KNSS02]). A number of techniques are available to model-check PTA [@NPS13], but only the digital clocks approach [@KNPS06] allows the computation of both reachability probabilities and expected rewards: Clocks are replaced by bounded integer variables, and self-loop transitions are added to increment them synchronously as long as the state invariant is satisfied. This turns the (finite) PTA into a (finite) VMDP. The conversion preserves reachability probabilities and expected reward values whenever all clock constraints in the PTA are closed and diagonal-free. However, the size of the final MDP is exponential in the number of clock variables and the maximum constants that they are compared to.
For timed models, we are also interested in *time-bounded reachability*: Ranging over all possible schedulers, what is the maximum/minimum probability of eventually reaching a state in $F$ within at most $t$ time units? These probabilities can be computed by adding a new clock variable $x$ to the PTA that is never reset and computing the reachability probability for the set $F' = {\ensuremath{\{\,{\ensuremath{\langle s, v \rangle}} \mid s \in F \wedge v(x) \leq t \,\}}}$ in the resulting digital clocks MDP [@NPS13].
A further extension of PTA are stochastic timed automata (STA [@BDHK06]). They allow assignments of the form $x := \textsc{sample}(D)$ to sample from (continuous) probability distributions $D$, [e.g. ]{}exponential or normal distributions, in updates. This allows for stochastic delays, such as the exponentially-distributed sojourn times of continuous-time Markov chains, in addition to the nondeterministic delays of (P)TA. A first model checking technique for STA has recently been described [@HHH14] and implemented within the tool of the [ <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Toolset</span>]{} [@HH14]. It works by abstracting assignments that use continuous distributions into finite-support probabilistic choices plus continuous nondeterminism, turning the STA into a PTA that can be analysed with [e.g. ]{}the digital clocks technique.
Disk-Based State Space Exploration with Partitioning {#sec:PartitionedExploration}
====================================================
In this section, we describe the partitioned state space exploration approach that we use in our disk-based analysis technique for MDP. We assume that the MDP to be explored is given in some compact description that can be interpreted as a VMDP, and a partitioning function $f$ is given as an expression over its variables. Disk-based exploration using partitioning has been the subject of previous work [@BJ05; @EK13], so we focus on the novel aspect of generating a sparse matrix-like representation of the MDP on-the-fly during explicit-state exploration with low memory usage and in a compact format in a single file on disk.
=\[font=\] (-0.25,-0.43) node \[anchor=east\] [States:]{}; (0.5,-0.15) – (0.5,-0.65); (1.0,-0.15) – (1.0,-0.65); (1.5,-0.15) – (1.5,-0.65); (2.0,-0.15) – (2.0,-0.65); (2.5,-0.15) – (2.5,-0.65); (3.0,-0.15) – (3.0,-0.65); (3.5,-0.15) – (3.5,-0.65); (4.0,-0.15) – (4.0,-0.65); (4.5,-0.15) – (4.5,-0.65); (5.0,-0.15) – (5.0,-0.65); (5.5,-0.15) – (5.5,-0.65); (6.0,-0.15) – (6.0,-0.65); (6.5,-0.15) – (6.5,-0.65); (0, -0.15) – (7, -0.15); (0,-0.65) – (7,-0.65); (0.25,-0.425) node \[\] [$\cdots$]{}; (1.5,-0.43) node \[\] ; (3.5,-0.43) node \[\] ; (5.5,-0.43) node \[\] ; (6.8,-0.425) node \[\] [$\cdots$]{}; (7.25,-0.43) node \[anchor=west\] [(12 bytes)]{}; (-0.25,-1.47) node \[anchor=east\] [Transitions:]{}; (0.5,-1.2) – (0.5,-1.7); (1.0,-1.2) – (1.0,-1.7); (1.5,-1.2) – (1.5,-1.7); (2.0,-1.2) – (2.0,-1.7); (2.5,-1.2) – (2.5,-1.7); (3.0,-1.2) – (3.0,-1.7); (3.5,-1.2) – (3.5,-1.7); (4.0,-1.2) – (4.0,-1.7); (4.5,-1.2) – (4.5,-1.7); (0,-1.2) – (5,-1.2); (0,-1.7) – (5,-1.7); (0.25,-1.475) node \[\] [$\cdots$]{}; (1.5,-1.47) node \[\] ; (3.5,-1.47) node \[\] ; (4.8,-1.475) node \[\] [$\cdots$]{}; (7.25,-1.47) node \[anchor=west\] [(8 bytes)]{}; (-0.25,-2.53) node \[anchor=east\] [Branches:]{}; (0.50,-2.25) – (0.50,-2.75); (0.75,-2.25) – (0.75,-2.75); (1.00,-2.25) – (1.00,-2.75); (1.25,-2.25) – (1.25,-2.75); (1.50,-2.25) – (1.50,-2.75); (1.75,-2.25) – (1.75,-2.75); (2.00,-2.25) – (2.00,-2.75); (2.25,-2.25) – (2.25,-2.75); (2.50,-2.25) – (2.50,-2.75); (2.75,-2.25) – (2.75,-2.75); (3.00,-2.25) – (3.00,-2.75); (3.25,-2.25) – (3.25,-2.75); (3.50,-2.25) – (3.50,-2.75); (3.75,-2.25) – (3.75,-2.75); (4.00,-2.25) – (4.00,-2.75); (4.25,-2.25) – (4.25,-2.75); (4.50,-2.25) – (4.50,-2.75); (4.75,-2.25) – (4.75,-2.75); (5.00,-2.25) – (5.00,-2.75); (5.25,-2.25) – (5.25,-2.75); (5.50,-2.25) – (5.50,-2.75); (5.75,-2.25) – (5.75,-2.75); (6.00,-2.25) – (6.00,-2.75); (6.25,-2.25) – (6.25,-2.75); (6.50,-2.25) – (6.50,-2.75); (0,-2.25) – (7.0,-2.25); (0,-2.75) – (7.0,-2.75); (0.25,-2.525) node \[\] [$\cdots$]{}; (1.5,-2.53) node \[\] ; (3.5,-2.53) node \[\] ; (5.0,-2.53) node \[\] ; (6.0,-2.53) node \[\] ; (6.8,-2.525) node \[\] [$\cdots$]{}; (7.25,-2.53) node \[anchor=west\] [(24 bytes)]{}; (3.50,-0.65) – (3.50,-0.75); (3.50,-0.75) – (0.50,-1.00); (0.50,-1.00) – (0.50,-1.175); (3.50,-1.70) – (3.50,-1.80); (3.50,-1.80) – (0.50,-2.05); (0.50,-2.05) – (0.50,-2.225); (5.00,-2.75) – (5.00,-3.175); (6.00,-2.75) – (6.00,-3.175); (6.00,-3.175) – (4.00,-3.175); (4.0,-3.1875) node \[anchor=east\] [target state]{};
Representation of MDP in Memory and on Disk
-------------------------------------------
There are conceptually two ways to represent in memory an MDP that is the semantics of a VMDP: In an *explicit-state* manner, or in a *sparse matrix-style* representation. In the former, only the set of states of the MDP is kept, with each state stored as a vector ${\ensuremath{\langle s, v = {\ensuremath{\langle v_1, \dots, v_n \rangle}} \rangle}}$ where $s$ identifies the state in the original VMDP and $v_{i}$ the value of its $i$-th variable. Given a state and the compact description of the VMDP, we can recompute transitions and branches at any time on-demand. The other alternative is to identify each of the $n$ states of the MDP with a value in ${\ensuremath{\{\,1, \dots, n\,\}}}$, its *index*, and explicitly store the set of transitions belonging to a state index and the transitions’ branches. For each branch, its probability, its reward value, and the index of the target state need to be stored. This sparse matrix-style representation takes its name from the similar idea of storing a Markov chain as a sparse encoding of its probability matrix. All information about the inner structure of the states is discarded.
outlines the sparse matrix-style representation used by , which keeps three arrays to store the states, transitions and branches of a partition of the state space. For a state, “is target?” is [$\mathit{true}$]{}iff it is in the reachability set $F$ that we consider. The target state of a branch is identified by its partition and its relative index within that partition. This format is more memory-efficient than an explicit-state representation when the model has many variables, and access to transitions and branches can be significantly faster because guards and other expressions in the model do not need to be evaluated on every access.
The format of allows fast random access to all parts of the state space. However, when only sequential access is required, an MDP can be stored more compactly. shows the “inverse-sequential” format used by our technique to store state spaces on disk. States, transitions and branches are stored as a sequence of records, with the type of each record given by its first byte. Branches can be stored even more compactly by adding record types for common cases such as branches with probability 1. The key idea of the format is to first store all the branches of a transition before the transition record itself, and similarly store all the transitions (each preceded by its branches) of a state before the state record itself. In this way, we do not need to store the number of transitions and the index of the first transition for a state since its transitions are precisely those that appeared since the previous state record (and analogously for the branches of a transition). The random-access format of can be reconstructed from a single sequential read of a file in the inverse-sequential format, and the file can be created sequentially with one simultaneous sequential pass through the arrays of the random-access format in memory.
=\[font=\] (0.25,0.25) – (0.25,-0.25); (0.50,0.25) – (0.50,-0.25); (0.75,0.25) – (0.75,-0.25); (1.00,0.25) – (1.00,-0.25); (1.25,0.25) – (1.25,-0.25); (1.50,0.25) – (1.50,-0.25); (1.75,0.25) – (1.75,-0.25); (2.00,0.25) – (2.00,-0.25); (2.25,0.25) – (2.25,-0.25); (2.50,0.25) – (2.50,-0.25); (2.75,0.25) – (2.75,-0.25); (3.00,0.25) – (3.00,-0.25); (3.25,0.25) – (3.25,-0.25); (3.50,0.25) – (3.50,-0.25); (3.75,0.25) – (3.75,-0.25); (4.00,0.25) – (4.00,-0.25); (4.25,0.25) – (4.25,-0.25); (4.50,0.25) – (4.50,-0.25); (4.75,0.25) – (4.75,-0.25); (5.00,0.25) – (5.00,-0.25); (5.25,0.25) – (5.25,-0.25); (5.50,0.25) – (5.50,-0.25); (5.75,0.25) – (5.75,-0.25); (6.00,0.25) – (6.00,-0.25); (6.25,0.25) – (6.25,-0.25); (6.50,0.25) – (6.50,-0.25); (7.00,0.25) – (7.00,-0.25); (7.25,0.25) – (7.25,-0.25); (7.75,0.25) – (7.75,-0.25); (8.00,0.25) – (8.00,-0.25); (9.33,0.25) – (9.33,-0.25); (-0.25,0.25) – (9.83,0.25); (-0.25,-0.25) – (9.83,-0.25); (0.0,-0.025) node \[\] [$\cdots$]{}; (0.375,-0.03) node \[\] [1]{}; (1.5,-0.03) node \[\] ; (3.5,-0.03) node \[\] ; (5.0,-0.03) node \[\] ; (6.0,-0.03) node \[\] ; (6.775,-0.025) node \[\] [$\cdots$]{}; (7.125,-0.03) node \[\] [2]{}; (7.525,-0.025) node \[\] [$\cdots$]{}; (7.875,-0.03) node \[\] [3]{}; (8.67,-0.03) node \[\] ; (9.63,-0.025) node \[\] [$\cdots$]{}; (0.25,0.3) – (6.50,0.3); (3.375,0.65) node \[\] [branch ($\leq\,$25 bytes)]{}; (6.95,-0.3) – (7.3,-0.3); (7.125,-0.7) node \[\] [transition (1 byte)]{}; (7.75,0.3) – (9.33,0.3); (8.54,0.65) node \[\] [state (2 bytes)]{};
Disk-Based Exploration using Partitioning
-----------------------------------------
$\text{int }\mathit{count} := 1$, $\mathit{queue}_\mathrm{D}^1\text{.append}(s_0)$
Our disk-based exploration technique is given as . It is based on the approach of [@BJ05; @EK13]. Files on disk are indicated by subscript $_D$; when loaded into memory, the corresponding variable has subscript $_M$. For each partition, we use BFS to discover new states (lines \[alg:PartitionedExploration:BFSFirst\] to \[alg:PartitionedExploration:BFSLast\]) with the following data in memory:
- $\mathit{states}^i$: The set of states (explicit-state representation) of partition $i$ is loaded into memory in its entirety when search begins for the partition (line \[alg:PartitionedExploration:LoadStates\]). States are added in memory and appended on disk (lines \[alg:PartitionedExploration:AddState1\] and \[alg:PartitionedExploration:AddState2\]).
- $\mathit{queue}^i$: The queue of states to explore in partition $i$. When a cross-transition is found during search in partition $i$, [i.e. ]{}a branch leads to another partition $j \neq i$, then the target state is appended to $\mathit{queue}_\mathrm{D}^j$ on disk (line \[alg:PartitionedExploration:CrossEnqueue\]). For local transitions, the target state is appended to $\mathit{queue}_\mathrm{M}^i$ in memory (line \[alg:PartitionedExploration:LocalEnqueue\]).
- $\mathit{done}^i$: The in-memory set of fully explored states for the current iteration.
When an iteration of search in partition $i$ ends, $\mathit{states}^i$ is backed on disk, $\mathit{queue}^i$ is empty, and $\mathit{done}^i$ is no longer needed, so we remove them from memory (line \[alg:PartitionedExploration:UnloadSearchData\]).
During search, we simultaneously create the sparse matrix-like representation of the partitions on disk in files $\mathit{matrix}_\mathrm{D}^i$ using the inverse-sequential format. The files are not loaded into memory. The records for new branches, transitions and states are appended to the file in lines \[alg:PartitionedExploration:AppendBranchLocal\], \[alg:PartitionedExploration:AppendBranchCross\], \[alg:PartitionedExploration:AppendTransition\] and \[alg:PartitionedExploration:AppendState\]. The main complication is the correct treatment of cross transitions: A branch record stores the partition $j$ of its target state $s'$ and the index of $s'$ within that partition. However, we cannot determine this index without loading all of $\mathit{states}_\mathrm{D}^j$ into memory, and even then, $s'$ may not have been explored yet. To solve this problem, we instead use the index of $s'$ in $\mathit{queue}_\mathrm{D}^j$, which is easily determined (line \[alg:PartitionedExploration:CrossEnqueue\]). To distinguish such a preliminary index, which needs to be corrected later, from a local or already corrected one, we store it as a negative value (line \[alg:PartitionedExploration:AppendBranchCross\]).
The correction of these preliminary indices inside $\mathit{matrix}_\mathrm{D}^i$ happens at the beginning of an iteration for partition $i$ (lines \[alg:PartitionedExploration:UpdateFirst\] to \[alg:PartitionedExploration:UpdateLast\]). The files $\mathit{updates}_\mathrm{D}^j$ for all successor partitions $j$ are loaded into memory. These files have been created by the previous iteration for partition $j$ in lines \[alg:PartitionedExploration:UpdatesClear\] and \[alg:PartitionedExploration:UpdatesAppend\] and contain the correct indices for all states that were previously in $\mathit{queue}_\mathrm{D}^j$, at the same position. The preliminary queue-based indices in partition $i$ can thus be corrected by a sequential pass through its sparse matrix-like representation in file $\mathit{matrix}_\mathrm{D}^i$, replacing all negative indices $-k$ for partition $j$ by the corrected value at $\mathit{updates}_\mathrm{M}^j[k]$. This is a random-access operation on the files $\mathit{updates}_\mathrm{D}^j$, which is why they were loaded into memory beforehand, but a sequential operation on the file $\mathit{matrix}_\mathrm{D}^i$, of which we thus only need to load into memory one record at a time. Observe that this correction process relies on the availability of $\mathit{updates}_\mathrm{D}^j$ for all successor partitions $j$. To assure this, we iterate over all partitions in a fixed order in line \[alg:PartitionedExploration:PartitionIteration\] instead of always moving to the partition with the longest queue as in [@BJ05; @EK13].
To describe the memory usage and I/O complexity of this algorithm, let $n_{\max}$ denote the max. number of states, $s_{\max}$ the max. number of successor partitions ([i.e. ]{}the max. outdegree of the partition graph), and $c_{\max}$ the max. number of *incoming* cross edges, over all partitions. Then the correction of preliminary indices in phase 1 needs memory in $O(s_{\max} \cdot c_{\max})$ for the $\mathit{updates}_\mathrm{M}^j$ arrays and the exploration in phase 2 needs memory in $O(n_{\max} + c_{\max})$ for $\mathit{states}_\mathrm{M}^i$ and $\mathit{done}^i$ plus $\mathit{queue}_\mathrm{M}^i$. Additionally, we need memory for the sets of integers $\mathit{successors}^i$, which we assume to be negligible compared to the other data items. A theoretical analysis of the I/O complexity [@AV88] of a partitioning-based technique is problematic (and in fact absent from [@BJ05] and [@EK13]) due to the way multiple files are used [e.g. ]{}when cross transitions are encountered: For the (unusual) case of very small $n_{\max}$ and very high $s_{\max}$ and $c_{\max}$, the disk accesses to append target states to different queues would be mostly random, but in practice (with low $s_{\max}$ and I/O buffering) they are almost purely sequential. A theoretical worst-case analysis would thus be too pessimistic to be useful. We consequently abstain from such an analysis, too, and rely on the experimental evaluation of .
However, it is clear that the structure of the model [w.r.t.]{}the partitioning function will have a high impact on performance in general; in particular, a low number of cross edges is most desirable for the exploration algorithm presented here. Ideally, the partition graph is also forward-acyclic. In that case, two iterations of the outermost loop suffice: All states are explored in the first iteration, and the second only corrects the preliminary indices.
Disk-Based Partitioned Value Iteration {#sec:PartitionedVI}
======================================
()[$i := 1$ to $\mathit{count}$\[alg:ValueIterationPartitioned:PrepareStart\]]{}[ $\mathit{matrix}_\mathrm{M}^i := \mathit{matrix}_\mathrm{D}^i\text{.load}()$ $\text{unload }\mathit{matrix}_\mathrm{M}^i$\[alg:ValueIterationPartitioned:PrepareEnd\] ]{} (\[alg:ValueIterationPartitioned:IterateStart\])[$\mathit{changed}$]{}[ $\mathit{changed} := {\ensuremath{\mathit{false}}\xspace}$ ]{}
The result of the partitioned exploration presented in the previous section is a set of files in inverse-sequential format for the partitions of the state space. As mentioned in , value iteration can update the states in any order, as long as the maximum error for termination is computed in a way that takes all states into account. We can thus apply value iteration in a block-iterative manner to the partitions of the state space as shown in . The vector of values for each partition is stored in a separate file on disk. In lines \[alg:ValueIterationPartitioned:PrepareStart\] to \[alg:ValueIterationPartitioned:PrepareEnd\], these files are created with the initial values based on whether a state is in the target set $F$. The actual value iterations are then performed in lines \[alg:ValueIterationPartitioned:IterateStart\] to \[alg:ValueIterationPartitioned:IterateEnd\]. For each partition, we need to load the sparse matrix-style representation of this part of the MDP into memory in the random-access format of , plus the values for the current partition (line \[alg:ValueIterationPartitioned:LoadLocal\]), and those of its successors (lines \[alg:ValueIterationPartitioned:LoadCross\]). The values of the successor partitions are needed to calculate the current state’s new value in line \[alg:ValueIterationPartitioned:Update\] in presence of cross transitions. Memory usage is thus in $O(m_{\max} + s_{\max} \cdot n_{\max})$, where $m_{\max}$ is the maximum over all partitions of the sum of the number of states, transitions and branches. The I/O complexity is in $O(i \cdot p \cdot (\mathrm{scan}(m_{\max}) + (s_{\max} + 1) \cdot \mathrm{scan}(n_{\max})))$ where $i$ is the number of iterations of the outermost loop starting in line \[alg:ValueIterationPartitioned:IterateStart\] and $p$ is the total number of partitions.
In contrast to the exploration phase, the performance of this disk-based value iteration is not directly affected by the number of cross transitions. However, the number of successor partitions, [i.e. ]{}$s_{\max}$, is crucial. An additional consideration is the way that values propagate through the partitions. The ideal case is again a forward-acyclic partition graph, for which a single iteration of the outermost loop (line \[alg:ValueIterationPartitioned:IterateStart\]) suffices since we iterate over the partitions in reverse order (line \[alg:ValueIterationPartitioned:Iterate\]).
For expected rewards, we additionally need to precompute the sets of states that reach the target set with probability one and zero as mentioned in . The standard graph-based fixpoint algorithms used for this purpose [@FKNP11] can be changed to work in a block-iterative manner in the same way as value iteration.
Evaluation {#sec:Evaluation}
==========
In this section, we investigate the behaviour of our disk-based probabilistic model checking approach and its implementation in on five models from the literature. Experiments were performed on an Intel Core i7-4650U system with 8 of memory and a 2 USB 3.0 magnetic hard disk, running 64-bit Windows 8.1 for and Ubuntu Linux 14.10 for [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Prism</span>]{}version 4.2.1. We used a timeout of 12 hours. Memory measurements refer to peak working/resident sets. Since (implemented in C\#) and parts of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Prism</span>]{}are garbage-collected, however, the reported memory usages may fluctuate and be higher than what is actually necessary to solve the task at hand. Our experiments show what the disk-based approach makes possible on standard workstation configurations today; by using compute servers with more memory, we can naturally scale to even larger models.
Detailed performance results are shown in . State space sizes are listed in *millions* of states, so the largest model has about 3.5 *billion* states. Columns “exp” and “chk” show the runtime of the exploration and analysis phases, respectively, in *minutes*. Columns “” list the peak memory usage over both phases in *gigabytes*. We show the performance of without using the disk to judge the overhead of partitioning and disk usage. Where possible, we also compare with [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Prism</span>]{}, which does not use the disk, but provides a semi-symbolic <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">hybrid</span> engine that uses BDD to compactly represent the states, transitions and branches while keeping the entire value vector(s) in memory during value iteration (limiting its scalability), and a fully symbolic <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mtbdd</span> engine that also uses BDD for the value vector. The <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">hybrid</span> engine does not support expected rewards.
#### Compression.
As all file accesses are sequential, we can use generic lossless compression to reduce disk accesses. Using the LZ4 algorithm [@Web:LZ4], we achieved a $7\times$ to $10\times$ reduction in disk usage on our examples. We observed almost no change in runtime with compression enabled, so the extra CPU time is outweighed by reduced disk I/O. Compression thus lowers disk usage at no runtime costs.
#### Partitioning functions.
The actual performance of our approach depends on the structure of the model and its interplay with the partitioning function. Scalability hinges on the function’s ability to distribute the states such that the largest partition and the values of its successors fit into memory. The problem of automatically constructing a good partitioning function has largely been solved in prior work, and many techniques, like the ones described and referenced in [@EK13], are available, but they are not yet implemented in . For our evaluation, we thus use relatively simple manually specified partitioning functions.
### CSMA/CD:
The MDP model of the IEEE 802.3 CSMA/CD protocol from the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Prism</span>]{}benchmark suite. It was manually constructed from a PTA model using the digital clocks approach. It has parameters $N$, the number of communicating nodes, and $K$, the maximum value of the backoff counter. The nodes count the number of collisions they encounter when trying to send a message. We partition according to the sum of the collision counters of the nodes. The resulting partition graph is forward-acyclic since these counters are only incremented, and $s_{\max} = N$. However, due to using the sum of several values for partitioning, the states are not evenly distributed over the partitions.
We first report on the performance of computing the minimum probability of any node eventually delivering its message with fewer than $K$ collisions (model $\text{CSMA/CD}_{1\times\text{P}}^{N\!,K}$ in , with $1\times\text{P}$ indicating that one reachability probability is computed), and then on computing the max. and min. expected times until all nodes have delivered their message (model $\text{CSMA/CD}_{2\times\text{E}}^{N\!,K}$, where $2\times\text{E}$ indicates that we compute two expected-reward values). All MDP are only medium-sized. Our disk-based technique achieves performance comparable to the semi-symbolic approach here, which however does not support expected rewards. The fully symbolic approach has significantly higher runtimes for those properties.
### Randomised Consensus:
The [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Prism</span>]{}benchmark of the randomised consensus protocol of $N$ actors doing random walks bounded by $K$ to reach a common decision. We partition according to the value of the shared counter variable. The resulting partition graph is strongly connected with $s_{\max} = 2$. We use $\epsilon = 0.02$ during value iteration (instead of the default $\epsilon = 10^{-6}$ as in the other examples). The MDP appear medium-sized in terms of states, but have about $5\times$ as many transitions and $7\times$ as many branches as states, so should be considered large.
We check the two probabilistic reachability properties originally named “$\text{C}_1$” and “$\text{C}_2$”. The fully symbolic technique completes exploration and analysis much faster than our disk-based approach. This is because this model is a benchmark for value iteration, with values propagating in very small increments back-and-forth through all the states and thus partitions. Still, we observe that $n_{\max}$ is invariant under $K$, so our technique will be able to check this model for $N = 8$ and any value of $K$ without running out of memory—if given enough time.
### Wireless LAN:
------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ ------- ---------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------
$\!\mathit{K}\!$ $p$ $n_{\max}$ exp chk memory
$1$ $718{\text{\begin{scriptsize}\,M\end{scriptsize}}}$ $1201{\text{\begin{scriptsize}\,M\end{scriptsize}}}$ $203$ $12{\text{\begin{scriptsize}\,M\end{scriptsize}}}$ $2.8{\text{\begin{scriptsize}\,h\end{scriptsize}}}$ $1.5{\text{\begin{scriptsize}\,h\end{scriptsize}}}$ $3092{\text{\begin{scriptsize}\,MB\end{scriptsize}}}$ $46.5{\text{\begin{scriptsize}\,GB\end{scriptsize}}}$ $35.1{\text{\begin{scriptsize}\,GB\end{scriptsize}}}$ $4.5{\text{\begin{scriptsize}\,GB\end{scriptsize}}}$
$2$ $1198{\text{\begin{scriptsize}\,M\end{scriptsize}}}$ $1926{\text{\begin{scriptsize}\,M\end{scriptsize}}}$ $337$ $12{\text{\begin{scriptsize}\,M\end{scriptsize}}}$ $4.7{\text{\begin{scriptsize}\,h\end{scriptsize}}}$ $2.1{\text{\begin{scriptsize}\,h\end{scriptsize}}}$ $3130{\text{\begin{scriptsize}\,MB\end{scriptsize}}}$ $75.2{\text{\begin{scriptsize}\,GB\end{scriptsize}}}$ $56.7{\text{\begin{scriptsize}\,GB\end{scriptsize}}}$ $7.4{\text{\begin{scriptsize}\,GB\end{scriptsize}}}$
$3$ $1685{\text{\begin{scriptsize}\,M\end{scriptsize}}}$ $2661{\text{\begin{scriptsize}\,M\end{scriptsize}}}$ $471$ $13{\text{\begin{scriptsize}\,M\end{scriptsize}}}$ $6.5{\text{\begin{scriptsize}\,h\end{scriptsize}}}$ $2.8{\text{\begin{scriptsize}\,h\end{scriptsize}}}$ $3095{\text{\begin{scriptsize}\,MB\end{scriptsize}}}$ $104.4{\text{\begin{scriptsize}\,GB\end{scriptsize}}}$ $78.6{\text{\begin{scriptsize}\,GB\end{scriptsize}}}$ $10.3{\text{\begin{scriptsize}\,GB\end{scriptsize}}}$
$4$ $2187{\text{\begin{scriptsize}\,M\end{scriptsize}}}$ $3419{\text{\begin{scriptsize}\,M\end{scriptsize}}}$ $605$ $15{\text{\begin{scriptsize}\,M\end{scriptsize}}}$ $8.4{\text{\begin{scriptsize}\,h\end{scriptsize}}}$ $3.3{\text{\begin{scriptsize}\,h\end{scriptsize}}}$ $3204{\text{\begin{scriptsize}\,MB\end{scriptsize}}}$ $134.5{\text{\begin{scriptsize}\,GB\end{scriptsize}}}$ $101.1{\text{\begin{scriptsize}\,GB\end{scriptsize}}}$ $13.3{\text{\begin{scriptsize}\,GB\end{scriptsize}}}$
------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ ------- ---------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------
: Performance on the Wireless LAN model[]{data-label="tab:WLANEvaluation"}
The [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;"></span>]{}PTA model [@HH09] of IEEE 802.11 WLAN, based on [@KNS02]. So far, this protocol has only been analysed with reduced timing parameters to contain state space explosion. We use the original values of the standard for a 2Mbps transmission rate instead, including the max. transmission time of $15717{\text{\begin{scriptsize}\,$\upmu\text{s}$\end{scriptsize}}}$, with $1{\text{\begin{scriptsize}\,$\upmu\text{s}$\end{scriptsize}}}$ as one model time unit. Parameter $K$ is the maximum value of the backoff counter. We partition according to the first station’s backoff counter, its control location, and its clock. The resulting partition graph has some cycles with $s_{\max} = 3$. Exploration needs 5 iterations of the outermost loop of in all cases. We compute the maximum probability that either station’s backoff counter reaches $K$ (model $\text{WLAN}_{1\times\text{P}}^{K}$ in ) as well as the maximum expected time until one station delivers its packet ($\text{WLAN}_{1\times\text{E}}^{K}$). Under heading “full matrix”, we report the disk space that would be needed for the sparse matrix-like representation of the entire state space in the random access format of (“RA”) or in inverse-sequential format (“IS”), and the actual disk usage of the latter combined with compression (“$\text{IS}_\text{LZ4}$”). We see that the inverse-sequential format reduces disk usage by $25\,\%$ and compression adds another $87\,\%$ reduction. In the end, disk usage is reduced by a factor of around 10. We observed a similar behaviour on the other models.
### BRP:
The [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;"></span>]{}PTA model of the Bounded Retransmission Protocol (BRP) from [@HH09]. Parameters are $N$, the number of data frames to be transmitted, $\mathit{MAX}$, the bound on the retries per frame, and $\mathit{TD}$, the maximum transmission delay. We fix $\mathit{MAX} = 12$. We partition by the number of the current data frame to analyse the model’s six probabilistic reachability properties ($\text{BRP}_{6\times\text{P}}^{N\!,\mathit{T\!D}}$). This leads to the ideal case of a forward-acyclic partition graph with $s_{\max} = 1$. We also analyse two time-bounded reachability properties ($\text{BRP}_{2\times\text{TP}}^{N\!,D}$) with deadline $D$ and fixed $\mathit{TD} = 32$, partitioning additionally according to the values of the added global clock. This leads to $s_{\max}=2$. For the reachability probabilities, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Prism</span>]{}’s <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mtbdd</span> engine incorrectly reported probability zero in all cases. Our approach benefits hugely from having to perform far fewer total value iterations per state due to the favourable partitioning. In the reachability probabilities case, $n_{\max}$ is invariant under $N$, so we can scale $N$ arbitrarily without running out of memory.
### File Server:
The STA file server model from [@HHH14]. $C$ is the capacity of the request buffer. We compute the maximum and the minimum probability of a buffer overflow within time bound $D$. We cannot compare with [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Prism</span>]{}because some features necessary to support STA cannot currently be translated into its input language from [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;"></span>]{}. Using our disk-based technique permits a finer abstraction for continuous probability distributions than before ($\rho = 0.01$ instead of $0.05$). We partition according to the values of the global clock introduced to check the time bounds. This leads to the ideal case of an acyclic partition graph with $s_{\max} = 1$. The state space and number of partitions grow linearly in the time bound while $n_{\max}$ remains invariant. We can thus check time-bounded properties for any large bound without exceeding the available memory, at a linear increase in runtime. This solves a major problem in STA model checking.
Conclusion {#sec:Conclusion}
==========
We have shown that the state space partitioning approach to using secondary storage for model checking combines well with analysis techniques built on graph fixpoint algorithms. We have used the example of MDP models and value iteration, but the same scheme is applicable to other techniques, too. In particular, the precomputation step for expected-reward properties is very close to what is needed for CTL model checking. Our technique is implemented in the tool of the [ <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Toolset</span>]{}, available at [`www.modestchecker.net`](http://www.modestchecker.net/). In our evaluation, we observed that it significantly extends the reach of probabilistic model checking. It appears complementary to the symbolic approach: On the model where our technique struggles, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Prism</span>]{}performs well, and where [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Prism</span>]{}runs into memory or time limitations, our technique appears to work well. In particular, our approach appears to work better for expected-reward properties, and we have been able to defuse the crippling state space explosion caused by the deadlines of time-bounded reachability properties in PTA and STA models.
### Future Work
In the current implementation, the partitioning function is either based on global time or it must be specified by the user. We plan to implement techniques that automatically derive a good partitioning function like the ones described and referenced in [@EK13]. Further scalability improvements will be possible by combining with on-the-fly partial order or confluence reduction, and an interesting question is whether the approximative technique for MDP analysis recently presented by Brázdil [et al.]{}[@BCCFKKPU14] can also be reformulated to use secondary storage.
#### Acknowledgments
The authors thank Christian von Essen for an inspiring discussion at TACAS 2014 about his analysis of the next-generation airborne collision avoidance system [@EG14]: His model is an extremely large tree-like MDP, and he used an ad-hoc disk-based implementation to allow verification.
[^1]: This work is supported by the EU 7th Framework Programme under grant agreements 295261 (MEALS) and 318490 (SENSATION), by the DFG as part of SFB/TR 14 AVACS, by the CAS/SAFEA International Partnership Program for Creative Research Teams, and by the CDZ project CAP (GZ 1023).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider free and self-interacting quantum scalar fields satisfying modified dispersion relations in the framework of Einstein-Aether theory. Using adiabatic regularization, we study the renormalization of the equation for the mean value of the field in the self-interacting case, and the renormalization of the semiclassical Einstein-Aether equations for free fields. In both cases we consider Bianchi type I background spacetimes. Contrary to what happens for [*free*]{} fields in [*flat*]{} Robertson-Walker spacetimes, the self-interaction and/or the anisotropy produce non-purely geometric terms in the adiabatic expansion, i.e terms that involve both the metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ and the aether field $u_{\mu}$. We argue that, in a general spacetime, the renormalization of the theory would involve new counterterms constructed with $g_{\mu\nu}$ and $u_{\mu}$, generating a fine-tuning problem for the Einstein-Aether theory.'
author:
- 'D. López Nacir [^1]'
- 'F. D. Mazzitelli [^2]'
title: 'New counterterms induced by trans-Planckian physics in semiclassical gravity'
---
Introduction
============
In the last years it has been realized that the (still unknown) physics at very high energies may not be inaccessible from an observational point of view. Indeed, trans-Planckian physics may have left an imprint in the inhomogeneities of the cosmic microwave background radiation [@CMBtrans], in the evolution of the scale factor of the universe [@scale], in the propagation of gamma ray bursts [@gamma], etc.
In the absence of a full theory, the theoretical approach to this problem is phenomenological. One possibility, that we will consider here, is to assume that the physics at high energies is such that its main effect is a modification of the dispersion relation of the quantum fields, thus violating Lorentz symmetry. Although this is a simplistic approach, it could be useful to investigate whether the trans-Planckian effects could lead to observable consequences or not in a given particular situation, by testing the robustness of the results under changes in the dispersion relations at very high energies.
The Modified Dispersion Relations (MDR) will obviously affect the structure of the quantum field theory, in particular its renormalizability. Having in mind applications to cosmology, in previous papers [@NosUno; @NosProc; @NosDos], we have analyzed in detail the renormalization of free field theories with MDR in flat Robertson Walker spacetimes. We have shown that the theory can be renormalized using a generalization of the well known adiabatic regularization [@ad-old; @equiv] that is used in theories with standard dispersion relations. As for the usual case, the adiabatic expansion of the energy momentum tensor contains divergent terms that can be written in terms of geometric tensors in $n$-dimensions, and therefore the theory can be renormalized by absorbing the infinities into the bare gravitational constants of the theory. It is remarkable that this can be done whatever the dispersion relation. This somewhat surprising result could be a peculiarity of flat Robertson Walker metrics [@ted] and/or valid only for free fields, and therefore it is of interest to investigate more general situations.
In this paper we extend the adiabatic regularization to the case of self-interacting fields and anisotropic metrics (Bianchi type I). We will work within the context of the so called Einstein-Aether theory [@Jacobson], a covariant theory of gravity in which the metric is coupled to a dynamical vector field. This field, that breaks Lorentz invariance dynamically, is also coupled to the derivatives of the quantum matter fields, leading to MDR that contain higher powers of the momenta. The specific model is introduced in Section II.
In Section III we consider a self-interacting scalar field on Bianchi type I metrics and discuss the renormalization of the equation for the mean value of the field $\phi_0$. In order to do this, it will be necessary to compute the mean value of the fluctuations of the field $\langle\hat\phi^2\rangle=\langle(\phi-\phi_0)^2\rangle$. We will calculate explicitly this quantity up to the second adiabatic order and show that, contrary to what happens for the usual dispersion relation, the second adiabatic order cannot be entirely written in terms of the metric and its derivatives, but also involve the aether field $u_{\mu}$ and its derivatives. This property of $\langle\hat\phi^2\rangle$ is valid even for free fields in flat Robertson-Walker spacetimes.
In Section IV we analyze the renormalizability of the Semiclassical Einstein-Aether Equations (SEAE) for the case of free scalar fields with MDR in Bianchi type I universes. We compute $\langle T_{\mu\nu}\rangle$ up to the second adiabatic order. The zeroth adiabatic order is divergent whatever the dispersion relation. Being proportional to $g_{\mu\nu}$, the divergence can be absorbed into a redefinition of the comological constant. The second adiabatic order is shown to be divergent for dispersion relations that involve powers of the momenta smaller than or equal to four. This adiabatic order contains a term proportional to $G_{\mu\nu}$, that renormalizes Newton’s constant. However, it also contains an additional non-purely geometric term, proportional to the variation of $(\nabla_{\mu}u^{\mu})^2$. When this term is divergent, a new counterterm has to be introduced to renormalize the theory, even if originally not present in the classical Lagrangian. On the other hand, if it is finite, a counterterm would be necessary to make the theory consistent with observations.
In Section V we argue that, for a general metric, the renormalization of the infinities produced by a quantum free field satisfying MDR will induce all possible counterterms involving up to two derivatives of the metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ and the vector $u_{\mu}$. As shown in Ref. [@Jacobsondebil], the coefficients of terms like $(\nabla_{\mu}u^{\mu})^2$, $R_{\mu\nu}u^{\mu}u^{\nu}$, etc, are strongly constrained observationally by post-Newtonian parameters, and therefore the counterterms induced by trans-Planckian physics should be fine tuned to satisfy these constraints.
Throughout the paper we set $c=1$ and adopt the sign convention denoted (+++) by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler [@MTW].
The Model
=========
We work in the frame of a generally covariant theory of gravity coupled to a dynamical vector field $u^{\mu}$ that breaks local Lorentz symmetry. The most general action that is quadratic in derivatives is given by [@Jacobson]: S\_[G]{}=d\^n x (R-2+\_[u]{}),\[Sg\]where $g=det(g_{\mu\nu})$, $R$ is the Ricci scalar, $\Lambda$ and $G$ are the bare cosmological and Newton’s constants, and $\mathcal{L}_{u}$ describe the dynamics of the additional degree of freedom $u^{\mu}$, \[lu\] \_[u]{}=-(g\^u\_u\_+1)-b\_1 F\_F\^-b\_2 (\_u\^)\^2-b\_3 R\_u\^u\^-b\_4 u\^u\^\_u\_\_u\^,where $F_{\mu\nu}=\nabla_{\mu}u_{\nu}-\nabla_{\nu}u_{\mu}$. The Lagrange multiplier $\tilde{\lambda}$ is introduced to impose the condition $u_{\mu}u^{\mu}=-1$ and the coefficients $b_i$ ($i=1,2,3,4$) are arbitrary. The term $\nabla_{\mu}u_{\nu}\nabla^{\nu}u^{\mu}$ coincides with $(\nabla_{\mu}u^{\mu})^2-R_{\mu\nu}u^{\mu}u^{\nu}$ up to a total derivative, and hence has been omitted.
We consider a quantum scalar field $\phi$ with a generalized dispersion relation propagating in a curved space-time with a classical background metric given by ds\^2=g\_dx\^dx\^-(u\_dx\^)\^2+\_dx\^dx\^,where $\mu,\nu= 0,1...n-1$ (with $n$ the space-time dimension) and $\perp_{\mu\nu}\equiv g_{\mu\nu}+ u_{\mu} u_{\nu}$. The action for the scalar field can be written as: S\_=d\^n x (\_+\_[cor]{}+\_[int]{}),where $\mathcal{L}_{\phi}$ is the standard Lagrangian of a free, massive, minimally coupled scalar field \_=-g\^\_\_+m\^2\^2, $\mathcal{L}_{cor}$ is the corrective lagrangian that gives rise to a generalized dispersion relation \_[cor]{}=-\_[s,p]{} b\_[sp]{} (\^[2s]{})(\^[2p]{}),where $0< p\leq
s$, $b_{sp}$ are arbitrary coefficients, and $\mathcal{D}^{2}\phi\equiv\perp_{\mu}^{\lambda}\nabla_{\lambda}\perp_{\gamma}^{\mu}\nabla^{\gamma}\phi$ ($\nabla_{\mu}$ is the covariant derivative corresponding to the metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ and $\perp_{\mu}^{\lambda}\equiv
g^{\lambda\nu}\perp_{\mu\nu}$). The interaction Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}_{int}$ contains the following terms: \[lintgen\] \_[int]{}=-\[R+\_1 F\_F\^+\_2(\_u\^)\^2+\_3 \_u\_\^u\^+\_4 u\^u\^\_u\_\_u\^+\_5 u\^u\^R\_\]\^2-\^4,where $\xi$, $\xi_i$ ($i=1,2,3,4,5$) and $\lambda$ are bare parameters. Note that, in addition to the self-interaction and the standard coupling to the Ricci scalar, we have also included couplings between $\phi^2$ and non-purely geometric terms that involve the aether field $u_{\mu}$. Note also that, if we assume that the MDR depart from the usual one at a given scale $M_C$, the coefficients $b_{sp}$ scale as $b_{sp}\sim M_C^{2(1-s-p)}$.
In the rest of the paper we will consider a four-dimensional Bianchi type I space-time with line element ds\^2=-dt\^2+\_[i=1]{}\^[3]{}C\_[i]{}(t)dx\_i\^2=-C()d\^2+\_[i=1]{}\^[3]{}C\_[i]{}(t)dx\_i\^2,where $C=(C_1 C_2 C_3)^{1/3}$, $d\eta=dt/C^{1/2}$, and $u_{\mu}\equiv C^{1/2}(\eta)\delta^{\eta}_{\mu}$. Therefore, in this frame $F_{\mu\nu}=0$ and $u^{\mu}\nabla_{\mu}u_{\nu}=0$. In what follows we use primes for denoting derivatives with respect to the conformal time $\eta$. No sum convention in spatial (latin) indices is assumed. The generalized dispersion relation takes the form \^2\_k=C()m\^2+x+2\_[s,p]{}(-1)\^[s+p]{}b\_[sp]{}x\^[(s+p)]{}, \[dis\] where $x=\sum_{i=1}^{3}k_i^2/C_i\equiv\sum_{i=1}^{3}x_i\equiv\sum_{i=1}^{3}
x \lambda_i^2$, with $\sum_{i=1}^3\lambda_i^2=1$.
Self-interacting scalar field in Bianchi type I space-times
===========================================================
In this section we are concerned with the renormalization of the equation of motion for the expectation value of a self-interacting scalar field ($\lambda\neq 0$) propagating in a four-dimensional Bianchi type I space-time. We assume that the state of the system is such that the expectation value of the field is $\phi_0$. Then, defining a new quantum field $\hat{\phi}$ as $\phi=\phi_0+\hat{\phi}$, the equation of motion for $\phi_0$ in the one-loop approximation is given by \[Ecphicero\] \_0-m\^2+R+\_2(\_u\^)\^2+\_3 \_u\_\^u\^ +\_5 R\_u\^u\^+2\_[s,ps]{}b\_[sp]{}\^[2(s+p)]{}+12\^2\_0-4\_0\^3=0.The Fourier modes of the scaled field $\chi=C^{1/2}\hat{\phi}$ satisfy +\_k\^2+-CR+Q+\_2 C(\_u\^)\^2+\_3 C \_u\_\^u\^+\_5 C R\_u\^u\^+12 C\_0\^2\_k=0,\[ecparachi\] with the usual normalization condition \^\*-’\^\*=i .\[nor\]
The explicit expressions for the different terms in Eqs. (\[Ecphicero\]) and (\[ecparachi\]) are, in Bianchi type I metrics,
$$\begin{aligned}
&(\nabla_{\mu}u^{\mu})^2=\frac{9 D^2}{4 C},\\
&R_{\mu\nu}u^{\mu}u^{\nu}=- \frac{3}{C}\lb\frac{D'}{2}+2Q\rb,\\
&R=\frac{1}{C}\lb 3 D'+\frac{3}{2}D^2+6Q\rb,\\
&\nabla_{\mu}u_{\nu}\nabla^{\nu}u^{\mu}=\sum_{i=1}^3\frac{d_i^2}{4C}=\frac{3}{4C}(D^2+8Q),\\
&Q=\frac{1}{72}\sum_{i<j}^3 (d_i-d_j)^2,\label{Q}\end{aligned}$$
where $d_i=C_i'/C_i$ and $D=\sum_{i=1}^3 d_i/3=C'/C$. Note that for the metric we are considering2 R\_u\^u\^+R=(\_u\^)\^2-\_u\_\^u\^,and therefore without loss of generality we can set $\xi_5=0$.
For dispersion relations such that the mean value $\langle\hat{\phi}^2\rangle$ in Eq. (\[Ecphicero\]) is divergent, the infinities must be absorbed into the bare constants of the theory. To implement the renormalization, we start by expressing the field modes $\chi_k$ in the well known form = -i\^W\_k()d, \[chi\] which allows us to write \^2=d\^3k [|\_k|\^2]{}=d\^3k .
Substitution of Eq. (\[chi\]) into Eq. (\[ecparachi\]) yields W\_k\^2 = \_k\^2+-CR+Q+\_2C (\_u\^)\^2+\_3 C\_u\_\^u\^+12C \^2\_0+-.\[Weq\] For adiabatic regularization we need the approximate solution of this non-linear differential equation that is obtained by assuming that $W^2_k$ is a slowly varying function of $\eta$. In this adiabatic or WKB approximation the adiabatic order of a term is given by the number of time derivatives of the metric plus the power of $\phi_0$ [@PazMazzi]. The WKB approximation can be obtained by solving the Eq.(\[Weq\]) iteratively W\_k = \^[(0)]{}W\_k + \^[(2)]{}W\_k+... ,where the superscript denote the adiabatic order. To lowest order we have $^{(0)}W_k=\om_k$. The second adiabatic order can be computed replacing $W_k$ by $\om_k$ on the right-hand side of Eq. (\[Weq\]). Thus, we straightforwardly obtain $$\begin{aligned}
^{(2)}W_k^2 & = & C R(\xi-\frac{1 }{6})+Q+\frac{D^2}{16}-\frac{D'}{4}+\xi_2C (\nabla_{\mu}u^{\mu})^2+\xi_3 C\nabla_{\mu}u_{\nu}\nabla^{\nu}u^{\mu} +12\lambda C \phi^2_0 \nonumber\\
&-&\frac{(f+1)}{4}\sum_{i=1}^3\lambda_i^2\lb \frac{D d_i}{2}+ d_i^2-d_i' \rb+ \frac{1}{16} \lp\sum_{i=1}^3d_i\lambda_i^2\rp^2 \lb f^2+6 f-4\dot{f}+5\rb,\label{W2}\end{aligned}$$ where we have defined the function f-1,\[f\] with $\tilde{\omega}_k^2\equiv\omega_k^2/C$. We have also used that
\[derivOmega\] $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{(\om_k^2)'}{\om_k^2}=& D-(f+1)\sum_{i=1}^{3}d_i\lambda_i^2, \\
\frac{(\om_k^2)''}{\om_k^2}=&
D'+D^2+(f+1)\sum_{i=1}^{3}\lambda_i^2[d_i^2-2 d_i
D-d_i']+(\dot{f}+f^2+f)\lp\sum_{i=1}^{3}d_i\lambda_i^2\rp^2,\end{aligned}$$
where a dot indicates a derivative with respect to $\ln x$.
We proceed as for the standard dispersion relation, defining the renormalized expectation value as \^2\_[ren]{}=\^2-\^2\_[ad2]{}, with $\langle\hat{\phi}^2\rangle_{ad2}=\langle\hat{\phi}^2\rangle^{(0)}+\langle\hat{\phi}^2\rangle^{(2)}$, where again the superscripts indicate the adiabatic order.
We now compute the zeroth adiabatic order of $\langle \hat{\phi}^2
\rangle$ and regularize it by using the fact that the integral of a total derivative vanishes in dimensional regularization [@Collins]. For this, and in order to avoid the complications of computing all quantities in $n$-dimensions, we first perform the angular integrations and then generalize the four-dimensional integrals to $n$-dimensions by replacing $d^3k=C^{3/2}d^3y=C^{3/2}y^2dy d\Omega$ ($y_i=k_i/\sqrt{C_i}$) by $C^{3/2}y^{(n-2)}dy d\Omega$.
Therefore, the zeroth adiabatic order is given by \[rencerophi\] \^2\^[(0)]{} =y\^[n-2]{} dy d=, where $I_1$ is given Table \[tabla\]. Note that the integral $I_1$ is divergent unless $\om_k^2$ behaves as $x^{s}$ with $s>3$, for large values of $x$. This divergence can be absorbed in the bare mass of the quantum field (see below).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$I_0 =\int_0^\infty dx\,x^{\frac{(n-3)}{2}}{\tilde{\om}_k}$ $I_3=\int_{0}^{\infty} dx \frac{x^{\frac{(n-3)}{2}}}{\tilde{\omega}_k^3}$
$I_1=\int_0^\infty dx\,\frac{x^{\frac{(n-3)}{2}}}{\tilde{\om}_k}$ $I_4=\int_{0}^{\infty} dx \frac{x^{\frac{(n+1)}{2}}}{\tilde{\omega}_k^5} \frac{d^2\tilde{\omega}_k^2}{{dx}^2}$
$I_2 = \int_0^\infty $I=\int_0^{+\infty}dx\frac{x^{\frac{(n+3)}{2}}}{\tilde{\om}_k^3}\frac{d^3\tilde{\om}_k^2}{{dx}^3}$
dx\,\frac{x^{\frac{(n+1)}{2}}}{\tilde{\om}_k^3}\frac{d^2\tilde{\om}_k^2}{{dx}^2}$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Explicit expressions for $I_{i}$. To obtain these integrals we have made the change of variables $x= y^2$ and we have defined $\tilde{\om}_k=\om_k/\sqrt{C}$.[]{data-label="tabla"}
The second adiabatic order can be written as \^2\^[(2)]{} =-y\^[n-2]{} dy d. The angular integrations can be performed with the use of the identities listed in the Appendix A. After some calculations we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\hat{\phi}^2\rangle^{(2)}
&=&-\frac{1}{16\pi^2}\left\{I_3\lb\frac{D^2}{16 C}-\frac{D'}{4
C}+R\lp\xi-\frac{1}{6}\rp+\frac{Q}{C}+ \xi_2
(\nabla_{\mu}u^{\mu})^2+\xi_3
\nabla_{\mu}u_{\nu}\nabla^{\nu}u^{\mu} +12\lambda
\phi^2_0\rb\right.\nonumber\\ \label{adPhi} &-&\left.\lb\frac{3
D^2}{8 C}+2\frac{Q}{C}-\frac{D'}{4 C}\rb
(J_{1000}+I_3)+\lb\frac{D^2}{16 C}+\frac{ Q}{5 C}\rb(J_{2000}+6
J_{1000}-4 J_{0100}+5 I_3)\right\},\end{aligned}$$ where $I_3$ is given in Table \[tabla\], and we have defined the integrals J \_[m n l s]{}\[JMNLS\]\_[0]{}\^dx\^m \^n\^l \^s,with $m,n,l,s$ integer numbers. As it is shown in the Appendix of Ref.[@NosDos], this integrals can be expressed in terms of the ones in Table \[tabla\] by performing integrations by parts. For $n\to 4$, we have [@NosDos]:
\[jotas\] $$\begin{aligned}
J_{1000}=&0, \\
J_{2000}=&\frac{2}{5}I_4\\
J_{0100}=&\frac{3}{5}I_4.\end{aligned}$$
Then, substituting this results into Eq. (\[adPhi\]) we arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rendosphi}
\langle\hat{\phi}^2\rangle^{(2)}&=&-\frac{I_3}{16\pi^2}\lb
R\lp\xi-\frac{1}{6}\rp +12\lambda \phi^2_0 + \xi_2
(\nabla_{\mu}u^{\mu})^2+\xi_3
\nabla_{\mu}u_{\nu}\nabla^{\nu}u^{\mu}
\rb\nonumber\\&+&\frac{I_4}{480\pi^2}\lb (\nabla_{\mu}u^{\mu})^2+2
\nabla_{\mu}u_{\nu}\nabla^{\nu}u^{\mu} \rb.\end{aligned}$$ This is the main result of this section. The relevant point is that, in addition of the usual terms proportional to $R$ and $\phi_0^2$, the second adiabatic order contains terms with two derivatives of the aether field, which are present even if $\xi_2=\xi_3=0$. For the standard dispersion relation $I_3$ diverges and $I_4$ vanishes (see Table \[tabla\]). Therefore, when $\xi_2=\xi_3=0$ one reobtains the usual result. However, for any other dispersion relation of the type given in Eq. (\[dis\]), $I_3$ and $I_4$ are finite. An interesting point is that, if we consider a generalized dispersion relation, evaluate the integral explicitly in four dimensions and [*then*]{} take the limit in which the dispersion relation tends to the usual one, a nonvanishing finite result can be obtained. For example, a dispersion relation of the form $\om_k^2=C(x+2 b_{11}x^2)$ yields I\_4=2 b\_[11]{}\_[0]{}\^[+]{}dx (1+2 b\_[11]{}x)\^[-]{}=. Therefore, there is a finite remnant of the trans-Planckian physics in the second adiabatic order, even in the limit in which the scale of new physics is very high $M_C\to\infty$ ($b_{11}\to 0$).
Coming back to the mean value equation (\[Ecphicero\]), we write the bare parameters in terms of the renormalized ones plus the corresponding to counterterms: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EcphiceroRe}
&&\Box\phi_0-\left[ m^2_R +\delta m^2+(\xi_R+\delta\xi) R+(\xi_{2R}+\delta\xi_2)(\nabla_{\mu}u^{\mu})^2+(\xi_{3R}+\delta\xi_3) \nabla_{\mu}u_{\nu}\nabla^{\nu}u^{\mu} \right.\nonumber\\
&&+2\sum_{s,p}b_{sp}\mathcal{D}^{2(s+p)}+\left.12\lambda_R\lp\langle\hat{\phi}^2\rangle_{ren}+\langle\hat{\phi}^2\rangle_{ad2}
\rp\right]\phi_0-4(\lambda_R+\delta\lambda)\phi_0^3=0.\end{aligned}$$ Introducing Eqs. (\[rencerophi\]) and (\[rendosphi\]) into Eq. (\[EcphiceroRe\]), we see that the regularized second adiabatic order $\langle\hat{\phi}^2\rangle_{ad2}$ can be absorbed into the bare constants by defining counterterms such that
\[contraterminos\] $$\begin{aligned}
\delta m^2=&-\frac{6\lambda_R }{(2\pi)^2}I_1, \\
\delta\lambda=&\frac{9\lambda_R^2}{(2\pi)^2} I_3, \\
\delta\xi=&\frac{3\lambda_R}{(2\pi)^2}\lp\xi_R-\frac{1}{6}\rp I_3,\\
\delta\xi_2=&\frac{3\lambda_R\xi_{2R}}{(2\pi)^2} I_3-\frac{\lambda_R}{40\pi^2}I_4, \\
\delta\xi_3=&\frac{3\lambda_R\xi_{3R}}{(2\pi)^2}
I_3-\frac{\lambda_R}{20\pi^2}I_4.\end{aligned}$$
Note that, even when the parameters $\xi_{2R}$ and $\xi_{3R}$ are set to zero, the corresponding counterterms arise due to the self-interaction of the scalar field. Note also that by considering the same theory but in a background flat FRW space-time, it is not possible to distinguish between the redefinitions of $\xi_2$ and $\xi_3$ proportional to $I_4$, since in such background we have that \_u\_\^u\^=(\_u\^)\^2.
From the results of this section we conclude that, as long as one considers the renormalization of the mean value equation in Bianchi type I spacetimes, and for the class of MDR considered here, it is enough to subtract the zeroth adiabatic order of $\langle\hat\phi^2\rangle$, since the second adiabatic order produce a finite renormalization of the bare constants of the theory. It would be interesting to check whether this is a general property, i.e. valid for an arbitrary background, or not. In order to address this issue, it would be necessary to know the singularity structure of the two-point function of a quantum field satisfying MDR for arbitrary values of $g_{\mu\nu}$ and $u_{\mu}$. This singularity structure could be revealed by a generalized momentum-space representation of the Green’s functions [@bp79; @r07]. In any case, the calculation of the second adiabatic order presented in this section shows that the interaction terms proportional to $\xi_2$ and $\xi_3$ that appear in Eq. (\[lintgen\]) are generated by quantum effects, even if not present at the classical level. It is likely that the other interaction terms will also be generated in a more general background.
On the renormalization of the stress tensor in Bianchi type I space-times
=========================================================================
In this section we focus on the renormalization of the SEAE. We restrict the analysis to the case of a free scalar field ($\lambda=0$, $\langle\phi\rangle=0$) and, for the sake of simplicity, we set the parameters $\xi_i=0$ (i=1,2,3,4,5).
The SEAE take the form G\_+g\_=8G \[T\_\^[u\_b]{}+T\_\^[\_[c]{}]{}+T\_\^+ T\_\^[clas]{}\] where $\Lambda$ and $G$ are the bare cosmological and Newton’s constants, $G_{\mu\nu}$ is the Einstein tensor, $T_{\mu\nu}^{u,(\phi)}=-\frac{2}{\sqrt{-g}}\frac{\delta
S^{u(\phi)}}{\delta g^{\mu\nu}}$, and $T_{\mu\nu}^{u}=
T_{\mu\nu}^{u_b}+T_{\mu\nu}^{\tilde{\lambda}_{c}}$, $
T_{\mu\nu}^{u_b}$ is the stress tensor of the background vector field while $T_{\mu\nu}^{\tilde{\lambda}_{c}}$ is the additional contribution due to the modification of the Lagrange multiplier $\tilde{\lambda}$ arising from the coupling between the scalar field $\phi$ and $u_{\mu}$. $T_{\mu\nu}^{clas}$ is a stress tensor coming from classical sources not coupled to the aether field. As we will compute the mean value of the stress tensor up to the second adiabatic order, we omit classical terms quadratic in the curvature (we will comment on this issue in the next section).
The nontrivial components of the Einstein tensor are, in Bianchi type I spacetimes:
$$\begin{aligned}
G_{\eta\eta}=& 3\lb\frac{D^2}{4}-Q\rb, \\
G_{ii}=&- \frac{C_i}{2C}\lb 3 D'+\frac{3}{2}D^2+6 Q-d_i'-d_i D\rb.\end{aligned}$$
\[EinsteinTensorBianchi\]
The stress tensor corresponding to the background vector field $u_{\mu}$ can be written as T\_\^[u\_b]{}=-G\_-\_\^[u]{}, whose nonzero components are
$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{T}_{\eta\eta}^{u}=& \frac{9 }{8} D^2, \\
\tilde{T}_{ii}^{u}=& -\frac{3}{2}\frac{C_i}{C}\lb
D'+\frac{D^2}{4}\rb.\end{aligned}$$
\[AETHERTensorBianchi\]
The expectation value of the quantum energy momentum tensor $T_{\mu\nu}=T_{\mu\nu}^{\phi}+T_{\mu\nu}^{\tilde{\lambda}_c}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber\langle T_{\eta\eta}\rangle &=& \frac{1}{2 C} \int
\frac{d^{3}k}{(2\pi)^{3}} \left\{
|\chi_k'|^2+3 D \lp\xi-\frac{1}{6}\rp (\chi_k'\chi_k^*+\chi_k{\chi_k'}^{*})\right.\\
&+&\left.|\chi_k|^2\lb\om_k^2-3D^2\lp\xi-\frac{1}{12}\rp+2\xi G_{\eta\eta}\rb \right\},\\
\nonumber \langle T_{ii}\rangle &=& \frac{C_i}{C^2}\int
\frac{d^3 k}{(2\pi)^{3}}
\left\{\lp\frac{1}{2}-2\xi\rp |\chi_k'|^2+\lp\frac{\xi}{2}(2 D+d_i)-\frac{D}{4}\rp (\chi_k'\chi_k^*+\chi_k{\chi_k'}^{*})\right.\\
&-&\left. \xi(\chi_k''\chi_k^*+\chi_k{\chi_k''}^{*})+|\chi_k|^2\lp k_i^2\frac{d\om_k^2}{
dk_i^2}-\frac{\om_k^2}{2}+\frac{D^2}{8}\rp+\frac{\xi}{2}
|\chi_k|^2\lb 2 D'-d_i D+2\frac{C}{C_i} G_{ii}\rb\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Using the expression given in Eq. (\[chi\]) for the modes $\chi_k$, it can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber\langle T_{\eta\eta}\rangle &=& \frac{1}{2 C} \int
\frac{d^{3}k}{(2\pi)^{3}} \left\{
\frac{[(W_k^2)']^2}{32 W_k^5}-3 D\lp\xi-\frac{1}{6}\rp\frac{(W_k^2)'}{4 W_k^3 }+\frac{W_k}{2}\right.\\
&+&\left.\frac{1}{2 W_k}\lb\om_k^2-3D^2\lp\xi-\frac{1}{12}\rp+2\xi G_{\eta\eta}\rb\right\},\label{Tetaeta}\\
\nonumber \langle T_{ii}\rangle &=& \frac{C_i}{C^2}\int
\frac{d^3 k}{(2\pi)^{3}}
\left\{\lp\frac{1}{8}-3\xi\rp \frac{[(W_k^2)']^2}{8 W_k^5}+\xi \frac{(W_k^2)''}{4 W_k^3}-\frac{(W_k^2)'}{4 W_k^3}\lp-\frac{D}{4}+\frac{\xi}{2}(2 D+d_i)\rp\right.\\
&+&\left. \frac{W_k}{4}+\frac{1}{2 W_k}\lb k_i^2\frac{d\om_k^2}{
dk_i^2}-\frac{\om_k^2}{2}+\frac{D^2}{8}+\xi D'-\frac{\xi}{2}D
d_i+\xi\frac{C}{C_i} G_{ii}\rb\right\}.\label{PPP}\end{aligned}$$
Therefore, the zeroth adiabatic order can be expressed in the form
$$\begin{aligned}
\langle T_{\eta\eta}\rangle^{(0)} =& \frac{C}{2} \int
\frac{d\Omega dy}{(2\pi)^{3}}
y^{n-2}\tilde{\om}_k=\frac{C}{2(2\pi)^2}\int_0^{+\infty}dx
x^{\frac{n-3}{2}}\tilde{\om}_k,\\\label{ordenceroii} \langle
T_{ii}\rangle^{(0)}=& \frac{C_i}{2 } \int \frac{d\Omega
dy}{(2\pi)^{3}} y^{n-2} \lambda_i^2
\frac{y^2}{\tilde{\om}_k}\frac{d\tilde{\om}_k^2}{dy^2}=\frac{
C_i}{3 (2\pi)^2}\int_{0}^{+\infty}dx
x^{\frac{n-1}{2}}\frac{d\tilde{\om}_k}{dx},\end{aligned}$$
where we have used that $\int d\Omega \lambda_i^2=4\pi/3$. Then, after an integration by parts in Eq. (\[ordenceroii\]) we obtain, as $n\to4$, T\_\^[(0)]{}=-g\_,where $I_0$ is a divergent integral as $n\to 4$ for any of the dispersion relations given in Eq. (\[dis\]) (see Table \[tabla\]). Hence, this regularized adiabatic order can be absorbed into a redefinition of the bare cosmological constant $\Lambda$.
The second adiabatic order of $\langle T_{\mu\nu}\rangle$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\langle T_{\eta\eta}\rangle^{(2)} &=& \frac{C}{2} \int
\frac{d\Omega dy}{(2\pi)^{3}}
\frac{y^{(n-2)}}{\tilde{\om}_k}\left\{
\frac{[(\om_k^2)']^2}{32 \om_k^4}-3 D\lp\xi-\frac{1}{6}\rp\frac{(\om_k^2)'}{4 \om_k^2}-\frac{3}{2}D^2\lp\xi-\frac{1}{12}\rp+\xi G_{\eta\eta}\right\},\label{TetaetasecOeden}\\
\nonumber \langle T_{ii}\rangle^{(2)} &=& C_i\int \frac{d\Omega
dy}{(2\pi)^{3}}\frac{y^{(n-2)}}{\tilde{\om}_k}
\left\{\lp\frac{1}{8}-3\xi\rp \frac{[(\om_k^2)']^2}{8 \om_k^4}+\xi \frac{(\om_k^2)''}{4 \om_k^2}-\frac{(\om_k^2)'}{4 \om_k^2}\lp-\frac{D}{4}+\frac{\xi}{2}(2 D+d_i)\rp\right.\\
&+&\left.\frac{^{(2)}W_k^2}{4}\lp1-\lambda_i^2\frac{y^2}{\om_k^2}\frac{d\om_k^2}{dy^2}\rp+\frac{D^2}{16}+\frac{\xi}{2} D'-\frac{\xi}{4}D d_i+\xi\frac{C}{2 C_i} G_{ii}\right\},\label{PPPSegorden}\end{aligned}$$ where ${}^{(2)}W_k^2$ is given by the expression in Eq. (\[W2\]) with $\lambda=\xi_{2}=\xi_{3}=0$. The explicit expressions for $(\om_k^2)'/{\om}_k^2$ and $({\om}_k^2)''/{\om}_k^2$ are given in Eq. (\[derivOmega\]).
After performing the angular integrations with the use of the identities given in the Appendix A and some algebraic manipulations, we obtain:
\[segordenInt\] $$\begin{aligned}
\langle T_{\eta\eta}\rangle^{(2)} &= \frac{1}{(2\pi)^2}[\alpha_1 D^2+\alpha_2 Q],\\
\langle T_{ii}\rangle^{(2)} &= \frac{C_i}{C(2\pi)^2}[\beta_1 D^2+\beta_2 D'+\beta_3 D d_i+\beta_4 Q+\beta_5 d_i^2+\beta_6
d_i'].\end{aligned}$$
The coefficients $\alpha_i$ and $\beta_i$ are given in Appendix B, where it is also shown that using integration by parts they can be expressed in terms of two of the integrals in Table \[tabla\]. Thus, we find \[divad2tmunu\] T\_\^[(2)]{}={I\_1--G\_+ \^[u]{}\_}.
Note that both $I_1$ and $I_2$ diverge when $\om_k^2$ behaves as $x^{s}, s\leq 3$ for large values of $x$. Therefore, in this case the divergences should be absorbed into the bare constants $G$ and $b_2$. However, when $s>3$, the second adiabatic order produce finite renormalizations of both constants.
As in the evaluation of $\langle\hat\phi^2\rangle$ presented in the previous section, depending on the dispersion relation one could have a remnant of the trans-Planckian physics in the second adiabatic order of $\langle T_{\mu\nu}\rangle$. Indeed, while $I_2$ vanishes for the standard dispersion relation, a non vanishing (and even divergent) result can be obtained for MDR in the limit $M_C\to\infty$. For example, for a dispersion relation of the form $\om_k^2=C(x+2 b_{22} x^4)$ we find that I\_2=24 b\_[22]{}\_[0]{}\^[+]{}dx =1/64/3, which diverges as $M_C\to\infty$ ($b_{22}\to 0$).
Eq. (\[divad2tmunu\]) is the main result of this section. We see that, for a generalized dispersion relation of the type given in Eq. (\[dis\]), not only a redefinition of the Newton’s constant is necessary in order to cancel the divergences of the second adiabatic order, but also a redefinition of the coefficient $b_2$ which corresponds to the term $(\nabla_{\mu}u^{\mu})^2$ in the bare Lagrangian of the vector field. The second adiabatic order contains terms that are non-purely geometric, in the sense that they cannot be written only in terms of the metric, but also involve the aether field.
It is noteworthy that for a background flat FRW space-time $G_{\mu\nu}=3/2 \tilde{T}^{u}_{\mu\nu}$ , thereby, in Refs.[@NosUno; @NosDos] it was not possible to realize that a redefinition of the Newton’s constant is not enough for cancelling the second adiabatic order. In fact, for this particular space-time $G_{\mu\nu}$ is the unique covariantly conserved tensor of adiabatic order two that can be derived from an action formed by combining the vector field $u^{\mu}$, the metric $g_{\mu\nu}$, and their derivatives.
Discussion
==========
In this paper we have worked within the context of a generally covariant theory of gravitation coupled to a dynamical time-like Lorentz-violating vector field. We considered a quantum scalar field satisfying MDR, and analyzed the renormalization of the infinities that arise in the semiclassical theory. In particular, considering Bianchi type I spacetimes, we have analyzed the dynamical equation for the expectation value of a self-interacting scalar field (Section III), and the SEAE for the metric in the case of a free scalar field (Section IV). With the use of adiabatic subtraction and dimensional regularization, we have shown that, in addition to the usual terms required to absorb the infinities of the second adiabatic orders, it is necessary to consider more general counterterms that involve the aether field. This property was not apparent in our previous works [@NosUno; @NosDos], due to the high symmetry of the flat Robertson Walker metrics.
These results suggest that, in a more general background metric, any covariant term which can be formed by combining the vector field $u^{\mu}$, the metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ and up to two of their derivatives, will appear in the regularized second adiabatic order of the expectation value of the quantum stress tensor, provided that the theory contains a scalar field with a generalized dispersion relation of the type given in Eq. (\[dis\]). Hence, in order to absorb the divergences contained in the second adiabatic order, a bare action as general as the one given in Eq. (\[Sg\]) should be considered. Depending on the particular dispersion relation of the quantum field, the second adiabatic order may be finite. If this is the case, quantum effects generate finite renormalizations of the constants appearing in the classical Lagrangian. As we have also pointed out in Section IV, this finite renormalizations could be extremely large.
In the weak-field limit, the terms proportional to the constants $b_i$ in Eq. (\[lu\]) could have observable consequences. Indeed, the most general action given in Eq. (\[Sg\]) has four free parameters more than general relativity. This theory has been studied in several contexts, such as of the static weak-field limit [@Jacobsondebil], the radiation and propagation of the aether-gravitational waves [@Jacobsonwave], cosmology [@LimCarrolBarrow], etc., in which stringent constraints on the parameters have been imposed to make the theory consistent with observation. For example, in Ref. [@Jacobsondebil] it is shown that for all the PPN parameters to agree with observation, the four additional parameters of the model must satisfy two constraint equations with sufficient accuracy (i.e., the additional four-parameter space of the model has to be practically reduced to a two-dimensional subspace). In the absence of a known mechanism to explain why the parameters satisfy precisely such constraint equations, it seems that quantum effects generate a fine-tuning problem in the Einstein-Aether theory. This is analogous to the fine-tuning problem present in the Myers-Pospelov modification of QED [@pipi].
In this paper we restricted ourselves to the evaluation of the adiabatic expansion up to the second adiabatic order, in a particular class of background metrics. By power counting, we expect the fourth adiabatic order $\langle
T_{\mu\nu}\rangle^{(4)}$ to be finite in these metrics. However, there could be some subtleties related to the would be Gauss-Bonnet invariant in four dimensions [@NosProc; @NosDos]. In the light of the results obtained in this paper, this issue should be reexamined. One should compute $\langle
T_{\mu\nu}\rangle^{(4)}$ for a general background metric and aether field (this could be done by generalizing the momentum-space representation of the Green’s functions). On dimensional grounds we expect $\langle T_{\mu\nu}\rangle^{(4)}$ to contain terms proportional to the variation of $R
(\nabla_{\mu}u^{\mu})^2$, $(R_{\mu\nu}u^{\mu}u^{\nu})^2$, $R_{\mu\nu}u^{\mu}u^{\nu} R$, $R_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}u^{\mu}u^{\rho}
R^{\nu\sigma}$, etc., in addition to the usual ones: $R^2$, $R_{\mu\nu}R^{\mu\nu}$ and $R_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}R^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}$. Depending on the MDR, the fourth adiabatic order could be finite or divergent when expressed in terms of such variations. This fact would define whether it is necessary or not to subtract the fourth adiabatic order in a general background, for a given dispersion relation. Work in this direction is in progress.
Appendix A: Identities for Bianchi type I space-times {#appendix-a-identities-for-bianchi-type-i-space-times .unnumbered}
=====================================================
In this Appendix we briefly summarize some useful formulas required for the adiabatic regularization of $\langle
\hat{\phi}^2\rangle^{(2)}$ and $\langle T_{\mu\nu}\rangle^{(2)}$ in Bianchi type I space-times.
As we have already mentioned in the text, in order to regularize the theory we perform the four-dimensional angular integrations and then generalize the integrals to $n$-dimensions. We rescale the integration variables $k_i\to y_i=k_i/C_i$ and transform the volume element $d^{3}y$ from rectangular coordinates to spherical coordinates $y^2 dy d\Omega$, where $d\Omega$ is the solid angle element. In terms of $y^2_i=y^2 \lambda_i^2$, the relevant integrals are of the form I(i,j,k)= d\_1\^[2i]{}\_2\^[2j]{}\_3\^[2k]{}, which can be evaluated by using the fact that they are invariant under permutations of $\{i,j,k\}$. We provide here a list of the integrals we have used in this paper (see [@Hu] for more details):
\[ANGULARINT\] $$\begin{aligned}
I(0,0,k)=&\frac{4\pi}{2k+1},\\
I(1,1,0)=&\frac{4\pi}{5\times 3},\\
I(1,2,0)=&\frac{4\pi}{7\times 5},\\
I(1,1,1)=&\frac{4\pi}{7\times 5 \times 3}.\end{aligned}$$
These results, together with the formula $\sum_{i=1}^3d_i^2=3(8
Q+D^2)$, allow us to derive the following identities:
\[identities\] $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j=1}^{3}\sum_{k=1}^{3}\int d\Omega d_j d_k \lambda_j^2\lambda_k^2=&4\pi\lp D^2+\frac{16}{5}Q\rp,\\
\sum_{j=1}^{3}\sum_{k=1}^{3}\int d\Omega d_j d_k \lambda_i^2\lambda_j^2\lambda_k^2=&\frac{4\pi}{7\times 5}\lb 5 D^2+4 d_i D +\frac{8}{3}d_i^2+16 Q\rb,\\
\sum_{j=1}^{3}\int d\Omega (d_j'+2 d_j D-d_j^2)
\lambda_i^2\lambda_j^2=&\frac{4\pi}{5\times 3}\lb 2(d_i'+2 d_i
D-d_i^2)+3(D'+D^2-8 Q)\rb\; ,\end{aligned}$$
that are useful for the evaluation of $\langle
\hat{\phi}^2\rangle^{(2)}$ and $\langle T_{\mu\nu}\rangle^{(2)}$.
Appendix B: Regularization of $\langle T_{\mu\nu}\rangle^{(2)}$ in Bianchi type I space-times {#appendix-b-regularization-of-langle-t_munurangle2-in-bianchi-type-i-space-times .unnumbered}
=============================================================================================
In this Appendix we provide some details for computing the second adiabatic order of the expectation value of the quantum energy momentum tensor. The explicit expressions for the coefficients appearing in Eq. (\[segordenInt\])are:
\[coeff\] $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_1=&\frac{1}{64}[-4 I_{10}+ I_{20}+4( I_{00}-6\xi I_{00}+6\xi I_{10})],\\
\alpha_2=&\frac{1}{20}[ I_{00}+2 I_{10}+ I_{20}-30\xi I_{00}],\\
\beta_1=&\frac{1}{2240}[52 I_{00}-120 I_{01}-76 I_{10}+20 I_{11}+77 I_{20}-5 I_{30}+280\xi (-I_{00}+2 I_{01}+I_{10}-I_{20})],\\
\beta_2=&\frac{1}{640}[2 I_{00}+39 I_{10}-8 I_{20}-20\xi(22 I_{00}+I_{10})],\\
\beta_3=&\frac{1}{1680}[-8 I_{00}+12 I_{01}-19 I_{10}+12 I_{11}-14 I_{20}-3 I_{30}+210\xi I_{10}],\\
\beta_4=&\frac{1}{140}[-24 I_{01}+3 I_{10}+4 I_{11}+21 I_{20}-I_{30}-14\xi(-8 I_{01}+I_{10}+4 I_{20})+I_{00} (42\xi-19)],\\
\beta_5=&\frac{1}{840}[2 I_{00}+4 I_{01}+3 I_{10}+4 I_{11}-I_{30}],\\
\beta_6=&\frac{1}{120}[-I_{00}-2 I_{10}-I_{20}+30\xi I_{00}],\end{aligned}$$
where the integrals $I_{mn}$ are given by I\_[mn]{}=\_[0]{}\^[+]{} dx f\^[m]{}\^n, with $m,n=0,1,2,3$.
Let us now sketch the procedure to find relations between these coefficients in the context of dimensional regularization, which is completely analogous to the one described in the Appendix of Ref.[@NosDos] for relating the integrals $ J _{m n l s}$ of Eq. (\[JMNLS\]). By definition, $I_{00}=I_1$, and $$\begin{aligned}
I_{10}&=&\int_{0}^{+\infty} dx \frac{x^{\frac{n-3}{2}}}{\tilde{\om}_k}\lp\frac{x}{\tilde{\om}_k^2}\frac{d\tilde{\om}_k^2}{dx}-1\rp=-2\int_{0}^{+\infty} dx x^{\frac{n-1}{2}}\frac{d\tilde{\om}_k^{-1}}{dx}-I_1\\\nonumber
&=&(n-1)I_1-I_1 \,{ }_{\overrightarrow{(n\to 4)}} 2I_1,\end{aligned}$$where we have performed an integration by parts and discarded the surface term. Similarly, one can prove that
$$\begin{aligned}
I_{20}=&\frac{2}{3}I_2,\\
I_{30}=&\frac{4}{5}I_2+\frac{8}{15}I,\\
I_{01}=&-2I_1+\frac{1}{3}I_2,\\
I_{11}=&-\frac{2}{15}I_2+\frac{2}{15}I,\end{aligned}$$
where the integrals $I_i$ on the right hand side are given in Table \[tabla\], and $I$ (which does not appear in the final results) is given by I=\_[0]{}\^ dx .
Replacing these results into Eq. (\[coeff\]), we obtain:
$$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_1=&\frac{3}{8}I_1\lp\xi-\frac{1}{6}\rp+\frac{I_2}{96},\\
\alpha_2=&-\frac{3}{2}I_1\lp\xi-\frac{1}{6}\rp+\frac{I_2}{30},\\
\beta_1=&-\frac{3}{8}I_1\lp\xi-\frac{1}{6}\rp+\frac{I_2}{480},\\
\beta_2=&-\frac{3}{4}I_1\lp\xi-\frac{1}{6}\rp-\frac{I_2}{120},\\
\beta_3=&\beta_6=\frac{1}{4}I_1\lp\xi-\frac{1}{6}\rp-\frac{I_2}{180},\\
\beta_4=&-\frac{3}{2}I_1\lp\xi-\frac{1}{6}\rp+\frac{I_2}{30},\\
\beta_5=& 0.\end{aligned}$$
Finally, after substituting these coefficients into Eq. (\[segordenInt\]) we arrive at Eq. (\[divad2tmunu\]).
We would like to thank T. Jacobson and H. Vucetich for useful correspondence and discussions. This work has been supported by Universidad de Buenos Aires, CONICET and ANPCyT.
[99]{}
R. H. Brandenberger and J. Martin, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 123501 (2001);ibidem Mod. Phys. Lett. [**A16**]{}, 999 (2001);ibidem Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 063513 (2003); J. C. Niemeyer and R. Parentani, Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 101301 (R) (2001).
R. H. Brandenberger and J. Martin, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 023504 (2005);J. C. Niemeyer, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 123502 (2001).
G. Amelino-Camelia, J. Ellis, N. E. Mavromatos, D. V. Nanopoulos, and S. Sarkar, Nature, 393 (1998) 763; G. Amelino-Camelia, New J. Phys. 6 (2004) 188.
D. López Nacir, F. D. Mazzitelli, and C. Simeone, Phys.Rev. D [**72**]{}, 124013 (2005).
D. López Nacir, F. D. Mazzitelli, and C. Simeone, J.Phys. A [**40**]{}, 6895 (2007).
D. López Nacir and F. D. Mazzitelli, Phys.Rev. D [**76**]{}, 024013 (2007).
Ya. B. Zeldovich and A. A. Starobinsky, Sov. Phys. JETP [**34**]{}, 1159 (1972); L. Parker and S. A. Fulling, Phys. Rev. D [**9**]{}, 341 (1974); S. A. Fulling and L. Parker, Ann. Phys. NY [**87**]{}, 176 (1974); S. A. Fulling, L. Parker and B. L. Hu, Phys. Rev. D [**10**]{}, 3905 (1974); T. S. Bunch, J. Phys. A [**13**]{}, 1297 (1980).
P. R Anderson and L. Parker, Phys. Rev. D [**36**]{}, 2963 (1987); N. D. Birrell, Proc. Royal Soc. London, [**361**]{}, 513 (1978).
We thank T. Jacobson for suggesting that this could be the case.
T. Jacobson and D. Mattingly, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 041502(R) (2001); ibidem D [**64**]{}, 024028 (2001).
B. Z. Foster and T. Jacobson, Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 064015 (2006); C. Eling, T. Jacobson, and D. Mattingly, gr-qc/0410001 (2005); T. Jacobson, arXiv:0711.3822 \[gr-qc\](2007).
C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler, [*Gravitation*]{} (Freeman, San Francisco, 1973).
J. P. Paz and F. D. Mazzitelli, Phys. Rev. D [**37**]{}, 2170 (1988).
J. Collins, [*Renormalization*]{}, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1984).
T. S. Bunch and L. Parker, Phys. Rev. D [**20**]{}, 2499 (1979).
M. Rinaldi, arXiv:0709.2657 \[gr-qc\](2007).
T. Jacobson and D. Mattingly, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}, 024003 (2004).
B. Li, D. F. Mota, and J. D. Barrow, 0709.4581 \[astro-ph\] (2007); E. A. Lim, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 063504 (2005); S. M. Carroll and E. A. Lim, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{} 123525, (2004).
J. Collins, A. Perez, D. Sudarsky, L. Urrutia, and H. Vucetich, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 191301 (2004); P.M. Crichigno and H. Vucetich, Phys. Lett. B [**651**]{}, 313 (2007).
B. L. Hu, Phys. Rev. D [**12**]{},4460 (1978); S. A. Fulling, L. Parker, and B. L. Hu, Phys. Rev. D [**10**]{},3905 (1974); ibidem D [**11**]{},1714 (1975).
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We solve the problem of characterizing the Kronecker structure of a matrix pencil obtained by a rank-one perturbation of another matrix pencil. The results hold over arbitrary fields.'
author:
- 'Itziar Baragaña[^1], Alicia Roca[^2]'
bibliography:
- 'referencesreg.bib'
title: 'Rank-one perturbations of matrix pencils'
---
matrix pencils, Kronecker structure, rank perturbation
15A21, 15A22, 47A55
Introduction
============
Given a matrix pencil $A(s)=A_0+sA_1 \in {\mathbb F}^{n\times m}$, the rank perturbation problem consists in characterizing the Kronecker structure of $A(s)+P(s)$, where $P(s)$ is a matrix pencil of bounded rank.
The Kronecker structure of a matrix pencil is determined by the complete system of invariants for the strict equivalence of matrix pencils, i.e., the invariant factors, infinite elementary divisors, and row and column minimal indices. For regular matrix pencils the Kronecker structure is known as the Weierstrass structure and is determined only by the invariant factors and the infinite elementary divisors. In particular, the Jordan structure of a square matrix is defined by the Weierstrass structure of the associated characteristic pencil, which is a regular pencil without infinite elementary divisors. Analogously, the feedback invariants of a pair of matrices, i.e., the invariant factors and the column (or row) minimal indices are the Kronecker invariants of the associated characteristic pencil.
In the last decades rank perturbations of matrix pencils have been analyzed in many papers from different approaches. The problem has been studied generically, i.e., when the perturbation $P(s)$ belongs to an open and dense subset of the set of pencils of rank less than or equal to $r$, for a given integer $r$. In other cases, the pencil $P(s)$ is an arbitrary perturbation belonging to the whole set of pencils of rank less than or equal to $r$. In this paper we follow the second approach.
From a generic point of view, changes in the Jordan structure of a square constant matrix or in the Weierstrass structure of a regular pencil corresponding to a fixed eigenvalue after low rank perturbations have been studied, among others, in [@Batzke14; @BaMeRaRo16; @TeDo16; @TeDoMo08; @MeMeRaRo11; @MoDo03; @Sa02; @Sa04]. See also the references therein.
The case where the perturbation is an arbitrary square matrix $P$ or a regular matrix pencil $P(s)$ has also been studied by several authors. For square constant matrices and a constant perturbation of bounded rank $r$, a solution is given in [@Silva88_1] and [@Za91]. For $r=1$ the problem was already solved in [@Th80]. The case where the perturbation has fixed rank has been solved in [@Silva88_1] over algebraically closed fields.
For regular pencils the problem has been studied for $r=1$ in [@GeTr17]. For arbitrary perturbations of bounded rank the problem has been solved in [@BaRo18], and for perturbations of fixed rank in [@BaRo19]. In both cases the solutions obtained do not involve any condition on the rank of the type “low-rank”, and the results hold for fields having sufficient number of elements (fields requiring just the condition that at least one element of the field or the point at infinity is not included neither in the spectrum of the original pencil nor in the perturbed one).
There is less literature dealing with the case of singular pencils. The problem is more difficult, since the row and column minimal indices of the pencils are involved. For non full rank pencils the change of the four types of invariants under generic low rank perturbations has been characterized in [@TeDo07]. For square singular pencils, in [@LeMaPhTrWi18] the authors represent pencils via linear relations and obtain bounds for the number of Jordan chains which may change under an arbitrary rank-one perturbation. The problem of characterizing the feedback equivalence invariants of a pair of matrices, i.e., the Kronecker invariants of the associated characteristic pencil, under a constant perturbation of bounded rank is solved in [@DoSt14]. Here, the authors find the solution relating the problem to a matrix pencil completion problem.
In this paper we study arbitrary rank-one perturbations of matrix pencils. We solve the problem transforming it into a matrix pencil completion problem. The solution obtained holds for arbitrary fields.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[secpreliminaries\] we introduce the notation, basic definitions and preliminary results. In Section \[secproblem\] we establish the problem which we are going to study and relate it to a matrix pencil completion problem. Then, in Section \[seccompletion\] we introduce previous results about completion of matrix pencils which will be needed later. In Section \[sectechnical\] some thecnical lemmas are proved. In Section \[secmain\], a solution to the stated rank-one perturbation problem is given in Theorem \[maintheogen\]. Finally, in Section \[secconclusions\] we summarize the main contributions of the paper.
Preliminaries {#secpreliminaries}
=============
Let ${\mathbb F}$ be a field. ${\mathbb F}[s]$ denotes the ring of polynomials in the indeterminate $s$ with coefficients in ${\mathbb F}$ and ${\mathbb F}[s, t]$ the ring of polynomials in two variables $s, t$ with coefficients in ${\mathbb F}$. We denote by ${\mathbb F}^{p\times q}$, ${\mathbb F}[s]^{p\times q}$ and ${\mathbb F}[s, t]^{p\times q}$ the vector spaces of $p\times q$ matrices with elements in ${\mathbb F}$, ${\mathbb F}[s]$ and ${\mathbb F}[s, t]$, respectively. $\Gl_p({\mathbb F})$ will be the general linear group of invertible matrices in ${\mathbb F}^{p \times p}$.
Given a polynomial matrix $G(s)\in {\mathbb F}[s]^{p\times q}$, the [*degree*]{} of $G(s)$, denoted by $\deg(G(s))$, is the maximum of the degrees of its entries. The [*normal rank*]{} of $G(s)$, denoted by $\rank (G(s))$, is the order of the largest nonidentically zero minor of $G(s)$, i.e., it is the rank of $G(s)$ considered as a matrix on the field of fractions of ${\mathbb F}[s]$.
A [*matrix pencil*]{} is a polynomial matrix $G(s)\in {\mathbb F}[s]^{p\times q}$ such that $\deg(G(s))\leq1$. The pencil is [*regular*]{} if $p=q$ and $\det(G(s))$ is not the zero polynomial. Otherwise it is [*singular*]{}.
Two matrix pencils $G(s)=G_0+sG_1, H(s)=H_0+sH_1\in {\mathbb F}[s]^{p\times q}$ are [*strictly equivalent*]{} ($G(s){\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}H(s)$) if there exist invertible matrices $Q\in \Gl_p({\mathbb F})$, $R\in \Gl_q({\mathbb F})$ such that $G(s)=QH(s)R$.
Given the pencil $G(s)=G_0+sG_1 \in {\mathbb F}[s]^{p\times q}$ of $\rank G(s)=n$, a complete system of invariants for the strict equivalence of matrix pencils is formed by a chain of homogeneous polynomials $\Gamma_1(s,t) \mid \dots \mid \Gamma_n(s,t),\ \Gamma_i(s,t) \in {\mathbb F}[s,t], \ 1\leq i\leq n$, called the [*homogeneous invariant factors*]{}, and two collections of nonnegative integers $c_1\geq \dots \geq c_{q-n}$ and $u_1\geq \dots \geq u_{p-n}$, called the [*column and row minimal indices*]{} of the pencil, respectively. In turn, the homogeneous invariant factors are determined by a chain of polynomials $\gamma_1(s)\mid \ldots \mid \gamma_n(s)$ in ${\mathbb F}[s]$, called the invariant factors, and a chain of polynomials $t^{k_1}\mid \ldots \mid t^{k_n}$ in ${\mathbb F}[t]$, called the infinite elementary divisors. In fact, we can write $$\Gamma_i(s,t)=t^{k_i}t^{\deg(\gamma_i(s))}\gamma_i\left(\frac st\right), \ 1\leq i\leq n.$$ The associated canonical form is the Kronecker canonical form. For details see [@Friedland80 Ch. 2] or [@Ga74 Ch. 12] for infinite fields, and [@Ro03 Ch. 2] for arbitrary fields. In what follows we will work with the homogeneous invariant factors. We will take $\Gamma_i(s,t)=1$ ($\gamma_i(s)=1$) whenever $i<1$ and $\Gamma_i(s,t)=0$ ($\gamma_i(s)=0$) when $i>n$. The sum of the degrees of the homogeneous invariant factors plus the sum of the minimal indices is equal to the rank of the pencil. Also, if $T(s)=G(s)^T$, then $G(s)$ and $T(s)$ share the homogeneous invariant factors and have interchanged minimal indices, i.e., the column (row) minimal indices of $T(s)$ are the row (column) minimal indices of $G(s)$.
Observe that if $G(s)\in {\mathbb F}[s]^{p\times q}$ and $\rank (G(s))=p$ ($\rank (G(s))=q$), then $G(s)$ does not have row (column) minimal indices. As a consequence, the invariants for the strict equivalence of regular matrix pencils are reduced to the homogeneous invariant factors.
In this paper we study the Kronecker structure of arbitrary pencils perturbed by pencils of rank one. A matrix pencil of rank one allows a very simple decomposition (see [@GeTr17] for ${\mathbb F}={\mathbb C}$). In the next proposition we analyze this decomposition for arbitrary fields, depending on the Kronecker structure of the pencil.
\[pencil1\] Let $P(s)\in{\mathbb F}[s]^{p\times q}$ be a matrix pencil of $\rank P(s)=1$.
1. If $P(s)$ has a nontrivial invariant factor, then there exist nonzero vectors $u\in {\mathbb F}^{p}$, $\bar v\in {\mathbb F}^q$ and nonzero pencils $\bar u(s)\in {\mathbb F}[s]^{p}$, $v(s)\in {\mathbb F}[s]^{q}$ such that $$P(s)=uv(s)^T=\bar u(s)\bar v^T.$$
2. If $P(s)$ has an infinite elementary divisor, then there exist nonzero vectors $u \in {\mathbb F}^{p}$, $v\in {\mathbb F}^q$ such that $$P(s)=uv^T.$$
3. If $P(s)$ has a positive column minimal index, then there exist a nonzero vector $u\in {\mathbb F}^{p}$ and a nonzero pencil $v(s)\in {\mathbb F}[s]^{q}$ such that $$P(s)=uv(s)^T.$$
4. If $P(s)$ has a positive row minimal index, then there exist a nonzero vector $v\in {\mathbb F}^{q}$ and a nonzero pencil $u(s)\in {\mathbb F}[s]^{p}$ such that $$P(s)=u(s)v^T.$$
[*Proof.*]{} Let $P_c(s)$ be the Kronecker canonical form of $P(s)$. Then, there exist $Q=\begin{bmatrix}q_1&\dots&q_p\end{bmatrix}\in \Gl_{p}({\mathbb F})$ and $R=\begin{bmatrix}r_1^T\\\vdots\\r_q^T\end{bmatrix}\in \Gl_{q}({\mathbb F})$ such that $P(s)=QP_c(s)R$.
1. If $P(s)$ has a nontrivial invariant factor $s+\lambda$, $\lambda \in {\mathbb F}$, then $P_c(s)=\begin{bmatrix}
s+\lambda &0 \\0&0
\end{bmatrix}\in {\mathbb F}[s]^{p\times q}$. Hence, $P(s)=((s+\lambda)q_1)r_1^T=q_1((s+\lambda)r_1)^T.$
2. If $P(s)$ has an infinite elementary divisor, then $P_c(s)=\begin{bmatrix}
1&0\\
0&0\end{bmatrix}\in {\mathbb F}[s]^{p\times q}.$ Therefore, $P(s)=q_1r_1^T$.
3. If $P(s)$ has a positive column minimal index, then $P_c(s)=
\begin{bmatrix}
s&1 &0\\
0&0 &0\\
0&0& 0
\end{bmatrix}\in {\mathbb F}[s]^{p\times q}.$ Therefore, $P(s)=q_1(sr_1^T+r_2^T)$.
4. If $P(s)$ has a positive row minimal index, then $P(s)^T$ has a positive column minimal index. Therefore, $P(s)^T=q_1(sr_1^T+r_2^T)$, i.e., $P(s)=(sr_1+r_2)q_1^T$, as desired.
$\Box$
Statement of the problem {#secproblem}
========================
The problem we deal with in this paper is the following:
\[problem\] Given two matrix pencils $A(s), B(s)\in {\mathbb F}[s]^{p \times q}$, find necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of a matrix pencil $P(s)\in {\mathbb F}[s]^{p \times q}$ of $\rank( P(s))=1$ such that $A(s)+P(s){\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}B(s)$.
First of all we analyze two particular cases.
- $p=1$ or $q=1$, and $A(s)\neq 0$ or $B(s)\neq 0$. If ${\mathbb F}\neq \{0, 1\}$, there always exists $P(s)=P_0+sP_1\in {\mathbb F}[s]^{p\times q}$ of $\rank (P(s))=1$ such that $A(s)+P(s){\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}P(s)$. For example, if $p=1$, let $c\in {\mathbb F}\setminus \{0\}$ be such that $A(s)\neq cB(s)$. Then $A(s)+(cB(s)-A(s)){\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}B(s)$. If ${\mathbb F}= \{0, 1\}$, then there exists $P(s)\in {\mathbb F}[s]^{p\times q}$ such that $\rank (P(s))=1$ and $A(s)+P(s){\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}B(s)$ if and only if $A(s)\neq B(s)$.
- $p>1$ or $q>1$, and $A(s), B(s)\in {\mathbb F}[s]^{p \times q}$ are such that $A(s){\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}B(s)$ and $A(s)\neq 0$. Then there always exists $P(s)\in {\mathbb F}[s]^{p \times q}$ of $\rank( P(s))=1$ such that $A(s)+P(s){\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}B(s)$. For example, let $q=2$ and let $a_1(s)\neq 0$, $a_2(s)$ be the columns of $A(s)$. Then, $B(s){\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}A(s){\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}A(s)\begin{bmatrix}1&1\\0&1\end{bmatrix}=
A(s)+\begin{bmatrix}0& a_1(s)\end{bmatrix}$.
The next lemma shows that in order to solve Problem \[problem\] the pencil $A(s)$ can be substituted by any other pencil strictly equivalent to $A(s)$. It was proven in [@BaRo18 Lemma 3.2] for $p=q$. The proof for the general case is completely analogous.
\[lemmasust\] Let $A(s), B(s), P(s)\in {\mathbb F}[s]^{p\times q}$ be matrix pencils. Let $Q\in \Gl_p({\mathbb F})$, $R\in \Gl_q({\mathbb F})$ and $ A'(s)=Q A(s)R$. If $A(s)+P(s){\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}B(s)$ then $A'(s)+QP(s)R{\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}B(s)$.
Problem \[problem\] can be stated as a pencil completion problem, as we see next.
\[lemmaeq\] Let $A(s), B(s)\in {\mathbb F}[s]^{p \times q}$ be matrix pencils such that $A(s)\not {\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}B(s)$. Then there exists a matrix pencil $P(s)\in {\mathbb F}[s]^{p\times q}$ of $\rank P(s)=1$ such that $A(s)+P(s){\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}B(s)$ if and only if one of the following conditions holds:
1. There exist matrix pencils $a(s), b(s)\in{\mathbb F}[s]^{1\times q}$, $A_{21}(s)\in {\mathbb F}[s]^{(p-1)\times q}$ such that $ A(s){\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}\begin{bmatrix}a(s)\\A_{21}(s)\end{bmatrix}$ and $B(s){\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}\begin{bmatrix}b(s)\\A_{21}(s)\end{bmatrix}$.
2. There exist matrix pencils $\bar a(s), \bar b(s)\in{\mathbb F}[s]^{p\times 1}$, $A_{12}(s)\in {\mathbb F}[s]^{p\times (q-1)}$ such that $ A(s){\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}\begin{bmatrix}\bar a(s)&A_{12}(s)\end{bmatrix}$ and $B(s){\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}\begin{bmatrix}\bar b(s)&A_{12}(s)\end{bmatrix}$.
[*Proof.*]{} Assume that there exists a matrix pencil $P(s)\in {\mathbb F}[s]^{p\times q}$ of $\rank P(s)=1$ such that $A(s)+P(s){\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}B(s)$. By Proposition \[pencil1\], there exist nonzero pencils $ u(s)\in {\mathbb F}[s]^{p}$, $v(s)\in {\mathbb F}[s]^{q}$ such that $P(s)=u(s)v(s)^T$ and $u(s)=u\in {\mathbb F}^{p}$ or $v(s)= v\in {\mathbb F}^{q}$.
If $u(s)=u\in {\mathbb F}^{p}$, let $R\in \Gl(p)$ be such that $Ru=\begin{bmatrix}1\\0\end{bmatrix}\in{\mathbb F}^{(1+(p-1))}$ and let $RA(s)=\begin{bmatrix}a(s)\\A_{21}(s)\end{bmatrix}\in {\mathbb F}[s]^{(1+(p-1))\times q}$ and $b(s)=a(s)+v(s)^T$. Then $A(s){\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}\begin{bmatrix}a(s)\\A_{21}(s)\end{bmatrix}$ and $B(s){\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}R(A(s)+P(s))=\begin{bmatrix}a(s)\\A_{21}(s)\end{bmatrix}+\begin{bmatrix}v(s)^T\\0\end{bmatrix}=\begin{bmatrix}b(s)\\A_{21}(s)\end{bmatrix}$. Therefore, (i) holds.
If $v(s)= v\in {\mathbb F}^{q}$, we can analogously obtain (ii).
Conversely, let us assume that (i) holds. As $A(s)\not {\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}B(s)$, we have $a(s)\neq b(s)$. Let $\bar P(s)=\begin{bmatrix}b(s)-a(s)\\0\end{bmatrix}\in {\mathbb F}[s]^{(1+(p-1))\times q}$. Then $\rank \bar P(s)=1$ and $\begin{bmatrix}a(s)\\A_{21}(s)\end{bmatrix}+\bar P(s)= \begin{bmatrix}b(s)\\A_{21}(s)\end{bmatrix}$. By Lemma \[lemmasust\], there exists a pencil $P(s)$ such that $\rank P(s)=1$ and $A(s)+P(s){\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}B(s)$.
If (ii) holds, the result holds applying the previous case to $A(s)^T$ and $B(s)^T$.
$\Box$
Matrix pencil completion theorems {#seccompletion}
=================================
According to Lemma \[lemmaeq\], the Problem \[problem\] can be approached as a matrix pencil completion problem. We introduce in this section some results in that area which will be used later. To state them we need some notation and definitions.
Given two integers $n$ and $m$, whenever $n>m$ we take $\sum_{i=n}^{m}=0$. In the same way, if a condition is stated for $n\leq i\leq m$ with $n>m$, we understand that the condition disappears.
Given a sequence of integers $a_1, \dots, a_m$ such that $a_1\geq \dots \geq a_m$ we will write ${\mathbf a}=(a_1, \dots, a_m)$ and we will take $a_i=\infty$ for $i<1$ and $a_i=-\infty$ for $i>m$. If $a_m\geq 0$, the sequence ${\mathbf a}=(a_1, \dots, a_m)$ is called a [*partition*]{}.
Given three sequences ${\mathbf d}$, ${\mathbf a}$ and ${\mathbf g}$, we introduce next the concept of generalized majorization.
Let ${\mathbf d}= (d_1, \dots, d_m)$, ${\mathbf a}=(a_1, \dots, a_s)$ and ${\mathbf g}=(g_1, \dots, g_{m+s})$ be sequences of integers such that $d_1 \geq \dots \geq d_m$, $a_1 \geq \dots \geq a_s$, $g_1 \geq \dots \geq g_{m+s}$. We say that ${\mathbf g}$ is majorized by ${\mathbf d}$ and ${\mathbf a}$ $({\mathbf g}\prec' ({\mathbf d},{\mathbf a}))$ if $$\label{gmaj1}
d_i\geq g_{i+s}, \quad 1\leq i\leq m,$$ $$\label{gmaj2}
\sum_{i=1}^{h_j}g_i-\sum_{i=1}^{h_j-j}d_i\leq \sum_{i=1}^j a_i, \quad 1\leq j\leq s,$$ where $h_j=\min\{i\; : \; d_{i-j+1}<g_i\}, \ 1\leq j\leq s$ $(d_{m+1}=-\infty)$, $$\label{gmaj3}
\sum_{i=1}^{m+s}g_i=\sum_{i=1}^md_i+\sum_{i=1}^sa_i.$$
In the case that $s=0$, condition (\[gmaj2\]) disappears, and conditions (\[gmaj1\]) and (\[gmaj3\]) are equivalent to ${\mathbf d}={\mathbf g}$.
In the case that $s=1$, from condition (\[gmaj3\]) we observe that $a_1$ is completely determined by ${\mathbf d}$ and ${\mathbf g}$ ($a_1=\sum_{i=1}^{m+1}g_i-\sum_{i=1}^{m}d_i$), therefore we will write ${\mathbf g}\prec'({\mathbf d}, a_1)$ as ${\mathbf g}\prec'{\mathbf d}$ and we will refer to it as [*$1$step-generalized majorization*]{}. Moreover, it is easy to see that ${\mathbf g}\prec'{\mathbf d}$ if and only if $$d_{i}=g_{i+1}, \quad h \leq i \leq m,$$ where $h=\min\{i: d_i<g_i\}$.
\[aux\]
1. \[aux1\] If ${\mathbf g}$ and ${\mathbf d}$ satisfy that $g_i\leq d_i$ for $1\leq i \leq m$, then $h=m+1$ and ${\mathbf g}\prec'{\mathbf d}$.
2. \[aux2\] Notice that if ${\mathbf g}\prec'{\mathbf d}$ and for some index $1\leq i \leq m$ we have $d_i>g_{i+1}$, then $i<h$.
3. \[aux3\] In [@DoStEJC10], the 1step-generalized majorization is called [*elementary generalized majorization*]{} and it is denoted by ${\mathbf g}\prec'_1 ({\mathbf d}, a_1)$.
Given two pencils $H_1(s)\in {\mathbb F}[s]^{(n+p) \times (n+m)}$ and $H(s)\in {\mathbb F}[s]^{ (n+p+x+y)\times (n+m)}$, of $\rank(H_1(s))=n$ and $\rank(H(s))=n+x$, in [@DoSt19 Theorem 4.3] (see also [@Do13 Theorem 2]), necessary and sufficient conditions are given for the existence of a pencil $Y(s)\in {\mathbb F}[s]^{ (x+y)\times (n+m)}$ such that $H(s){\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}\begin{bmatrix}
H_1(s)\\Y(s)\end{bmatrix}$. The two following lemmas are particular cases of [@DoSt19 Theorem 4.3] for $x+y=1$. First, we state the result when $x=0$, $y=1$.
\[lemmaDox0\] Let $H_1(s)\in {\mathbb F}[s]^{(n+p) \times (n+m)}$, $H(s)\in {\mathbb F}[s]^{ (n+p+1)\times (n+m)}$ be matrix pencils of $\rank(H_1(s))=\rank(H(s))=n$.
Let $\pi^1_1(s, t)\mid \dots \mid \pi^1_{n}(s, t)$, $g_1 \geq \dots \geq g_{m}\geq 0$, and $w_1 \geq \dots \geq w_{\theta}> 0=w_{\theta+1} \geq \dots \geq w_{p}$ be the homogeneous invariant factors, the column and the row minimal indices of $H_1(s)$, respectively, and let $\pi_1(s, t)\mid \dots \mid \pi_{n}(s, t)$, $c_1 \geq \dots \geq c_{m}\geq 0$, and $u_1 \geq \dots \geq u_{\bar \theta}> 0=u_{\bar \theta+1} \geq \dots \geq u_{p+1}$ be the homogeneous invariant factors, the column and the row minimal indices indices of $H(s)$, respectively.
Let ${\mathbf g}=(g_1, \dots, g_m)$, ${\mathbf w}=(w_1, \dots, w_p)$, ${\mathbf c}=(c_1, \dots, c_m)$, and ${\mathbf u}=(u_1, \dots, u_{p+1})$.
There exists a pencil $h(s)\in{\mathbb F}[s]^{1 \times (n+m)}$ such that $H(s){\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}\begin{bmatrix}
h(s)\\H_1(s)\end{bmatrix}$ if and only if $$\label{theta}
\bar \theta \geq \theta,$$ $$\label{inter}
\pi_i(s, t)\mid\pi^1_i(s, t)\mid\pi_{i+1}(s, t), \quad 1\leq i \leq n,$$ $$\label{row}
{\mathbf u}\prec' {\mathbf w},$$ $$\label{colequal}
{\mathbf g}={\mathbf c}.$$
Next, we state the result when $x=1$, $y=0$.
\[\] \[lemmaDox1\] Let $H_1(s)\in {\mathbb F}[s]^{(n+p) \times (n+m)}$, $H(s)\in {\mathbb F}[s]^{ (n+p+1)\times (n+m)}$ be matrix pencils of $\rank(H_1(s))=n$, $\rank(H(s))=n+1$.
Let $\pi^1_1(s, t)\mid \dots \mid \pi^1_{n}(s, t)$, $g_1 \geq \dots \geq g_{m}\geq 0$, and $w_1 \geq \dots \geq w_{p}$ be the homogeneous invariant factors, the column and the row minimal indices of $H_1(s)$, respectively, and let $\pi_1(s, t)\mid \dots \mid \pi_{n+1}(s, t)$, $c_1 \geq \dots \geq c_{m-1}\geq 0$, and $u_1 \geq \dots \geq u_{p}$ be the homogeneous invariant factors, the column and the row minimal indices of $H(s)$, respectively.
Let ${\mathbf g}=(g_1, \dots, g_m)$, ${\mathbf w}=(w_1, \dots, w_p)$, ${\mathbf c}=(c_1, \dots, c_{m-1})$, and ${\mathbf u}=(u_1, \dots, u_{p})$.
There exists a pencil $h(s)\in{\mathbb F}[s]^{1 \times (n+m)}$ such that $H(s){\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}\begin{bmatrix}
h(s)\\H_1(s)\end{bmatrix}$ if and only if (\[inter\]), $$\label{col1}
{\mathbf g}\prec' {\mathbf c},$$ $$\label{rowequal1}
{\mathbf w}={\mathbf u}.$$
Technical results {#sectechnical}
=================
The next results are technical lemmas about 1step-generalized majorizations. All of the sequences they deal with are ordered partitions of nonnegative integers.
\[propbat\] Let $S\geq 0$ be a nonnegative integer and let ${\mathbf a}=(a_1, \dots, a_m)$ be a partition of nonnegative integers. Then there exists a partition of nonnegative integers ${\mathbf g}=(g_1, \dots, g_{m+1})$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^{m+1} g_i=S$ and ${\mathbf g}\prec'{\mathbf a}$.
[*Proof.*]{} Put $a_0=+\infty$, $a_{m+1}=-\infty$. Then, $$\sum_{j=i}^ma_j+ia_{i-1}\geq \sum_{j=i+1}^ma_j+(i+1)a_{i}, \quad 1\leq i \leq m+1,$$ and $
S\geq (m+2)a_{m+1}
$. Let $
k=\min\{i \in \{1, \dots, m+1\}\; : \; S\geq \sum_{j=i+1}^ma_j+(i+1)a_{i}\}
$, i.e., $$\sum_{j=k}^ma_j+ka_{k-1}>S\geq \sum_{j=k+1}^ma_j+(k+1)a_{k}=\sum_{j=k}^ma_j+ka_{k}.$$ Let $S'=S-\sum_{j=k}^ma_j$. Then $ka_{k-1}> S'\geq ka_{k}$. Let $q$ and $r$ be the quotient and the remainder of the euclidian division of $S'$ by $k$, i.e., $S'=kq+r$ with $0\leq r <k$. Then $a_{k-1}> q\geq a_{k}$. Observe that if $k\leq m$, then $a_k\geq 0$, and if $k=m+1$, then $S'=S\geq 0$, hence $q\geq 0$.
Let us define $$\begin{array}{ll}
g_i=q+1, & 1\leq i \leq r,\\
g_i=q, & r+1\leq i \leq k,\\
g_i=a_{i-1}, & k+1\leq i \leq m+1. \\
\end{array}$$ Then $g_1\geq\dots\geq g_{m+1}\geq 0$, $\sum_{i=1}^{m+1} g_i=S$ and $$\label{ga}
\begin{array}{ll}
g_{i}\leq q+1\leq a_{k-1}\leq a_i, & 1\leq i \leq k-1,\\
g_{i+1}=a_{i}, & k\leq i \leq m.\\
\end{array}$$ Let $h=\min\{i\; : \; a_i<g_i\}$. From (\[ga\]) we derive that $h\geq k$ and $a_{i}=g_{i+1}$, $h\leq i \leq m$. Therefore, $(g_1,\dots,g_{m+1})\prec'{\mathbf a}$.
$\Box$
Given the partition ${\mathbf a}=(8, 6, 5, 5, 5, 3, 1)$ ($m=7$), we show some examples of the previous result for different values of $S$.
1. $S=50$. Then $\sum_{j=1}^7a_j+a_{0}>S\geq
\sum_{j=2}^7a_j+2a_{1}$. $k=1$, $S'=S-\sum_{j=1}^7a_j=17$, $q=17$, $r=0$. It results ${\mathbf g}=(17, 8, 6, 5, 5, 5, 3, 1)$.
2. $S=34$. Then $\sum_{j=3}^7a_j+3a_{2}>S\geq
\sum_{j=4}^7a_j+4a_{3}$. $k=3$, $S'=S-\sum_{j=3}^7a_j=15$, $q=5$, $r=0$. It results ${\mathbf g}=(5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 3, 1)$.
3. $S=5$. Then $\sum_{j=8}^7a_j+8a_{7}>S\geq
\sum_{j=9}^7a_j+9a_{8}$. $k=8$, $S'=S-\sum_{j=8}^7a_j=S=5$, $q=0$, $r=5$. It results ${\mathbf g}=(1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0)$.
\[propbat2\] Let $E\geq 0$ be a nonnegative integer and let ${\mathbf a}=(a_1, \dots, a_m)$ be a partition of nonnegative integers. Then there exists a partition of nonnegative integers ${\mathbf e}=(e_1, \dots, e_{m-1})$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^{m-1} e_i=E$ and ${\mathbf a}\prec' {\mathbf e}$ if and only if $$\label{eqbat2}
E=\sum_{i=2}^{m}a_i \mbox{ or } E\geq a_1+\sum_{i=3}^{m}a_i.$$
[*Proof.*]{} Assume that there exists ${\mathbf e}=(e_1, \dots, e_{m-1})$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^{m-1} e_i=E$ and ${\mathbf a}\prec' {\mathbf e}$. Then $e_i\geq a_{i+1},$ $1\leq i \leq m-1$, hence $E\geq \sum_{i=2}^{m}a_i.$
Let us suppose that $E> \sum_{i=2}^{m}a_i.$ Then $\sum_{i=1}^{m-1}(e_i-a_{i+1})>0$, hence there exists $k \in\{1, \dots , m-1\}$ such that $e_k>a_{k+1}$. Thus $k<h=\min\{i \; : e_i<a_i\}$, which means $e_1\geq a_1$ and therefore $$E=e_1+\sum_{i=2}^{m-1}e_i\geq a_1+\sum_{i=3}^{m}a_i.$$
Conversely, let us assume that (\[eqbat2\]) holds. We define $e_i=a_{i+1}$, $2\leq i \leq m-1$ and $e_1=E-\sum_{i=3}^{m}a_i.$ Then $\sum_{i=1}^{m-1} e_i=E$. If $E=\sum_{i= 2}^{m} a_i$, then $e_1=a_2$ and ${\mathbf a}\prec'(e_1, \dots, e_{m-1})$. If $E\geq a_1+\sum_{i= 3}^{m} a_i$, then $e_1\geq a_1\geq a_3=e_2$. Thus, $e_1 \geq \dots \geq e_{m-1} \geq 0$, $h=\min\{i \; : e_i<a_i\}>1$, and we have $e_i=a_{i+1}$, $h\leq i \leq m-1$. Therefore, ${\mathbf a}\prec' (e_1, \dots, e_{m-1})$.
$\Box$
Given two pairs of nonincreasing sequences of integers, $({\mathbf d}, {\mathbf a})$ and $({\mathbf c}, {\mathbf b})$, in [@DoSt13 Theorem 5.1] the authors solved the problem of obtaining necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of a sequence ${\mathbf g}$ that is majorized (in the sense of generalized majorization) by both pairs. The conditions are very involved. In the first item of the next Lemma we solve the same problem for the 1step-generalized majorization of partitions. The characterization obtained is much more simple in this case.
\[lemmapart\] Let $S, E\geq 0$ be nonnegative integers and let ${\mathbf c}=(c_1, \dots, c_m)$, ${\mathbf d}=(d_1, \dots, d_m)$ be partitions of nonnegative integers such that ${\mathbf c}\neq {\mathbf d}$.
Let $\ell=\max\{i \; :\; c_i\neq d_i\}$, $f=\max\{i\in\{1, \dots, \ell\}\; : \; c_i<d_{i-1}\}$ $ (d_0=+\infty),$ and $f'=\max\{i\in\{1, \dots, \ell\}\; : \; d_i<c_{i-1}\}$ $ (c_0=+\infty).$
1. \[itS\] There exists a partition ${\mathbf g}=(g_1, \dots, g_{m+1})$ of nonnegative integers such that $\sum_{i=1}^{m+1} g_i=S$, ${\mathbf g}\prec'{\mathbf c}$ and ${\mathbf g}\prec'{\mathbf d}$ if and only if $$\label{eqGcd}
S\leq \sum_{i=1}^{m}\min\{c_i, d_i\}+ \max\{c_f, d_{f'}\}.$$
2. \[itEg1\] If $f>1$ and $f'>1$, there exists a partition of nonnegative integers ${\mathbf e}=(e_1, \dots, e_{m-1})$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^{m-1} e_i=E$, ${\mathbf c}\prec' {\mathbf e}$ and ${\mathbf d}\prec' {\mathbf e}$ if and only if $$\label{eff'm1}
E\geq \sum_{i=1}^{m}\max\{c_i, d_i\}- \max\{c_f, d_{f'}\}.$$
3. \[itE1\] If $f=1$ or $f'=1$, there exists a partition of nonnegative integers ${\mathbf e}=(e_1, \dots, e_{m-1})$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^{m-1} e_i=E$, ${\mathbf c}\prec' {\mathbf e}$ and ${\mathbf d}\prec' {\mathbf e}$ if and only if $$\label{eff'=1}
\begin{array}{l}
E= \sum_{i=1}^{m}\max\{c_i, d_i\}- \max\{c_f, d_{f'}\},\\\mbox{or}\\
E\geq \sum_{i=1}^{m}\max\{c_i, d_i\}- \max\{c_{f+1}, d_{f'+1}\}.\end{array}$$ Equivalently, $$E= \sum_{i=2}^{m}\max\{c_i, d_i\}\mbox{ or }
E\geq \max\{c_1, d_1\}+\sum_{i=3}^{m}\max\{c_i, d_i\}.$$
[*Proof.*]{} Let us assume that $c_\ell>d_\ell$. If $d_\ell>c_\ell$ the proof is analogous.
We have $c_{\ell-1}\geq c_\ell>d_\ell,$ hence $f'=\ell$. Moreover, $c_i\geq c_{i+1}\geq d_i,$ $f\leq i \leq \ell-1.$ Then, $c_f \geq d_f\geq d_\ell=d_{f'}$. Hence, when $c_\ell>d_\ell$, conditions (\[eqGcd\]), (\[eff’m1\]) and (\[eff’=1\]) are respectively equivalent to $$\label{eqGcdbis}
S\leq \sum_{i=1}^{f-1}\min\{c_i, d_i\}+ c_f+ \sum_{i=f}^{m}d_i,$$ $$\label{eff'm1bis}
E\geq \sum_{i=1}^{f-1}\max\{c_i, d_i\}+ \sum_{i=f+1}^{m}c_i,$$ $$\label{eff'=1bis}
E= \sum_{i=2}^{m}c_i\mbox{ or }
E\geq c_1+\sum_{i=3}^{m}c_i.$$
Moreover, if $f'=1$ then $\ell=1$ and as a consequence, $f=1$. Therefore, when $c_\ell>d_\ell$, the condition $f=1$ or $f'=1$ is equivalent to $f=1$.
Let us prove the different cases.
1. Assume that there exists a partition ${\mathbf g}=(g_1, \dots, g_{m+1})$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^{m+1} g_i=S$, ${\mathbf g}\prec'{\mathbf c}$ and ${\mathbf g}\prec'{\mathbf d}$.
Let $h=\min\{i \; : c_i<g_i\}$ and $h'=\min\{i \; : d_i<g_i\}$. As $g_{\ell+1}\leq d_\ell<c_\ell$, by Remark \[aux\], item \[aux2\], we have $\ell < h$. In the same way, as $g_{f}\leq c_f<d_{f-1}$, $f-1<h'$.
Therefore, $$\begin{array}{ll}
g_i\leq\min\{c_i, d_i\}, & 1\leq i \leq f-1,\\
g_f\leq c_f, \\
g_{i+1}\leq d_{i}, &f\leq i \leq m,
\end{array}$$ from where we obtain (\[eqGcdbis\]).
Conversely, let us assume that (\[eqGcdbis\]) holds.
- If $S<\sum_{i=1}^{f-1}\min\{c_i, d_i\}$ then $f>1$. Let $$k=\min\{i\in\{1, \dots f-1\}\; : \; S<\sum_{i=1}^{k}\min\{c_i, d_i\}\},$$ i.e., $\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}\min\{c_i, d_i\}\leq S<\sum_{i=1}^{k}\min\{c_i, d_i\}$ and define $$\begin{array}{ll}
g_i=\min\{c_i, d_i\}, & 1\leq i \leq k-1,\\
g_k=S-\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}\min\{c_i, d_i\}, \\
g_{i}=0, &k+1\leq i \leq m+1.
\end{array}$$ Then $\sum_{i=1}^{m+1} g_i=S$ and $g_k<\min\{c_k, d_k\}$. Therefore, $g_1\geq \dots \geq g_{k-1}>g_k\geq 0=g_{k+1}= \dots =g_{m+1}$. Thus, ${\mathbf g}=(g_1, \dots, g_{m+1})$ is a partition. As $g_i \leq \min\{c_i, d_i\}$, $1\leq i \leq m$, by Remark \[aux\], item \[aux1\], we have ${\mathbf g}\prec'{\mathbf c}$ and ${\mathbf g}\prec'{\mathbf d}$.
- If $S\geq\sum_{i=1}^{f-1}\min\{c_i, d_i\}$, let $\overline S=S- \sum_{i=1}^{f-1}\min\{c_i, d_i\}\geq 0$. Then $\overline S\leq c_f+\sum_{i=f}^{m}d_i.$ We define $
\overline d_i=d_{f-1+i}$, $1\leq i \leq m-f+1,$ and $\overline {\mathbf d}=(\overline d_1, \dots, \overline d_{m-f+1})$, i.e., $\overline {\mathbf d}=(d_f, \dots, d_{m})$. By Lemma \[propbat\], there exists a partition $\overline {\mathbf g}=(\overline g_1, \dots, \overline g_{m-f+2})$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^{m-f+2}\overline g_i=\overline S$ and $\overline {\mathbf g}\prec' \overline {\mathbf d}$.
Now we define $$\begin{array}{ll}
g_i=\min\{c_i, d_i\}, & 1\leq i \leq f-1,\\
g_i= \overline g_{i-f+1}, & f\leq i \leq m+1.
\end{array}$$ Let us see that $g_{f}\leq g_{f-1}$, i.e., that $\overline g_1 \leq \min\{c_{f-1}, d_{f-1}\}$. If $\overline g_1 \leq \overline d_1$, then $\overline g_1 \leq d_f=\min\{c_{f}, d_{f}\}\leq \min\{c_{f-1}, d_{f-1}\}$. If $\overline g_1 > \overline d_1$, then $\overline d_i= \overline g_{i+1}$, $1\leq i \leq m-f+1$, hence $\overline S=\overline g_1+\sum_{i=1}^{m-f+1}\overline d_i$. As $\overline S\leq c_f+\sum_{i=f}^{m}d_i$, we obtain $\overline g_1\leq c_f\leq \min\{c_{f-1}, d_{f-1}\}$. Therefore ${\mathbf g}=(g_1, \dots, g_{m+1})$ is a partition.
Let $h'=\min\{i \; : \; d_i<g_i\}$ and $\overline h'=\min\{i \; : \; \overline d_i<\overline g_i\}$. Observe that $d_i \geq g_i$, $1\leq i \leq f-1$, $d_i=\overline{d}_{i-f+1}\geq \overline{g}_{i-f+1}=g_i$ for $f\leq i < f+\overline{h}'-1$, and $d_{f+\overline{h}'-1}=\overline{d}_{\overline{h}'}<\overline{g}_{\overline{h}'}= g_{f+\overline{h}'-1}$. Then, $h'=f+\overline{h}'-1$. As $d_i=\overline d_{i-f+1}=\overline g_{i-f+2}=g_{i+1}$ for $h'\leq i \leq m$, we obtain that ${\mathbf g}\prec' {\mathbf d}$.
Let $h=\min\{i \; : \; c_i<g_i\}$. Recall that $d_i\leq c_i$ for $f\leq i \leq m$. We have, $$\begin{array}{ll}
g_i\leq c_i, & 1\leq i \leq f-1,\\
g_i\leq d_i\leq c_i, & f\leq i \leq h'-1,\\
g_i\leq d_{i-1}\leq c_i, & f+1\leq i \leq \ell.\\
\end{array}$$ Thus, $h>\max\{h'-1, \ell\}$ and, as a consequence, $c_i=d_i=g_{i+1}$ for $h\leq i \leq m$. Therefore ${\mathbf g}\prec' {\mathbf c}$.
2. Assume that $f>1$ (hence $f'>1$) and there exists a partition ${\mathbf e}=(e_1, \dots, e_{m-1})$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^{m-1} e_i=E$, ${\mathbf c}\prec' {\mathbf e}$ and ${\mathbf d}\prec' {\mathbf e}$. Then $e_i\geq c_{i+1},$ $1\leq i \leq m-1.$ Moreover, $e_{\ell-1}\geq c_\ell>d_\ell$, by Remark \[aux\], item \[aux2\], $e_{i}\geq d_i,$ $1\leq i \leq \ell-1$. Hence, $e_{f-1}\geq d_{f-1}>c_f$, and as before it means that $e_{i}\geq c_{i},$ $1\leq i \leq f-1.$ Thus, $$\begin{array}{ll}
e_i\geq \max\{c_i,d_i\} & 1\leq i \leq f-1,\\
e_i\geq c_{i+1}, & f\leq i \leq m-1,\\
\end{array}$$ and we obtain (\[eff’m1bis\]).
Conversely, let us assume that $f>1$ and (\[eff’m1bis\]) holds. Let us define $$\begin{array}{ll}
e_i=\max\{c_i, d_i\}, & 2\leq i\leq f-1,\\
e_i=c_{i+1}, & f\leq i\leq m-1,\\
e_1=E-\sum_{i=2}^{m-1}e_i.
\end{array}$$ Then, $E=\sum_{i=1}^{m-1}e_i$, $e_2\geq \dots \geq e_{f-1}\geq c_{f-1} \geq c_{f+1} =e_f\geq \dots \geq e_{m-1}$ and, from (\[eff’m1bis\]) we derive $ e_1\geq \max\{c_1, d_1\}\geq e_2$. Therefore $(e_1, \dots, e_{m-1})$ is a partition. Let $h=\min\{i \; : e_i<c_i\}$ and $h'=\min\{i \; : e_i<d_i\}$. It is clear that $h\geq f$ and $h'\geq f$, hence $e_i=c_{i+1},$ $h\leq i\leq m-1$, which means that ${\mathbf c}\prec' {\mathbf e}$. Moreover, for $f \leq i \leq \ell-1$, $e_i=c_{i+1}\geq d_i$, thus $h'\geq \ell$ and $e_i=c_{i+1}=d_{i+1}$, $h'\leq i\leq m-1.$ Therefore ${\mathbf d}\prec' {\mathbf e}$.
3. Let us assume that $f=1$ and there exists a partition ${\mathbf e}=(e_1, \dots, e_{m-1})$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^{m-1} e_i=E$, ${\mathbf c}\prec' {\mathbf e}$ and ${\mathbf d}\prec' {\mathbf e}$. From Lemma \[propbat2\] we obtain (\[eff’=1bis\]).
Conversely, let us assume that $f=1$ and (\[eff’=1bis\]) holds. By Lemma \[propbat2\], there exists a partition ${\mathbf e}=(e_1, \dots, e_{m-1})$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^{m-1} e_i=E$ and ${\mathbf c}\prec' {\mathbf e}$. Therefore, $e_i\geq c_{i+1}, \ 1\leq i\leq m-1$.
Let $h=\min\{i \; : e_i<c_i\}$ and $h'=\min\{i \; : e_i<d_i\}$. As $f=1$, we have $ c_{i}\geq d_{i-1}\geq d_i$, $2\leq i \leq \ell$. Therefore, $e_i\geq c_{i+1}\geq d_i$, $1\leq i<\ell$ and $h'\geq \ell$. Since $e_{h'}<d_{h'}=c_{h'}$, $h\leq h'$ and $e_{i}=c_{i+1}=d_{i+1}$, $h'\leq i \leq m-1$. Hence, ${\mathbf d}\prec' {\mathbf e}$.
$\Box$
\[remarkL54\] Observe that condition (\[eff’=1\]) implies condition (\[eff’m1\]).
\[lemmacard\] Let ${\mathbf a}=(a_1, \dots, a_{m})$, ${\mathbf e}=(e_1, \dots, e_{m-1})$ be partitions of nonnegative integers such that ${\mathbf a}\prec' {\mathbf e}$ and $
\sum_{i=1}^{m-1}e_i \leq \sum_{i=1}^{m}a_i.
$ Let $\theta=\#\{i \; : \; e_i>0\}$ and $\overline \theta=\#\{i \; : \; a_i>0\}$. Then $\overline \theta \geq \theta$.
[*Proof.*]{} We have $\theta\leq m-1$, $\overline \theta \leq m$ and $
\sum_{i=1}^{\theta}e_i \leq \sum_{i=1}^{\overline \theta}a_i.$ Let $h=\min \{i \; : \; e_i<a_i\}$. Then $e_{i}=a_{i+1}$ for $h\leq i \leq m-1$.
Assume that $\theta>\overline \theta$. Then $0<\sum_{i=\overline \theta+1}^{\theta}e_i \leq \sum_{i=1}^{\overline \theta}(a_i-e_i).$ It means that there exists $i \in \{1,\dots, \overline \theta \}$ such that $a_i-e_i>0$. Therefore, $h\leq \overline \theta <\theta <m$, from where we conclude that $e_{\overline \theta}=a_{\overline \theta+1}=0$, which is a contradiction with $\theta>\overline \theta$.
$\Box$
Main theorem {#secmain}
============
In the following Theorem we give a solution to Problem \[problem\].
\[maintheogen\] Let $A(s), B(s)\in {\mathbb F}[s]^{p\times q}$ be matrix pencils such that $A(s)\not {\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}B(s)$. Let $\rank A(s)=n_1$, $\rank B(s)=n_2$, let $\phi_1(s, t)\mid \dots \mid \phi_{n_1}(s, t)$, $c_1 \geq \dots \geq c_{q-n_1}\geq 0$ and $u_1 \geq \dots \geq u_{p-n_1}\geq 0$ be, respectively, the homogeneous invariant factors, column minimal indices and row minimal indices of $A(s)$ and let $\psi_1(s, t)\mid \dots \mid \psi_{n_2}(s, t)$, $d_1 \geq \dots \geq d_{q-n_2}\geq 0$ and $v_1 \geq \dots \geq v_{p-n_2}\geq 0$ be, respectively, the homogeneous invariant factors, column minimal indices and row minimal indices of $B(s)$.
Let $n=\min\{n_1, n_2\}$, ${\mathbf c}=(c_1, \dots, c_{q-n_1})$, ${\mathbf d}=(d_1, \dots, d_{q-n_2})$, ${\mathbf u}=(u_1, \dots, u_{p-n_1})$ and ${\mathbf v}=(v_1, \dots, v_{p-n_2})$.
1. \[equal\] If ${\mathbf c}={\mathbf d}$, ${\mathbf u}={\mathbf v}$, then there exists a pencil $P(s)\in {\mathbb F}[s]^{p \times q}$ of $\rank (P(s))=1$ such that $A(s)+P(s){\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}B(s)$ if and only if $$\label{eqintfihr1}
\psi_{i-1}(s, t)\mid\phi_i(s, t)\mid\psi_{i+1}(s, t), \quad 1\leq i \leq n.$$
2. \[rowequal\] If ${\mathbf c}\neq {\mathbf d}$, ${\mathbf u}={\mathbf v}$, let $$\ell=\max\{i \; :\; c_i\neq d_i\},$$ $$f=\max\{i\in\{1, \dots, \ell\}\; : \; c_i<d_{i-1}\} \quad (d_0=+\infty),$$ $$f'=\max\{i\in\{1, \dots, \ell\}\; : \; d_i<c_{i-1}\} \quad (c_0=+\infty),$$ $$G=n-1-\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\deg(\gcd(\phi_{i+1}(s, t),\psi_{i+1}(s, t)))- \sum_{i=1}^{p-n}u_i,$$ $$T=n-\sum_{i=1}^{n}\deg(\lcm(\phi_{i}(s, t),\psi_{i}(s, t)))- \sum_{i=1}^{p-n}u_i.$$ Then there exists a pencil $P(s)\in {\mathbb F}[s]^{p \times q}$ of $\rank (P(s))=1$ such that $A(s)+P(s){\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}B(s)$ if and only if (\[eqintfihr1\]) and one of the two following conditions holds: $$\label{eqGg}
G\leq \sum_{i=1}^{q-n}\min\{c_i, d_i\}+ \max\{c_f, d_{f'}\},$$ or $$\label{eqT}
T\geq \sum_{i=1}^{q-n}\max\{c_i, d_i\}- \max\{c_f, d_{f'}\}.$$
3. \[colequalcdrns\] If ${\mathbf c}= {\mathbf d}$, ${\mathbf u}\neq {\mathbf v}$, let $$\bar \ell=\max\{i \; :\; u_i\neq v_i\},$$ $$\bar f=\max\{i\in\{1, \dots, \bar \ell\}\; : \; u_i<v_{i-1}\} \quad (v_0=+\infty),$$ $$\bar f'=\max\{i\in\{1, \dots, \bar \ell\}\; : \; v_i<u_{i-1}\} \quad (u_0=+\infty),$$ $$\bar G=:n-1-\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\deg(\gcd(\phi_{i+1}(s, t),\psi_{i+1}(s, t)))-\sum_{i=1}^{q-n}c_i,$$ $$\bar T=n-\sum_{i=1}^{n}\deg(\lcm(\phi_{i}(s, t),\psi_{i}(s, t)))-\sum_{i=1}^{q-n}c_i.$$ Then there exists a pencil $P(s)\in {\mathbb F}[s]^{p \times q}$ of $\rank (P(s))=1$ such that $A(s)+P(s){\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}B(s)$ if and only if (\[eqintfihr1\]) and one of the two following conditions holds: $$\label{eqbarGg}
\bar G\leq \sum_{i=1}^{p-n}\min\{u_i, v_i\}+ \max\{u_{\bar f}, v_{\bar f'}\},$$ or $$\label{eqbarT}
\bar T\geq \sum_{i=1}^{p-n}\max\{u_i, v_i\}- \max\{u_{\bar f}, v_{\bar f'}\}.$$
4. \[inequal\] If ${\mathbf c}\neq {\mathbf d}$, ${\mathbf u}\neq {\mathbf v}$, then there exists a pencil $P(s)\in {\mathbb F}[s]^{p \times q}$ of $\rank (P(s))=1$ such that $A(s)+P(s){\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}B(s)$ if and only if there exist homogeneous polynomials $\pi_1^1(s,t)\mid \dots \mid \pi_{n}^1(s,t)$ such that $$\label{boca}
\lcm(\phi_i(s,t), \psi_i(s,t))\mid \pi_i^1(s,t)\mid \gcd(\phi_{i+1}(s,t), \psi_{i+1}(s,t)), \quad 1\leq i \leq n.$$ and one of the four following conditions holds:
1. $$\label{cdsr}
{\mathbf c}\prec'{\mathbf d}, \quad {\mathbf u}\prec'{\mathbf v},$$
$$\label{sumpi1}
\sum_{i=1}^{n} \deg(\pi_i^1(s,t))=n-\sum_{i=1}^{q-n_1}c_i-\sum_{i=1}^{p-n_2}v_i.$$
2. $$\label{dcrs}
{\mathbf d}\prec'{\mathbf c}, \quad {\mathbf v}\prec'{\mathbf u},$$
$$\label{sumpi1t}
\sum_{i=1}^{n} \deg(\pi_i^1(s,t))=n-\sum_{i=1}^{q-n_2}d_i-\sum_{i=1}^{p-n_1}u_i.$$
3. (\[cdsr\]) and (\[sumpi1t\]).
4. (\[dcrs\]) and (\[sumpi1\]).
[*Proof.*]{} . Let us assume that there exists a pencil $P(s)\in {\mathbb F}[s]^{p\times q}$ of $\rank P(s)=1$ such that $A(s)+P(s){\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}B(s)$. By Lemma \[lemmaeq\], one of the two following conditions holds:
1. There exist pencils $a(s), b(s)\in{\mathbb F}[s]^{1\times q}$ and $A_{21}(s)\in {\mathbb F}^{(p-1)\times q}$ such that $ A(s){\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}\begin{bmatrix}a(s)\\A_{21}(s)\end{bmatrix}$ and $B(s){\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}\begin{bmatrix}b(s)\\A_{21}(s)\end{bmatrix}$.
2. There exist pencils $\bar a(s), \bar b(s)\in{\mathbb F}[s]^{p\times 1}$ and $A_{12}(s)\in {\mathbb F}^{p\times (q-1)}$ such that $ A(s){\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}\begin{bmatrix}\bar a(s)&A_{12}(s)\end{bmatrix}$ and $B(s){\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}\begin{bmatrix}\bar b(s)&A_{12}(s)\end{bmatrix}$.
- Let us assume that (i) holds. Then $n\geq \rank(A_{21}(s))\geq \max\{n_1, n_2\}-1\geq n-1$, hence $\rank(A_{21}(s))=n-x$ with $x=0$ or $x=1$. Let $\pi_i^1(s, t)\mid \dots \mid \pi^1_{n-x}(s,t)$, ${\mathbf g}=(g_1, \dots, g_{q-n+x})$ and ${\mathbf w}=(w_1, \dots w_{p-1-n+x})$ be, respectively, the homogeneous invariant factors , column minimal indices and row minimal indices of $A_{21}(s)$. By Lemmas \[lemmaDox0\] and \[lemmaDox1\], $$\label{interx}
\begin{array}{ll}
\phi_i(s, t)\mid\pi^1_i(s, t)\mid\phi_{i+1}(s, t),&
1\leq i \leq n-x,
\\
\psi_i(s, t)\mid\pi^1_i(s, t)\mid\psi_{i+1}(s, t),
& 1\leq i \leq n-x.
\end{array}$$ Thus, $$\begin{array}{ll}
\psi_{i-1}(s, t)\mid\phi_{i}(s, t),&
1\leq i \leq n,
\\
\phi_{i}(s, t)\mid\psi_{i+1}(s, t),
& 1\leq i \leq n-x.
\end{array}$$
Notice that in the case that $x=1$ we have $n_1=n_2=n$ and $\phi_n(s,t)\mid \psi_{n+1}(s, t)=0$ is also satisfied. Therefore, (\[eqintfihr1\]) holds.
1. Assume that ${\mathbf c}= {\mathbf d}$, ${\mathbf u}= {\mathbf v}$. As it has been seen, condition (\[eqintfihr1\]) is necessary.
2. Assume that ${\mathbf c}\neq {\mathbf d}$, ${\mathbf u}= {\mathbf v}$. Then $n_1=n_2=n$. If $\rank(A_{21}(s))=n$, then from Lemma \[lemmaDox0\] we obtain ${\mathbf g}={\mathbf c}$ and ${\mathbf g}={\mathbf d}$, which is a contradiction with ${\mathbf c}\neq {\mathbf d}$. Therefore, $\rank(A_{21}(s))=n-1$, i.e., $x=1$. Applying Lemma \[lemmaDox1\], we obtain $$\label{colnnn-1}
{\mathbf g}\prec' {\mathbf c},\quad {\mathbf g}\prec' {\mathbf d},$$ $$\label{rowequalnn-1}
{\mathbf w}={\mathbf u}={\mathbf v}.$$ From (\[interx\]) and (\[rowequalnn-1\]), $$\begin{array}{rl}\sum_{i=1}^{q-n+1}g_i=&n-1-\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\deg(\pi_i^1(s, t)-\sum_{i=1}^{p-n}w_i\\\geq &
n-1-\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\deg(\gcd(\phi_{i+1}(s,t), \psi_{i+1}(s,t)))-\sum_{i=1}^{p-n}u_i=G.\end{array}$$ By Lemma \[lemmapart\], $$\sum_{i=1}^{q-n+1}g_i\leq \sum_{i=1}^{q-n}\min\{c_i, d_i\}+ \max\{c_f, d_{f'}\}.$$ Therefore, (\[eqGg\]) holds.
3. Assume that ${\mathbf c}={\mathbf d}$, ${\mathbf u}\neq {\mathbf v}$. Then $n_1=n_2=n$. If $\rank(A_{21}(s))=n-1$, then from Lemma \[lemmaDox1\], we obtain ${\mathbf w}={\mathbf u}$ and ${\mathbf w}={\mathbf v}$, which is a contradiction with ${\mathbf u}\neq {\mathbf v}$. Therefore, $\rank(A_{21}(s))=n$, i.e., $x=0$.
Applying Lemma \[lemmaDox0\], we obtain $$\label{rownnn}
{\mathbf u}\prec' {\mathbf w}, \quad {\mathbf v}\prec' {\mathbf w},$$ $$\label{colequalnnnT}
{\mathbf g}={\mathbf c}={\mathbf d}.$$ From (\[interx\]) and (\[colequalnnnT\]), $$\begin{array}{rl}
\sum_{i=1}^{p-n-1}w_i=&n-\sum_{i=1}^{n}\deg(\pi_i^1(s, t)-\sum_{i=1}^{q-n}g_i\\\leq &
n-\sum_{i=1}^{n}\deg(\lcm(\phi_{i}(s,t), \psi_{i}(s,t)))-\sum_{i=1}^{q-n}c_i=\bar T.
\end{array}$$
By Lemma \[lemmapart\] and Remark \[remarkL54\], $$\sum_{i=1}^{p-n-1}w_i\geq \sum_{i=1}^{p-n}\max\{u_i, v_i\}- \max\{u_{\bar f}, v_{\bar f'}\}.$$ Therefore, (\[eqbarT\]) holds.
4. Assume that ${\mathbf c}\neq {\mathbf d}$, ${\mathbf u}\neq {\mathbf v}$. If $\rank(A(s))=\rank (B(s))$, then applying Lemmas \[lemmaDox0\] and \[lemmaDox1\], we obtain ${\mathbf g}={\mathbf c}={\mathbf d}$ or ${\mathbf w}={\mathbf u}={\mathbf v}$, which is a contradiction. Therefore, $\rank(A(s))\neq \rank (B(s))$. Then $n\geq \rank (A_{21}(s))\geq \max\{n_1, n_2\}-1=n$, i.e., $\rank (A_{21}(s))=n$ ($x=0$). From (\[interx\]) we derive (\[boca\]).
If $\rank (A(s))<\rank (B(s))$, then $\rank (A(s))=n$, $\rank (B(s))=n+1$. Applying Lemmas \[lemmaDox0\] and \[lemmaDox1\] we obtain $$\label{colnn+1n}
{\mathbf g}= {\mathbf c},\quad {\mathbf u}\prec'{\mathbf w},$$ $$\label{rownn+1n}
{\mathbf g}\prec' {\mathbf d}, \quad {\mathbf w}={\mathbf v}.$$ From (\[colnn+1n\]) and (\[rownn+1n\]) we derive (\[cdsr\]) and (\[sumpi1\]).
Analogously, if $\rank (B(s))<\rank (A(s))$ we obtain (\[dcrs\]) and (\[sumpi1t\]).
- Let us assume that (ii) holds. Then $$A(s)^T{\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}\begin{bmatrix}\bar a(s)^T\\A_{12}(s)^T\end{bmatrix}, \quad
B(s)^T{\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}\begin{bmatrix}\bar b(s)^T\\A_{12}(s)^T\end{bmatrix}.$$
Recall that the column and row minimal indices of a pencil are, respectively, the row and column minimal indices of its transposed.
Applying the results of the previous case, the interlacing condition (\[eqintfihr1\]) is satisfied and
- If ${\mathbf c}={\mathbf d}$, ${\mathbf u}\neq {\mathbf v}$ we obtain (\[eqbarGg\]).
- If ${\mathbf c}\neq {\mathbf d}$, ${\mathbf u}= {\mathbf v}$ we obtain (\[eqT\]).
- If ${\mathbf c}\neq d$, ${\mathbf u}\neq {\mathbf v}$ and $\rank (A(s))<\rank (B(s))$ we obtain (\[cdsr\]) and (\[sumpi1t\]).
- If ${\mathbf c}\neq {\mathbf d}$, ${\mathbf u}\neq {\mathbf v}$ and $\rank (B(s))<\rank (A(s))$ we obtain (\[dcrs\]) and (\[sumpi1\]).
.
. In this case, $n=n_1=n_2$.
- Assume that ${\mathbf c}={\mathbf d}$ and (\[eqintfihr1\]) holds or that ${\mathbf c}\neq {\mathbf d}$ and (\[eqintfihr1\]) and (\[eqGg\]) hold. By Lemma \[lemmaeq\], it is enough to prove the existence of matrix pencils $a(s), b(s)\in{\mathbb F}[s]^{1\times q}$, $A_{21}(s)\in {\mathbb F}[s]^{(p-1)\times q}$ such that $ A(s){\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}\begin{bmatrix}a(s)\\A_{21}(s)\end{bmatrix}$ and $B(s){\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}\begin{bmatrix}b(s)\\A_{21}(s)\end{bmatrix}$.
Let $$\pi^1_i(s, t)=\gcd(\phi_{i+1}(s, t),\psi_{i+1}(s, t)), \quad 1\leq i \leq n-1.$$ Then $\pi_1^1(s,t)\mid \dots \mid \pi_{n-1}^1(s,t)$ and (\[eqintfihr1\]) implies that $$\label{intern-1}
\begin{array}{ll}
\phi_i(s, t)\mid\pi^1_i(s, t)\mid\phi_{i+1}(s, t),&
1\leq i \leq n-1,
\\
\psi_i(s, t)\mid\pi^1_i(s, t)\mid\psi_{i+1}(s, t),
& 1\leq i \leq n-1.
\end{array}$$
Let $S=n-1-\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\deg(\pi^1_i(s, t))-\sum_{i=1}^{p-n}u_i$ and let us see that $S\geq 0$. We have $$\begin{array}{rl}
\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\deg(\pi^1_i(s, t))+\sum_{i=1}^{p-n}u_i\leq & \sum_{i=2}^{n}\deg(\phi_i(s, t))+\sum_{i=1}^{p-n}u_i\\=& n-\deg(\phi_1(s,t))-\sum_{i=1}^{q-n}c_i,\\
\end{array}$$ and $$\begin{array}{rl}
\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\deg(\pi^1_i(s, t))+\sum_{i=1}^{p-n}u_i\leq& \sum_{i=2}^{n}\deg(\psi_i(s, t))+\sum_{i=1}^{p-n}u_i\\=& n-\deg(\psi_1(s,t))-\sum_{i=1}^{q-n}d_i. \end{array}$$ If $\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\deg(\pi^1_i(s, t))+\sum_{i=1}^{p-n}u_i= n$, then $\phi_1(s, t)= \psi_1(s, t)=1$, $\sum_{i=1}^{q-n}c_i=\sum_{i=1}^{q-n}d_i=0$, and $$\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}(\deg(\pi^1_i(s, t))-\deg(\phi_{i+1}(s, t)))= \sum_{i=1}^{n-1}(\deg(\pi^1_i(s, t))-\deg(\psi_{i+1}(s, t)))=0,$$ therefore, ${\mathbf c}={\mathbf d}$, $\pi^1_i(s, t)=\phi_{i+1}(s, t)=\psi_{i+1}(s, t)$, $1\leq i \leq n-1$ and $A(s){\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}B(s)$. As $A(s)\not {\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}B(s)$, we derive $S\geq 0$.
Notice that in the case that ${\mathbf c}\neq {\mathbf d}$, because of condition (\[eqGg\]), $S=G\leq \sum_{i=1}^{q-n}\min\{c_i, d_i\}+ \max\{c_f, d_{f'}\}$. Hence, by Lemma \[propbat\] (in the case ${\mathbf c}={\mathbf d}$) or by Lemma \[lemmapart\] (in the case ${\mathbf c}\neq {\mathbf d}$), there exists a partition of nonnegative integers ${\mathbf g}=(g_1, \dots, g_{q-n+1})$ satisfying $\sum_{i}^{q-n+1} g_i=S$ and (\[colnnn-1\]).
Since $\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\deg(\pi^1_i(s, t))+\sum_{i=1}^{p-n}u_i+\sum_{i}^{q-n-1} g_i=n-1 $, there exists a pencil $A_{21}(s)\in {\mathbb F}^{(p-1)\times q} $ of $\rank(A_{21}(s))=n-1$, homogeneous invariant factors $\pi^1_i(s, t)\mid \dots \mid\pi^1_{n-1}(s, t)$, column minimal indices $g_1\geq \dots \geq g_{q-n+1}$ and row minimal indices $u_1\geq \dots \geq u_{p-n}$.
From (\[intern-1\]) and (\[colnnn-1\]) and Lemma \[lemmaDox1\], there exist pencils $a(s), b(s)\in{\mathbb F}[s]^{1\times q}$, such that $ A(s){\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}\begin{bmatrix}a(s)\\A_{21}(s)\end{bmatrix}$ and $B(s){\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}\begin{bmatrix}b(s)\\A_{21}(s)\end{bmatrix}$.
- Assume that ${\mathbf c}\neq {\mathbf d}$ and that (\[eqintfihr1\]) and (\[eqT\]) hold. By Lemma \[lemmaeq\], it is enough to prove the existence of matrix pencils $\bar a(s), \bar b(s)\in{\mathbb F}[s]^{p\times 1}$, $A_{12}(s)\in {\mathbb F}[s]^{p\times (q-1)}$ such that $ A(s){\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}\begin{bmatrix}\bar a(s)& A_{12}(s)\end{bmatrix}$ and $B(s){\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}\begin{bmatrix}\bar b(s) & A_{12}(s)\end{bmatrix}$.
Let $x=T-\sum_{i=1}^{q-n}\max\{c_i, d_i\}+\max\{c_f, d_{f'}\}$. Condition (\[eqT\]) implies that $x\geq 0$. Let $\gamma(s,t)$ be a homogeneous polynomial of $\deg(\gamma(s,t))= x$ and define $$\begin{array}{ll}
\bar \pi^1_i(s, t): =\lcm(\phi_{i}(s, t),\psi_{i}(s, t)), \quad 1\leq i \leq n-1,
\\
\bar \pi^1_n(s, t)=\gamma(s,t)\lcm(\phi_{n}(s, t),\psi_{n}(s, t)).
\end{array}$$ Then, $\bar \pi_1^1(s,t)\mid \dots \mid \bar \pi_{n}^1(s,t)$ and (\[eqintfihr1\]) implies $$\label{intern}
\begin{array}{ll}
\phi_i(s, t)\mid\bar \pi^1_i(s, t)\mid\phi_{i+1}(s, t), & 1\leq i \leq n,\\
\psi_i(s, t)\mid\bar \pi^1_i(s, t)\mid\psi_{i+1}(s, t), & 1\leq i \leq n.
\end{array}$$ Let $T'=T-x=\sum_{i=1}^{q-n}\max\{c_i, d_i\}- \max\{c_f, d_{f'}\}$. Then $T'\geq 0$. By Lemma \[lemmapart\], there exists a partition of nonnegative integers ${\mathbf g}=(g_1, \dots, g_{q-n-1})$ such that $\sum_{i}^{q-n-1} g_i=T'$ and $$\label{revcolnnn}
{\mathbf c}\prec' {\mathbf g},\quad {\mathbf d}\prec' {\mathbf g}.$$
(Notice that due to the value of $T'$, the conditions in the cases \[itEg1\] and \[itE1\] of Lemma \[lemmapart\] are satisfied).
By the definition of $T$, $$\begin{array}{l}
T'\leq T\leq n-\sum_{i=1}^{n}\deg(\phi_i(s,t))-\sum_{i=1}^{p-n}u_i=\sum_{i=1}^{q-n}c_i,\\
T'\leq T\leq n-\sum_{i=1}^{n}\deg(\psi_i(s,t))-\sum_{i=1}^{p-n}v_i=\sum_{i=1}^{q-n}d_i.\end{array}$$ Then, from Lemma \[lemmacard\] we obtain $$\label{eqrr}
\#\{i \; : \;\ g_i>0\}\leq \#\{i \; : \; c_i>0\},
\quad
\#\{i \; : \;\ g_i>0\}\leq \#\{i \; : \; d_i>0\}.$$ As $\sum_{i=1}^{n}\deg(\bar \pi^1_i(s, t))+\sum_{i=1}^{p-n}u_i+\sum_{i}^{q-n+1} g_i=n,$ there exists a pencil $A_{12}(s)\in {\mathbb F}^{p\times (q-1)}$ of $\rank (A_{12}(s))=n$, homogeneous invariant factors $\bar \pi^1_i(s, t)\mid \dots \mid \bar \pi^1_{n}(s, t)$, column minimal indices $g_1\geq \dots \geq g_{q-n-1}$ and row minimal indices $u_1\geq \dots \geq u_{p-n}$. From (\[intern\])-(\[eqrr\]) and Lemma \[lemmaDox0\], there exist pencils $\bar a(s)^T, \bar b(s)^T\in{\mathbb F}[s]^{1\times p}$ such that $ A(s)^T{\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}\begin{bmatrix}\bar a(s)^T\\A_{12}(s)^T\end{bmatrix}$ and $B(s)^T{\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}\begin{bmatrix}\bar b(s)^T\\A_{12}(s)^T\end{bmatrix}$. Therefore, $ A(s){\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}\begin{bmatrix}\bar a(s)&A_{12}(s)\end{bmatrix}$ and $B(s){\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}\begin{bmatrix}\bar b(s)&A_{12}(s)\end{bmatrix}$.
. The conclusion follows applying the previous result of the case ${\mathbf u}={\mathbf v}$ to the pencils $A(s)^T$ and $B(s)^T$.
. Assume that there exist homogeneous polynomials $\pi_1^1(s,t)\mid \dots \mid \pi_{n}^1(s,t)$ satisfying (\[boca\]).
1. If (\[cdsr\]) and (\[sumpi1\]) hold, then $q-n_1=q-n_2+1$, i.e., $n_1=n_2-1$, hence $n_1=n$ and $n_2=n+1$. From (\[sumpi1\]), there exists a pencil $A_{21}(s)\in {\mathbb F}^{(p-1)\times q}$ of $\rank (A_{21}(s))=n$, homogeneous invariant factors $\pi^1_i(s, t)\mid \dots \mid \pi^1_{n}(s, t)$, column minimal indices $c_1\geq \dots \geq c_{q-n}$ and row minimal indices $v_1\geq \dots \geq v_{p-n-1}$. Moreover, because of (\[boca\]), $$\begin{array}{rl}
\sum_{i=1}^{p-n-1}v_i&=n-\sum_{i=1}^{q-n}c_i-\sum_{i=1}^{n}\deg(\pi_i^1(s, t))\\&\leq n-\sum_{i=1}^{q-n}c_i-\sum_{i=1}^{n}\deg( \phi_i(s, t))=
\sum_{i=1}^{p-n}u_i.\end{array}$$ From Lemma \[lemmacard\], we obtain $\#\{i \; : \;\ v_i>0\}\leq \#\{i \; : \; u_i>0\}.$ Applying Lemmas \[lemmaDox0\] and \[lemmaDox1\], there exist pencils $ a(s), b(s)\in{\mathbb F}[s]^{1\times q}$ such that $ A(s){\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}\begin{bmatrix} a(s)\\A_{21}(s)\end{bmatrix}$ and $B(s){\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}\begin{bmatrix} b(s)\\A_{21}(s)\end{bmatrix}$. The sufficiency follows from Lemma \[lemmaeq\].
The cases (b), (c) and (d) are similar.
$\Box$
If ${\mathbb F}$ is algebraically closed, the conditions of the case ${\mathbf c}\neq {\mathbf d}$, ${\mathbf u}\neq {\mathbf v}$ can be written in terms of inequalities, as stated in the next lemma. The proof is inspired by that of [@Za97 Corollary 4.3].
\[algclos\] Let $\Omega_1(s, t), \dots, \Omega_{n}(s, t),
\Psi_1(s, t), \dots, \Psi_{n+1}(s, t)\in {\mathbb F}[s, t]$ be homogeneous polynomials such that $\Omega_1(s, t)\mid \dots\mid \Omega_{n}(s, t)$, $\Psi_1(s, t)\mid \dots\mid \Psi_{n+1}(s, t)$, and $$\label{eqintfihr1T}
\Psi_{i-1}(s, t)\mid\Omega_i(s, t)\mid\Psi_{i+1}(s, t), \quad 1\leq i \leq n.$$ Let $x$ be a nonnegative integer.
If ${\mathbb F}$ is an algebraically closed field, then there exist homogeneous polynomials $\pi_1^1(s,t)\mid \dots \mid \pi_n^1(s,t)$ satisfying $$\label{bocaT}
\lcm(\Omega_i(s,t), \Psi_i(s,t))\mid \pi_i^1(s,t)\mid \gcd(\Omega_{i+1}(s,t), \Psi_{i+1}(s,t)), \quad 1\leq i \leq n,$$ and $$\label{sumpi1x}
\sum_{i=1}^n \deg(\pi_i^1(s,t))=x$$ if and only if $$\label{bocasumx}
\sum_{i=1}^n\deg(\lcm(\Omega_i(s,t), \Psi_i(s,t)))\leq x\leq \sum_{i=1}^n\deg(\gcd(\Omega_{i+1}(s,t), \Psi_{i+1}(s,t))).$$
[*Proof.*]{} From (\[bocaT\]) and (\[sumpi1x\]), clearly we deduce (\[bocasumx\]).
Conversely, assume that (\[bocasumx\]) holds. Condition (\[eqintfihr1T\]) implies that $$\lcm(\Omega_i(s,t), \Psi_i(s,t))\mid \gcd(\Omega_{i+1}(s,t), \Psi_{i+1}(s,t)), \quad 1\leq i \leq n,$$ hence, $\Delta_i(s,t)=\frac{\gcd(\Omega_{i+1}(s,t), \Psi_{i+1}(s,t))}{\lcm(\Omega_i(s,t), \Psi_i(s,t))}$ are homogeneous polynomials.
Let $\delta_i=\deg(\lcm(\Omega_i(s,t), \Psi_i(s,t))$, $\delta'_i=\deg(\gcd(\Omega_{i+1}(s,t), \Psi_{i+1}(s,t))), \ 1\leq i \leq n.$ From (\[bocasumx\]) we have $$0\leq x-\sum_{i=1}^n\delta_i\leq\sum_{i=1}^n(\delta'_i-\delta_i).$$ Let $z_1, \dots, z_n$ be integers such that $0\leq z_i \leq \delta'_i-\delta_i=\deg(\Delta_i(s,t))$ and $\sum_{i=1}^nz_i= x-\sum_{i=1}^n\delta_i$. As ${\mathbb F}$ is algebraically closed, there exists homogeneous polynomials $\gamma_i(s,t)$ such that $\deg(\gamma_i(s,t))=z_i$ and $\gamma_i(s,t)\mid \Delta_i(s,t)$, for $1\leq i \leq n$.
Let $\pi_i^1(s,t)= \lcm(\Omega_i(s,t), \Psi_i(s,t))\gamma_i(s, t)$, $1\leq i \leq n$. Then, $\pi^1_{i}(s,t)\mid \pi^1_{i+1}(s,t)$ for $1\leq i \leq n-1$, and they satisfy (\[bocaT\]) and (\[sumpi1x\]). $\Box$
Let ${\mathbb F}= {\mathbb C}$, $n=6$, $x=3$. $\Omega_1(s,t)=\dots=\Omega_5(s,t)=1,\Omega_6(s,t)=s^2+t^2 $, $\Psi_1(s,t)=\dots\Psi_5(s,t)=1,\Psi_6(s,t)=\Psi_7(s,t)=s^2+t^2 $. Then $$\lcm(\Omega_i(s,t), \Psi_i(s,t))=1, \, 1\leq i \leq 5;\;
\lcm(\Omega_6(s,t), \Psi_6(s,t))=s^2+t^2,$$ $$\gcd(\Omega_{i+1}(s,t), \Psi_{i+1}(s,t))=1, \, 1\leq i \leq 4;\;
\gcd(\Omega_{i+1}(s,t), \Psi_{i+1}(s,t))=s^2+t^2, \, 5\leq i \leq 6.$$ and (\[bocasumx\]) holds. The homogeneous polynomials $$\pi^1_1(s,t)=\dots =\pi^1_4(s,t)=1,\quad \pi^1_5(s,t)\mid s+it,
\quad \pi^1_6(s,t)= s^2+t^2$$ satisfy (\[bocaT\]) and (\[sumpi1x\]).
Under the conditions of Theorem \[maintheogen\], if ${\mathbb F}$ is an algebraically closed field and ${\mathbf c}\neq {\mathbf d}$, ${\mathbf u}\neq {\mathbf v}$, there exists a matrix pencil $P(s)\in {\mathbb F}[s]^{p \times q}$ of $\rank (P(s))=1$ such that $A(s)+P(s){\ensuremath{\stackrel{s.e.}{\sim}}}B(s)$ if and only if (\[eqintfihr1T\]), and one of the four following conditions hold
1. (\[cdsr\]) and $$\label{bocacdsr}
\sum_{i=1}^n\deg(\lcm(\phi_i(s,t), \psi_i(s,t)))\leq
n-\sum_{i=1}^{q-n_1}c_i-\sum_{i=1}^{p-n_2}v_i
\leq \sum_{i=1}^n\deg(\gcd(\phi_{i+1}(s,t), \psi_{i+1}(s,t))).$$
2. (\[dcrs\]) and $$\label{bocacdrs}
\sum_{i=1}^n\deg(\lcm(\phi_i(s,t), \psi_i(s,t)))\leq
n-\sum_{i=1}^{q-n_2}d_i-\sum_{i=1}^{p-n_1}u_i
\leq \sum_{i=1}^n\deg(\gcd(\phi_{i+1}(s,t), \psi_{i+1}(s,t))).$$
3. (\[cdsr\]) y (\[bocacdrs\]).
4. (\[dcrs\]) y (\[bocacdsr\]).
Conclusions {#secconclusions}
===========
Given a matrix pencil, regular or singular, we have completely characterized the Kronecker structure of a pencil obtained from it by a perturbation of rank one. The result holds over arbitrary fields.
[^1]: Departamento de Ciencia de la Computación e I.A., Facultad de Informática, Universidad del País Vasco, UPV/EHU, Donostia-San Sebastián, Spain, e-mail: [email protected]. Partially supported by “Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad (MINECO)” of Spain and “Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER)” of EU through grants MTM2017-83624-P and MTM2017-90682-REDT, and by UPV/EHU through grant GIU16/42.
[^2]: Departamento de Matemática Aplicada, IMM, Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain, e-mail: [email protected]. Partially supported by “Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad (MINECO)” of Spain and “Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER)” of EU through grants MTM2017-83624-P and MTM2017-90682-REDT.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Local analysis of the two dimensional Navier-Stokes equations is used to obtain estimates on the energy and enstrophy fluxes involving Taylor and Kraichnan length scales and the size of the domain. In the framework of zero driving force and non-increasing global energy, these bounds produce sufficient conditions for existence of the direct enstrophy and inverse energy cascades. Several manifestations of locality of the fluxes under these conditions are obtained. All the scales involved are [*actual physical scales*]{} in $\mathbb{R}^2$ and no homogeneity assumptions are made.'
address:
- |
Department of Mathematics\
University of Virginia\
Charlottesville, VA 22904
- |
Department of Mathematics\
University of Virginia\
Charlottesville, VA 22904
author:
- 'R. Dascaliuc'
- 'Z. Grujić'
bibliography:
- 'DG2.bib'
title: '2D turbulence in physical scales of the Navier-Stokes equations '
---
introduction
============
Following the groundbreaking ideas of Kolmogorov [@Kol1; @Kol2; @Kol3], Batchelor, Kraichnan and Leith [@Bat82; @Bat88; @Kra67; @Kra71; @Lei68] established the foundations of empirical theory of 2D turbulence (BKL theory). One of the main features of the BKL theory is the existence of [*enstrophy cascade*]{} over a wide range of length scales, called the [*inertial range*]{}, where the dissipation effects are dominated by the transport of enstrophy from higher to lower scales. In contrast to the 3D turbulence, the energy in 2D case is cascading toward the [*larger scales*]{}, a phenomenon referred to as the [*inverse energy cascade*]{}. Direct enstrophy and inverse energy cascades have been observed in physical experiments (albeit certain difficulties exist in generating a purely 2D turbulent flow), but theoretical justification of these phenomena using equations of fluid motion, and in particular, the Navier-Stokes equations (NSE), remains far from being settled. Technical complexity of the NSE makes it difficult to establish the conditions under which such cascades can occur. In the 2D case, the NSE possess a number of useful regularity properties (unlike the 3D case for which the global regularity is an open problem). However, the dynamical complexity of the NSE makes a detailed study of their long time behavior a difficult enterprise. Under certain conditions, existence of the global attractors of high fractal and Hausdorff dimensions has been established for the 2D NSE; moreover, it is believed that these attractors become chaotic (although the proof is elusive). For an overview of various mathematical models of turbulence and the theory of the NSE, see, e.g., [@FMRTbook; @Fbook; @ES] and [@L-R; @CFbook; @Tbook1], respectively.
Most rigorous studies of 2D NSE turbulence have been made in Fourier settings. In particular, in [@FJMR] the framework of space-periodic solutions and infinite-time averages was used to study main aspects of the BKL theory, including establishing a sufficient condition for the enstrophy cascade. This condition, involving Kraichnan length scale, is akin to our condition (\[scales\_con\_fin\]) obtained in section 4. In contrast to [@FJMR], our goal was to work in [*physical space*]{} and with finite-time averages, dealing with actual length scales in $\mR$ rather than the Fourier wave numbers.
In this paper we extend to the 2D case the ideas introduced in [@DG1] to establish the existence of the energy cascade and space locality of the flux for the 3D NSE. There, one of the difficulties was the possible lack of regularity, which led us to using the framework of suitable weak solutions ([@S; @CKN]). In 2D, the difficulties lie in the need to work with higher-order derivatives in the case of the enstrophy cascade, as well as in dealing with a rather complex phenomenology of the 2D turbulence.
Despite these differences, the basic setting for studying energy and enstrophy transfer in physical scales remains the same in both 3D and 2D case. We utilize the refined cut-off functions to localize the relevant physical quantities in physical space and then employ ensemble averages satisfying certain optimality conditions together with [*dynamics*]{} of NSE to link local quantities to global ones (see [@DG1] for a detailed discussion of our physical scales framework).
We restrict our study to a bounded region, a ball, in $\mR$, and consider the case of short-time or [*decaying turbulence*]{} by setting the driving force to zero. Thus, in contrast to infinite-time averages used in [@FJMR], we use averages over finite times. The time intervals considered here depend on the size of the domain as well as the viscosity (see (\[T\_con\])). The spatial ensemble average is taken by considering optimal coverings of the spatial domain with balls at various scales. Also, to exclude the situations of the uniform growth of kinetic energy without any movement between the scales we restrict our study to [*physical situations*]{} where the kinetic energy on the (global) spatial domain $\Omega$ is non-increasing, e.g., a bounded domain with no-slip boundary conditions, or the whole space with either decay at infinity or periodic boundary conditions.
The paper is structured as follows. In section 2 we provide a brief overview of the 2D NSE theory, noting the relevant existence and regularity results. We also point out important differences between 2D and 3D NSE, and how these difficulties are reflected in the differences between 2D and 3D turbulence.
Section 3 introduces the physical quantities of energy, enstrophy, and palinstrophy, as well as energy and enstrophy fluxes adopted to our particular settings. We also define the ensemble averages to be used throughout the paper.
The main result of section \[balls\] is a surprisingly simple sufficient condition for the enstrophy cascade (\[scales\_con\_fin\]), according to which the averaged enstrophy flux toward the lower scales is nearly constant over a range of scales. This condition, involving the Kraichnan scale and the size of the domain, is reminiscent of the Poincaré inequality on a domain of the corresponding size (see Remark \[Rem\_4.2\]). Moreover, the condition in hand would be easy to check in physical experiments as the averages involved are very straightforward.
Section 5 commences a study of inverse energy cascade in physical space. The existence of such cascades in the 2D NSE solutions remains an open question. Several partial results exist; in particular, in the space-periodic setting the energy flux is oriented towards lower (Fourier) scales in the region below the scales of the body force ([@FJMR]), but existence of the cascade could not be established. In contrast, [@BJF] provides a condition for the inverse energy cascades inside spectral gaps of the body force. We prove that if the global Taylor scale is dominated by the linear size of the domain, then the averaged energy flux is constant over a range of large scales and is oriented outwards (see Theorem \[back\_casc\_thm\]).
The second part of the paper concerns [*locality*]{} of the energy and enstrophy fluxes. Similarly to the 3D turbulence ([@O]), it is believed that the energy and enstrophy fluxes inside the inertial ranges of the 2D turbulent flows depends strongly on the flow in nearby scales, the dependence on lower and much higher scales being weak. The theoretical proof of this conjecture remained elusive. The first quantitative results on fluxes were obtained by early 70’s (see [@Kr]). Much later, the authors in [@LF] used the NSE in the Fourier setting to explore locality of scale interactions for statistical averages, while the investigation in [@E] revealed the locality of filtered energy flux under the assumption that the solutions to the vanishing viscosity Euler’s equations saturate a defining inequality of a suitable Besov space (a weak scaling assumption). A more recent work [@CCFS] provided a proof of the quasi-locality of the energy flux in the Littelwood-Paley setting.
In section 6 we obtain several manifestations of the locality of both energy and enstrophy fluxes in the physical space throughout the inertial ranges. In particular, considering dyadic shells at the scales $2^k R$ ($k$ an integer) in the physical space, we show that both ultraviolet and infrared locality propagate *exponentially* in the shell number $k$.
To the best of our knowledge, the condition (\[scales\_con\_fin\]) is presently the only condition (in any solution setting) implying both the existence of the inertial range and the locality of the enstrophy flux. The same is true for the relation (\[back\_ene\_casc\_con\]) which implies both inverse energy cascade and energy flux locality in the physical scales of the 2D NSE. Finally, we point out that our approach is valid for a variety of boundary conditions (in particular, the no-slip, periodic, or the whole space with decay at infinity); moreover, it does not involve any additional homogeneity assumptions on the solutions to the NSE.
preliminaries
=============
We consider two dimensional incompressible Navier-Stokes equations (NSE) $$\label{inc-nse}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\bfu(t,\bfx)-\nu\Delta \bfu(t,\bfx)
+(\bfu(t,\bfx)\cdot\nabla)\bfu(t,\bfx)+\nabla p(t,\bfx)&=0\\
\nabla\cdot\bfu(t,\bfx)&=0\;,
\end{aligned}$$ where the space variable $\bfx=(x_1,x_2)$ is in $\mathbb{R}^2$ and the time variable $t$ is in $(0, \infty)$. The vector-valued function $\bfu=(u_1,u_2)$ and the scalar-valued function $p$ represent the fluid velocity and the pressure, respectively, while the constant $\nu$ is the viscosity of the fluid.
Under appropriate boundary conditions this system admits a unique solution (see [@Tbook1], [@CFbook]), which is analytic in both space and time. For convenience, we generally assume no-slip boundary conditions on a bounded domain $$\label{BC}
\left.\bfu\right|_{\partial\Omega}=0, \qquad \Omega\ \ \mbox{bounded in}\ \mR$$ (although the results hold for the other physical boundary conditions which imply smoothness and non-increasing global energy $\int_{\Omega}|\bfu|^2$).
Thus, if $\phi\in\mathcal{D}((0,\infty)\times\Omega)$, $\phi\ge0$, where $\Omega$ be an open connected set in $\mR$, then multiplying NSE by $\phi\bfu$ and integrating by parts we obtain the local energy equation $$\label{loc_ene_ineq}
2\nu\iint|\nabla\otimes\bfu|^2\phi\,d\bfx\,dt =
\iint|\bfu|^2(\partial_t\phi+\nu\Delta\phi)\,d\bfx\,dt
+\iint(|\bfu|^2+2p)\bfu\cdot\nabla\phi\,d\bfx\,dt\;$$ where $\mathcal{D}((0,\infty)\times\Omega)$ denotes the space of infinitely differentiable functions with compact support in $(0, \infty) \times \Omega$.
We also consider the vorticity form of the 2D NSE by taking the curl of (\[inc-nse\]) viewed as a 3D equation with the third component zero, $$\label{vorticity_eq}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\omega -\nu\Delta\omega + (\bfu\cdot\nabla){\omega}=0,$$ where $\omega=\nabla\times\bfu$ (with the convention $\bfu=(u_1,u_2,0)$ and $\omega=(0,0,\omega)$).
Note that for the full 3D NSE (\[vorticity\_eq\]) would contain the vortex-stretching term $(\omega\cdot\nabla)\bfu$.
Multiplying (\[vorticity\_eq\]) with $\phi\,\omega$ yields the local enstrophy equation, $$\label{loc_enst_eq}
2\nu\iint|\nabla\otimes\omega|^2\phi\,d\bfx\,dt =
\iint|\omega|^2(\partial_t\phi+\nu\Delta\phi)\,d\bfx\,dt
+\iint|\omega|^2\bfu\cdot\nabla\phi\,d\bfx\,dt\;.$$
We will make the following assumptions on the domain $\Omega$ and test functions $\phi$.
First, we assume there exists $R_0$ satisfying $$\label{omega_ass}
R_0>0\quad\mbox{such that}\quad B(\bfo,3R_0)\subset\Omega\;$$ where $B(\bfo,3R_0)$ represents the ball in $\mR$ centered at the origin and with the radius $3R_0$.
Next, let $1/2\le\delta<1$. Choose $\psi_0\in\mathcal{D}(B(\bfo,2R_0))$ satisfying $$\label{psi0}
0\le\psi_0\le 1,\quad\psi_0=1\ \mbox{on}\ B(\bfo,R_0),
\quad\frac{|\nabla\psi_0|}{\psi_0^{\delta}}\le\frac{C_0}{R_0},
\quad\frac{|\Delta\psi_0|}{\psi_0^{2\delta-1}}\le\frac{C_0}{R_0^2}\;.$$ For a $T>0$ (to be chosen later), $\bfx_0\in B(\bfo,R_0)$ and $0<R\le R_0$, define $\phi=\phi_{\bfx_0,T,R}(t,\bfx)=\eta(t)\psi(\bfx)$ to be used in (\[loc\_ene\_ineq\]) and (\[loc\_enst\_eq\]) where $\eta=\eta_T(t)$ and $\psi=\psi_{\bfx_0,R}(\bfx)$ are refined cut-off functions satisfying the following conditions, $$\label{eta_def}
\eta\in\mathcal{D}(0,2T),\quad 0\le\eta\le1,\quad\eta=1\ \mbox{on}\
(T/4,5T/4),\quad\frac{|\eta'|}{\eta^{\delta}}\le\frac{C_0}{T}\; ;$$ if $B(\bfx_0,R)\subset B(\bfo,R_0)$, then $\psi\in\mathcal{D}(B(\bfx_0,2R))$ with $$\label{psi_def}\begin{aligned}
\quad 0\le\psi\le\psi_0,\quad\psi=1\ \mbox{on}\
B(\bfx_0,R)\cap B(\bfo,R_0),
\quad\frac{|\nabla\psi|}{\psi^{\delta}}\le\frac{C_0}{R},
\quad\frac{|\Delta\psi|}{\psi^{2\delta-1}}\le\frac{C_0}{R^2}\;,
\end{aligned}$$ and if $B(\bfx_0,R)\not\subset B(\bfo,R_0)$, then $\psi\in\mathcal{D}(B(\bfo,2R_0))$ with $\psi=1\ \mbox{on}\ B(\bfx_0,R)
\cap B(\bfo,R_0)$ satisfying, in addition to (\[psi\_def\]), the following: $$\label{psi_def_add1}
\begin{aligned}
&
\psi=\psi_0\ \mbox{on the part of the cone in}\ \mR\ \mbox{centered at zero and passing through}\\
& S(\bfo,R_0)\cap B(\bfx_0,R)\ \mbox{between}\ S(\bfo,R_0)\ \mbox{and}\
s(\bfo,2R_0)
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\label{psi_def_add2}
\begin{aligned}
&
\psi=0\ \mbox{on}\ B(\bfo,R_0)\setminus B(\bfx_0,2R)\ \mbox{and outside the part of the cone in}\ \mR\\
&
\mbox{centered at zero and passing through}\ S(\bfo,R_0)\cap B(\bfx_0,2R)\\
&
\mbox{between}\ S(\bfo,R_0)\ \mbox{and}\ S(\bfo,2R_0).
\end{aligned}$$
Figure \[ball\_fig\] illustrates the definition of $\psi$ in the case $B(\bfx_0,R)$ is not entirely contained in $B(\bfo,R_0)$.
![Regions of supp$(\psi)$ in the case $B(\bfx_0,R)\not\subset B(\bfo,R_0)$.[]{data-label="ball_fig"}](dg_fig1.eps)
[*The additional conditions on the boundary elements (\[psi\_def\_add1\]) and (\[psi\_def\_add2\]) are necessary to obtain the lower bound on the fluxes in terms of the same version of the localized enstrophy $E$ in Theorems \[balls\_thm\] and \[shells\_thm\] (see Remarks \[E’\_rem1\] and \[E’\_rem3\]).* ]{}
Averaged enstrophy and energy flux
==================================
Let $\bfx_0\in B(\bfo,R_0)$ and $0<R\le R_0$. We define the localized versions of energy, $e$, enstrophy, $E$, and palinstrophy, $P$ at time $t$ associated to $B(\bfx_0,R)$ by $$\label{enerdef}
e_{\bfx_0,R}(t)=\int \frac{1}{2}|\bfu|^2\phi^{2\delta-1}\,d\bfx\;,$$ $$\label{enstdef}
E_{\bfx_0,R}(t)=\int \frac{1}{2}|\omega|^2\phi^{2\delta-1}\,d\bfx
\quad\left(\ \mbox{or}\ E'_{\bfx_0,R}(t)=\int \frac{1}{2}|\omega|^2\phi\,d\bfx
\;\right)\;,$$ and $$\label{paltdef}
P_{\bfx_0,R}(t)=\int |\nabla\otimes\omega|^2\phi\,d\bfx\;.$$
In the classical case, the total – kinetic energy plus pressure – flux through the sphere $S(\bfx_0,R)$ is given by $$\int\limits_{S(\bfx_0,R)}(\frac{1}{2}|\bfu|^2+ p)\,\bfu\cdot{\bf{n}}\,ds=
\int\limits_{B(\bfx_0,R)}\left(\left(\bfu\cdot\nabla\right)\,\bfu+\nabla
p\right)\cdot\bfu\,dx\;$$ where ${\bf{n}}$ is an outward normal to the sphere $S(\bfx_0,R)$. Similarly, the enstrophy flux is given by $$\int\limits_{S(\bfx_0,R)}\frac{1}{2}|\omega|^2\,\bfu\cdot{\bf{n}}\,ds=
\int\limits_{B(\bfx_0,R)}(\bfu\cdot\nabla){\omega}\,\cdot\omega\,dx\;.$$
Considering the NSE localized to $B(\bfx_0,R)$ leads to the localized versions of the aforementioned fluxes, $$\label{en_fluxdef}
\Phi_{\bfx_0,R}(t)=\int
(\frac{1}{2}|\bfu|^2+p)\,\bfu\cdot\nabla\phi\,d\bfx\;$$ and $$\label{fluxdef}
\Psi_{\bfx_0,R}(t)=\int
\frac{1}{2}|\omega|^2\,\bfu\cdot\nabla\phi\,d\bfx\;,$$ where $\phi=\eta\psi$ with $\eta$ and $\psi$ as in (\[eta\_def\]-\[psi\_def\]). Since $\psi$ can be constructed such that $\nabla\phi=\eta\nabla \psi$ is oriented along the radial directions of $B(\bfx_0,R)$ towards the center of the ball $\bfx_0$, $\Phi_{\bfx_0,R}$ and $\Psi_{\bfx_0,R}$ can be viewed as the fluxes [*into*]{} $B(\bfx_0,R)$ through the layer between the spheres $S(\bfx_0,2R)$ and $S(\bfx_0,R)$ (in the case of the boundary elements satisfying the additional hypotheses (\[psi\_def\_add1\]) and (\[psi\_def\_add2\]), $\psi$ is almost radial and the gradient still points inward). In addition, (\[loc\_ene\_ineq\]) and (\[loc\_enst\_eq\]) imply that positivity of these fluxes contributes to the increase of $e_{\bfx_0,R}$ and $E_{\bfx_0,R}$, respectively.
Note that the total energy flux $\Phi_{\bfx_0,R}$ consists of both the kinetic and the pressure parts. Without imposing any specific boundary conditions on $\Omega$ it is possible that the increase of the kinetic energy around $\bfx_0$ is due solely to the pressure part, without any transfer of the kinetic energy from larger scales into $B(\bfx_0,R)$ (see [@DG1]). As we mentioned in the introduction, under physical boundary conditions, like (\[BC\]), the increase of the kinetic energy in $B(\bfx_0,R)$ (and consequently, the positivity of $\Phi_{\bfx_0,R}$) implies local transfer of the kinetic energy from larger scales simply because the local kinetic energy is increasing while the global kinetic energy is non-increasing resulting in decrease of the kinetic energy in the complement. This is also consistent with the fact that in the aforementioned scenarios one can project the NSE to the subspace of divergence-free functions effectively eliminating the pressure and revealing that the local flux $\Phi_{\bfx_0,R}$ is indeed driven by transport/inertial effects rather than the change in the pressure.
Henceforth, following the discussion in the preceding paragraph, in the setting of decaying turbulence (zero driving force, non-increasing global energy), the positivity and the negativity of $\Phi_{\bfx_0,R}$ and $\Psi_{\bfx_0,R}$ will be interpreted as transfer of (kinetic) energy and enstrophy around the point $\bfx_0$ at scale $R$ toward smaller scales and transfer of (kinetic) energy around the point $\bfx_0$ at scale $R$ toward larger scales, respectively.
For a quantity $\Theta=\Theta_{\bfx,R}(t)$, $t\in[0,2T]$ and a covering $\{B(\bfx_i,R)\}_{i=1,n}$ of $B(\bfo,R_0)$ define a time-space ensemble average $$\lgl\Theta\rgl_R=\frac{1}{T}\int
\frac{1}{n}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}
\frac{1}{R^2}\Theta_{\bfx_i,R}(t)\,dt\;.$$
Denote by $$\label{e_R_def}
e_R=\lgl e_{\bfx,R}(t)\rgl_R\;,$$ $$\label{E_R_def}
E_R=\lgl E_{\bfx,R}(t)\rgl_R\quad\left(\ \mbox{or}\ E'_R=\lgl E'_{\bfx,R}(t)\rgl_R\;\right)\;,$$ $$\label{P_R_def}
P_R=\lgl P_{\bfx,R}(t)\rgl_R\;,$$ $$\label{Phi_R_def}
\Phi_R=\lgl \Phi_{\bfx,R}(t)\rgl_R\;,$$ and $$\label{Psi_R_def}
\Psi_R=\lgl \Psi_{\bfx,R}(t)\rgl_R\;,$$ the averaged localized energy, enstrophy, palinstrophy, and inward-directed energy and enstrophy fluxes over balls of radius $R$ covering $B(\bfo,R_0)$.
Also, introduce the time-space average of the localized energy, enstrophy and palinstrophy on $B(\bfo,R_0)$, $$\label{e_def}
e_0=\frac{1}{T}\int
\frac{1}{R_0^2}e_{\bfo,R_0}(t)\,dt=\frac{1}{T}\frac{1}{R_0^2}\iint \frac{1}{2}|\bfu|^2\phi_0^{2\delta-1}\,d\bfx\,dt\;,$$ $$\label{E_def}
\begin{aligned}
&{E_0}=\frac{1}{T}\int
\frac{1}{R_0^2}E_{\bfo,R_0}(t)\,dt=\frac{1}{T}\frac{1}{R_0^2}
\iint \frac{1}{2} |\omega|^2\phi_0^{2\delta-1}\,d\bfx\,dt\;\\
&\left(\ \mbox{or}\ {E'_0}=\frac{1}{T}\int
\frac{1}{R_0^2}E_{\bfo,R_0}(t)\,dt=\frac{1}{T}\frac{1}{R_0^2}
\iint \frac{1}{2} |\omega|^2\phi_0\,d\bfx\,dt\;\right)\;,
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\label{P_def}
{P_0}=\frac{1}{T}\int
\frac{1}{R_0^2}E_{\bfo,R_0}(t)\,dt=\frac{1}{T}\frac{1}{R_0^3}
\iint |\nabla\otimes\omega|^2\phi_0\,d\bfx\,dt\;$$ where $$\label{phi0}
\phi_0(t,\bfx)=\eta(t)\psi_0(\bfx)$$ with $\psi_0$ defined in (\[psi0\]).
Finally, define Taylor and Kraichnan length scales associated with $B(\bfo,R_0)$ by $$\label{tau_def}
\tau_0=\left(\frac{e_0}{E'_0}\right)^{1/2}\;$$ and $$\label{sigma_def}
\sigma_0=\left(\frac{E_0}{P_0}\right)^{1/2}\;.$$
To obtain optimal estimates on the aforementioned fluxes we will work with averages corresponding to [*optimal*]{} coverings of $B(\bfo,R_0)$.
Let $K_1,K_2>1$ be absolute constants (independent of $R,R_0$, and any of the parameters of the NSE).
\[opt\_cover\_def\] We say that a covering of $B(\bfo,R_0)$ by $n$ balls of radius $R$ is [*optimal*]{} if $$\label{n_con1}
\left(\frac{R_0}{R}\right)^2\le n\le K_1\left(\frac{R_0}{R}\right)^2;$$ $$\label{n_con2}
\mbox{any}\ \bfx\in B(\bfo,R_0)\ \mbox{is covered by at most}\ K_2 \
\mbox{balls}\ B(\bfx_i,2R)\,.$$
Note that optimal coverings exist for any $0<R\le R_0$ provided $K_1$ and $K_2$ are large enough. In fact, the choice of $K_1$ and $K_2$ depends only on the dimension of $\mR$, e.g, we can choose $K_1=K_2=8$.
Henceforth, we assume that the averages $\lgl\cdot\rgl_R$ are taken with respect to optimal coverings.
The key observation about these optimal coverings is contained in the following lemma.
\[R\_ave\_lem\] If the covering $\{B(\bfx_i,R)\}_{i=1,n}$ of $B(\bfo,R_0)$ is optimal then the averages $e_R$, $E_R$, and $P_R$ satisfy $$\label{R_ave_est}
\begin{aligned}
&\frac{1}{K_1}e_0 \le e_R \le K_2e_0\;,\\
&\frac{1}{K_1}E_0 \le E_R \le K_2E_0
\quad\left(\; \frac{1}{K_1}E'_0 \le E'_R \le K_2E'_0\;\right)\;,\\
&\frac{1}{K_1}P_0 \le P_R \le K_2P_0\;.
\end{aligned}$$
Note that since the integrand is non-negative, using (\[n\_con2\]) and the lower bound in (\[n\_con1\]) we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
e_R&=\frac{1}{T}\frac{1}{R^2}
\frac{1}{n}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}
\iint \frac{|\bfu|^2}{2}\phi_i^{2\delta-1}\,d\bfx dt\le \frac{1}{T}\frac{1}{R^2}
\frac{1}{n} K_2\iint \frac{|\bfu|^2}{2}\phi_0^{2\delta-1}\,d\bfx dt\\
&\le
K_2\frac{1}{T}\frac{1}{R^2}\left(\frac{R}{R_0}\right)^2\iint \frac{|\bfu|^2}{2}\phi_0^{2\delta-1}\,d\bfx dt=
K_2e_0\;.
\end{aligned}$$ Next, we use the upper bound in (\[n\_con1\]) and the non-negativity of the integrand to bound $e_R$ from below, $$\begin{aligned}
e_R&=\frac{1}{T}\frac{1}{R^3}
\frac{1}{n}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}
\iint \frac{|\bfu|^2}{2}\phi_i^{2\delta-1}\,d\bfx dt\ge\frac{1}{T}\frac{1}{R^3}
\frac{1}{n}\iint \frac{|\bfu|^2}{2}\phi_0^{2\delta-1}\,d\bfx dt\\
&\ge
\frac{1}{T}\frac{1}{R^3}\frac{1}{K_1}\left(\frac{R}{R_0}\right)^2
\iint \frac{|\bfu|^2}{2}\phi_i^{2\delta-1}\,d\bfx dt=
\frac{1}{K_2}e_0\;,
\end{aligned}$$ arriving at the first relation of (\[R\_ave\_est\]). The other two relations are proved in a similar manner.
Note that the lemma above shows that for the the non-negative quantities, like energy, enstrophy, and palinstrophy, the ensemble averages over the balls of size $R$, $e_R$, $E_R$, and $P_R$ are comparable to the total space-time average. This is not so for the quantities that change signs, like the energy and enstrophy fluxes. In fact $\Phi_R$ and $\Psi_R$ provide a meaningful information as to energy and enstrophy transfers into balls of size $R$. Positivity of $\Psi_R$, for example, implies that there are at least some regions of size $R$ for which the enstrophy flows inwards.
Moreover, note that the space-time ensemble averages of energy, enstrophy, and palinstrophy that correspond to these optimal coverings (over finite number of balls) are equivalent to the uniform space-time average. We define the uniform space-time average of $\Theta=\Theta_{\bfx,R}(t)$ as $$\label{unif_ave_def}
\Theta^u_R=\frac{1}{T}\frac{1}{R_0^2}\int\limits_{B(\bfo,R_0)}\int\limits_0^{2T} \frac{1}{R^2}\Theta_{\bfx,R}(t)\, d\bfx dt\;;$$ thus we have the following uniform averages of energy, enstrophy, palinstrophy and fluxes in regions of size $R$: $e^u_R$, $E^u_R$ ($E'^u_R$), $P^u_R$, $\Phi^u_R$ and $\Psi^u_R$.
\[U\_ave\_lem\] The following estimates hold $$\label{unif_ave_est}
\begin{aligned}
&\frac{1}{2^2}e_0\le e^u_R \le 4^2 e_0\;,\\
&\frac{1}{2^2}E_0\le E^u_R \le 4^2 E_0
\quad\left(\; \frac{1}{2^2}E'_0\le E'^u_R \le 4^2 E'_0\;\right)\;,\\
&\frac{1}{2^2}P_0\le P^u_R \le 4^2 P_0\;.
\end{aligned}$$
We will prove the first relation in (\[unif\_ave\_est\]), the others follow in a similar way.
Note that the definition of uniform average applied to the energy $e_{\bfx,R}(t)$ yeilds $$e^u_R = \frac{1}{R_0^2} \int\limits_{B{\bfx_0}} \left(
\frac{1}{T}\frac{1}{R^2}\iint \frac{|\bfu|^2}{2}\phi_{{\bf y},R}\,d{\bf x} dt
\right)\, d{\bf y}\;.$$ Denote $$F(\bfy)=\frac{1}{T}\frac{1}{R^2}\iint \frac{|\bfu|^2}{2}\phi_{{\bf y},R}\,d{\bf y} dt.$$ Observe that since the solution $\bfu$ is continuous, $F:B(\bfo,R_0)\to\mathbb{R}$ is continuous as well.
Cover $B(\bfo,R_0)$ in $n$ cubic cells, $\{C_i\}$ of linear size $R/2$. Note that $$4\le n\le 8$$ and the area of a cell $C_i$ is $$\mbox{A}(C_i)=\frac{R^2}{4}\;.$$ If a cell intersects the sphere $S(\bfo, R_0)$, we extend $F$ to the whole cell by setting $F(\bfy)=0$ on $C_i\setminus B(\bfo,R_0)$. Naturally, this extension makes $F$ is measurable (but not necessarily continuous) on $\cup C_i$.
Let $\epsilon>0$. Since $F$ is bounded, there exist $\ubx_i,\lbx_i\in C_i$ such that $$F(\ubx_i)\ge \sup\limits_{C_i}F-\frac{\epsilon}{2^i}\quad \mbox{and}\quad
F(\lbx_i)\le \inf\limits_{C_i}F+\frac{\epsilon}{2^i}\;.$$
Consequently, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{R_0^2}\int\limits_{B(\bfo,R_0)} F(\bfy)\, d\bfy & =\frac{1}{R_0^2}\int\limits_{\cup C_i} F(\bfy)\, d\bfy
\le\frac{1}{R_0^2}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}\left(F(\ubx_i)+\frac{\epsilon}{2^i}\right)A(C_i)\\ &\le
\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{R}{R_0}\right)^2\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}F(\ubx_i)+\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{R}{R_0}\right)^2\epsilon\;.
\end{aligned}$$ Note that since $F\ge 0$ and $F=0$ outside $B(\bfo,R_0)$, without loss of generality we may assume $\ubx_i\in B(\bfo,R_0)$. Moreover, the balls $\{B(\ubx_i,R)\}$ form an optimal covering of $B(\bfo, R_0)$ in the sense of Definition \[opt\_cover\_def\] with $K_2=8^2$. Thus, $$\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n} R^2 F(\ubx_i)=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}\frac{1}{T}\iint \frac{|\bfu|^2}{2}\phi_{\ubx_i,R}\, d\bfx dt
\le K_2 \frac{1}{T}\iint \frac{|\bfu|^2}{2}\phi_0\, d\bfx dt = K_2R_0^2 e_0\;,$$ and so $$e^u_R=\frac{1}{R_0}^2 \int\limits_{B(\bfo,R_0)} F(\bfy)\, d\bfy\le \frac{K_2}{4}e_0+\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{R}{R_0}\right)^2\epsilon\;,$$ for any $\epsilon>0$, which implies the upper bound in the first relation in (\[unif\_ave\_est\]).
To obtain the lower bound, proceed similarly, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{R_0^2}\int\limits_{B(\bfo,R_0)} F(\bfy)\, d\bfy & =\frac{1}{R_0^2}\int\limits_{\cup C_i} F(\bfy)\, d\bfy
\ge\frac{1}{R_0^2}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}\left(F(\lbx_i)-\frac{\epsilon}{2^i}\right)A(C_i)\\ &\ge
\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{R}{R_0}\right)^2\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}F(\lbx_i)-\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{R}{R_0}\right)^2\epsilon\;.
\end{aligned}$$ Note that even if $\lbx_i\not\in B(\bfo,R_0)$, we still can choose $\psi_{\lbx_i,R}$ satisfying (\[psi\_def\])-(\[psi\_def\_add2\]) and so the supports of $\psi_{\lbx_i,R}$ will still cover $B(\bfo,R_0)$ and $$\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n} R^2 F(\lbx_i)=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}\frac{1}{T}\iint \frac{|\bfu|^2}{2}\phi_{\lbx_i,R}\, d\bfx dt
\ge \frac{1}{T}\iint \frac{|\bfu|^2}{2}\phi_0\, d\bfx dt = R_0^2 e_0\;.$$
Consequently, $$e^u_R=\frac{1}{R_0^2} \int\limits_{B(\bfo,R_0)} F(\bfy)\, d\bfy\ge \frac{1}{4}e_0-\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{R}{R_0}\right)^2\epsilon\;,$$ and, since $\epsilon>0$ is arbitrary, we obtain the lower bound in the first relation of (\[unif\_ave\_est\]).
The lemma above allows us to to note that the estimates for the optimal ensemble averages, $\lgl\cdot\rgl_R=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\cdot\;$ that will follow will also be valid for the uniform averages, $\lgl\cdot\rgl_U=\frac{1}{R_0^2}\int_{B({\bf 0},R_0)}\cdot\; d\bfx$.
Enstrophy cascade {#balls}
=================
Let $\{B(\bfx_i,R)\}_{i=1,n}$ be an optimal covering of $B(\bfo,R_0)$.
Note that the local enstrophy equation (\[loc\_enst\_eq\]) and the definitions of $P_R$ and $\Psi_R$ (see (\[P\_R\_def\]) and (\[Psi\_R\_def\])) imply
$$\label{ene-eq}
\Psi_R= \nu P_R -
\frac{1}{n}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}\frac{1}{T}\frac{1}{R^3}\iint\frac{1}{2}
|\omega|^2(\partial_t\phi_i+\nu\Delta\phi_i)\,d\bfx\,dt\;$$
where $\phi_i=\eta\psi_i$ and $\psi_i=\psi_{\bfx_i,R}$ is the spatial cut-off on $B(\bfx_i,2R)$ satisfying (\[eta\_def\]-\[psi\_def\_add2\]).
If $$\label{T_con}
T\ge \frac{R_0^2}{\nu},$$ then for any $0<R\le R_0$,
$$\label{phi_bd}
\begin{aligned}
|(\phi_i)_t|&=|\eta_t\psi_i|\le C_0\frac{1}{T}\eta^{\delta}\psi_i\le
\nu\frac{C_0}{R^2}\phi_i^{2\delta-1}\,,\\
\nu|\Delta\phi_i|&=\nu|\eta\Delta\psi_i|\le C_0\frac{\nu}
{R^2}\eta\psi_i^{2\delta-1}\le\nu\frac{C_0}{R^2}\phi_i^{2\delta-1};
\end{aligned}$$
hence, $$\Psi_R\ge \nu P_R -\nu \frac{C_0}{R^2}\,E_R.$$
Using (\[R\_ave\_est\]) we obtain $$\label{low_bd_rel}
\Psi_R\ge \nu \frac{1}{K_1}P_0 -\nu \frac{C_0K_2}{R^2}\,E_0\;$$ leading to the following proposition.
$$\label{low_bd}
\Psi_R\ge c_1\nu P_0\,\left(1-c_2\frac{\sigma_0^2}{R^2}\right)$$
with $c_1=1/K_1$ and $c_2=C_0K_1K_2$ (provided conditions (\[n\_con1\]-\[n\_con2\]) are satisfied).
Suppose that $$\label{scales_con}
\sigma_0< \frac{\gamma}{c_2^{1/2}}R_0$$ for some $0<\gamma<1$. Then, for any $R$, $(c_2^{1/2}/\gamma)\,\tau_0 \le R \le R_0$, $$\label{lower_bd}
\Psi_R\ge{c_1}(1-\gamma^2)\nu E_0=c_{0,\gamma}\nu E_0\;$$ where $$c_{0,\gamma}={c_1}(1-\gamma^2)=\frac{1-\gamma^2}{K_1}\;.$$
To obtain an upper bound on the averaged modified flux, note that from (\[R\_ave\_est\]), $P_R\le{K_2}P_0$, and hence, (\[ene-eq\]) implies $$\Psi_R\le \nu P_R+\frac{C_0}{R^2}E_R\le\nu K_2P_0+\nu C_0K_2\frac{1}{R^2}\,E_0.$$ If the condition (\[scales\_con\]) holds for some $0<\gamma<1$, then it follows that for any $R$, $({c_2}^{1/2}/{\gamma})\,\tau_0
\le R\le R_0$, $$\Psi_R\le \nu K_2 P_0+\nu \frac{C_0K_2\gamma^2}{c_2}P_0\le
c_{1,\gamma}\nu P_0\;$$ where $$c_{1,\gamma}=K_2 \left[1+\frac{C_0\gamma^2}{c_2}\right]=K_2
\left[1+\frac{\gamma^2}{K_1K_2}\right]\;.$$
Thus we have proved the following.
\[balls\_thm\] Assume that for some $0<\gamma<1$ $$\label{scales_con_fin}
\sigma_0< c{\gamma}\,R_0\;,$$ where $$\label{c_con1}
c=\frac{1}{\sqrt{C_0K_1K_2}}\;.$$ Then, for all $R$, $$\label{inert_range}
\frac{1}{c\gamma}\,\sigma_0\le R\le R_0,$$ the averaged enstrophy flux $\Psi_R$ satisfies $$\label{ener_casc}
c_{0,\gamma}\nu P_0\le\Psi_R\le c_{1,\gamma} \nu P_0\;$$ where $$\label{c_con2}
c_{0,\gamma}=\frac{1-\gamma^2}{K_1}\,, \quad
c_{1,\gamma}=K_2 \left[1+\frac{\gamma^2}{K_1K_2}\right]\;,$$ and the average $\lgl\cdot\rgl_R$ is computed over a time interval $[0,T]$ with $T\ge R_0^2/\nu$ and determined by an optimal covering of $B(\bfo,R_0)$ (i.e., a covering satisfying (\[n\_con1\]) and (\[n\_con2\])).
[*The theorem provides a sufficient condition for the enstrophy cascade. If (\[scales\_con\_fin\]) is satisfied, then the averaged enstrophy flux at scales $R$, throughout the inertial range defined by (\[inert\_range\]), is oriented inwards (i.e. towards the lower scales) and is comparable to the average enstrophy dissipation rate in $B(\bfo,R_0)$. Note that the averages are taken over the finite-time intervals $[0,T]$ with $T\ge R_0^2/\nu$ (see (\[T\_con\])). This lower bound on the length of the time interval $T$ is consistent with the picture of decaying turbulence; namely, small $\nu$ corresponds to the well-developed turbulence which then persists for a longer time and it makes sense to average over longer time-intervals.* ]{}
\[Rem\_4.2\]
*In the language of turbulence, the condition (\[scales\_con\_fin\]) simply reads that the Kraichnan *micro scale* computed over the domain in view is smaller than the *integral scale* (diameter of the domain).*
On the other hand, (\[scales\_con\_fin\]) is equivalent to
$$\frac{1}{T}\iint |\omega|^2\phi_0^{2\delta-1}\,d\bfx\,dt
<\frac{\gamma^2}{C_0K_1K_2}{R_0^2} \frac{1}{T}\iint
|\nabla\otimes\omega|^2\phi_0\,d\bfx\,dt\;$$ which can be read as a requirement that the time average of a Poincaré-like inequality on $B(\bfo,2R_0)$ is not saturating; this will hold for a variety of flows in the regions of intense fluid activity (large gradients).
\[E’\_rem1\][*If we do not impose the additional assumptions (\[psi\_def\_add1\]) and (\[psi\_def\_add2\]) for the test functions on the balls $B(\bfx_i,R)\not\subset B(\bfo,R_0)$, then the lower bounds for $\Psi_R$ in (\[low\_bd\]) and (\[ener\_casc\]) will hold with $P$ replaced by the time-space average of the [*[non-localized]{}*]{} in space palinstrophy on $B(\bfo,R_0)$, $$P'=\frac{1}{T}\int\limits_0^{2T}
\frac{1}{R_0^2}\int\limits_{B(\bfx_\bfo,R_0)}|\nabla\otimes\omega|^2\eta\,d\bfx\,dt\;.$$ This is the case because the estimate $P_R\ge P/K_1$ gets replaced with $$P_R\ge\frac{1}{K_1}P'\;.$$* ]{}
\[unif\_ave-obs1\][*If we integrate the relation (\[loc\_enst\_eq\]) over $B({\bf 0}, R_0)$ (instead of summing over the optimal covering) and use Lemma \[U\_ave\_lem\], the $\Psi_R$ in (\[ener\_casc\]) can be replaced with the uniform averaged enstrophy flux at scales $R$, $$\Psi^u_{R}=\frac{1}{R_0^2}\int\limits_{B({\bf 0}, R_0)} \Psi_{\bfx,R}\; d\bfx\;,$$ with $K_1=2^2$ and $K_2=4^2$.*]{}
\[ene\_casc\_rem\]
*Proceeding similarly as above, but using the energy balance equation (\[loc\_ene\_ineq\]) we can derive a sufficient condition for the *forward* energy cascade; if for some $0<\gamma<1$ we have $$\label{ene_scales_con_fin}
\tau_0< c{\gamma}\,R_0\;,$$ then for all $R$, $$\label{ene_inert_range}
\frac{1}{c\gamma}\,\tau_0\le R\le R_0,$$ the averaged energy flux $\Phi_R$ satisfies $$\label{ene_casc}
c_{0,\gamma}\nu E'_0\le\Phi_R\le c_{1,\gamma} \nu E'_0\;,$$ where the constants are the same as in Theorem \[balls\_thm\].*
Note that for a ${\bf v}$ in $H^2_0(B(\bfo,R_0))^2$ $$|\nabla\otimes{\bf v}|^2=\int |\nabla\otimes {\bf v}|^2\,d\bfx=
-\int {\bf v}\cdot \Delta {\bf v}\,d\bfx\le |{\bf v}|\,|\Delta{\bf v}|\;,$$ and thus $$\frac{|{\bf v}|}{|\nabla\otimes{\bf v}|}\ge\frac{|\nabla\otimes{\bf v}|}{|\Delta{\bfv}|}\;.$$ If we extend the analogy with Poincaré inequalities used in Remark \[Rem\_4.2\] to this case, then the last relation suggests that the Taylor’s length scale $\tau_0$ should dominate the Kraichnan’s scale $\sigma_0$ for a variety of flows characterized by large gradients, and so the sufficient condition for forward energy cascade, (\[ene\_scales\_con\_fin\]), is potentially more restrictive then (\[scales\_con\_fin\]), which is consistent with the arguments that in 2D flows the inertial range for (forward) energy cascade, if exists, should be much narrower then the enstrophy inertial range. This fact was in fact established in the Fourier settings in [[@D1]]{}.
Existence of inverse energy cascades
====================================
Assume $\bfu$ is a solution of the NSE (\[inc-nse\]) which satisfies no-slip boundary conditions in some bounded region $\Omega\subset\mR$: $$\label{no_slip}
\left.\bfu(t,\bfx)\right|_{\partial\Omega}=0 \qquad\mbox{for all}\ t\ge0\;.$$ For simplicity, we consider $\Omega=B(\bfo,D)$ (although more general domains would be acceptable).
Define $$e=\frac{1}{T}\iint\limits_{[0,2T]\times\Omega} \frac{|\bfu|^2}{2}\eta\,d\bfx dt\;
\label{back_e_def}$$ and $$\label{back_E_def}
E=\frac{1}{T}\iint\limits_{[0,2T]\times\Omega} |\nabla\bfu|^2\eta\,d\bfx dt\;,$$ the time-averaged energy and enstrophy in $\Omega$ (localized in time), and $$\tau=\frac{e}{E}$$ the Taylor’s length-scale for $\Omega$ (here $\eta$ is a function of time satisfying (\[eta\_def\])).
We assume that there exists $\gamma>0$ and a length-scale $0<R_0<D/2$ such that
$$\label{outer_glob_assu}
e\le\gamma^2 R_0^2E \quad \mbox{or equivalently,}\quad \tau\le \gamma R_0\;.$$
In order to define localized fluxes toward larger scales we introduce the following cut-off functions.
Let $1/2\le\delta<1$. Define $$\label{D_def}
D(\bfx,R)=\Omega\setminus B(\bfx,R)\;.$$
For an $\bfx_0$ in $\Omega$ and $R_0<R\le D/2$ define the refined cut-off functions $\bphi=\bphi_{\bfx_0,T,R}(t,\bfx)=\eta(t)\bpsi(\bfx)$, where $\eta=\eta_T(t)$ is defined in (\[eta\_def\]) and $\bpsi=\bpsi_{\bfx_0,R}(\bfx)$ is a $C^{\infty}$ function on $\Omega$ which satisfies $$\label{tpsi_def}\begin{aligned}
\quad 0\le\bpsi\le1,&\quad\bpsi=1\ \mbox{on}\
D(\bfx_0,R),\quad \bpsi=0\ \mbox{on}\ B(\bfx_0,R-R_0),\\
&\mbox{with}\quad\frac{|\nabla\bpsi|}{\bpsi^{\delta}}\le\frac{C_0}{R_0}\quad
\mbox{and}\quad\frac{|\Delta\bpsi|}{\bpsi^{2\delta-1}}\le\frac{C_0}{R_0^2}\;.
\end{aligned}$$
Figure \[outer\_ball\_fig\] illustrates the definition of $\bpsi$ in the case $B(\bfx_0,R)$ is entirely contained in $\Omega$.
![Regions of support $(\bpsi_{\bfx_0,R})$.[]{data-label="outer_ball_fig"}](dg2_fig3)
Define the localized energy and enstrophy associated to the outer region $D(\bfx_0, R)$ $$\be_{\bfx_0,R}=\frac{1}{T}\iint \frac{|\bfu|^2}{2}\bphi_{\bfx_0,R}^{2\delta-1}\,d\bfx dt\:$$ and $$\bE_{\bfx_0,R}=\frac{1}{T}\iint |\nabla\bfu|^2\bphi_{\bfx_0,R}\,d\bfx dt\;,$$ as well as the total energy flux $$\bPhi_{\bfx_0,R}=\frac{1}{T}\iint\left(\frac{|\bfu|^2}{2}+p\right)\bfu\cdot\nabla\bphi_{\bfx_0,R}\,d\bfx dt.$$ Note that since $\bpsi$ can be constructed such that $\nabla\bphi=\eta\nabla \bpsi$ is oriented along the radial directions outside the ball $B(\bfx_0,R)$, $\bPhi_{\bfx_0,R}$ can be viewed as the flux [*out of*]{} $B(\bfx_0,R)$ (i.e. [*into*]{} $D(\bfx_0,R)$) through the layer between the spheres $S(\bfx_0,R)$ and $S(\bfx_0,R-R_0)$. Additionally, (\[loc\_ene\_ineq\]) confirms that $\be_{\bfx_0,R}$ tends to increase on average in the case $\bPhi_{\bfx_0,R}>0$.
To show existence of inverse energy cascade we proceed similarly to section \[balls\].
Note that (\[no\_slip\]) implies that the relation (\[loc\_ene\_ineq\]) holds for $\phi=\bphi$, and so, rewriting it in terms of the quantities defined above yields $$\label{outer_loc_ene_bal}
\bPhi_{\bfx_0,R}=\nu\bE_{\bfx_0,R}-\frac{1}{T}\iint \frac{|\bfu|^2}{2}\left(\partial_t\bphi_{\bfx_0,R}+\nu\Delta\bphi_{\bfx_0,R}\right)\,d\bfx dt\;.$$
Using estimates analogous to (\[phi\_bd\]) we arrive at $$\label{out_ene_est}
\left|\frac{1}{T}\iint \frac{|\bfu|^2}{2}\left(\partial_t\bphi_{\bfx_0,R}+\nu\Delta\bphi_{\bfx_0,R}\right)\,d\bfx dt\right|\le\frac{C_0}{R_0^2}\be_{\bfx_0,R}\;,$$ provided $$\label{T_con2}
T\ge\frac{R_0^2}{\nu}\;.$$
If $0<R_0<R<D/2$, we only need two regions $D(\bfx_1,R)$ and $D(\bfx_2,R)$ to cover $\Omega$ (by choosing $\bfx_1,\bfx_2\in\Omega$ with $|\bfx_1-\bfx_2|>2R$). These regions provide optimal covering of $\Omega$ in the spirit of Definition \[opt\_cover\_def\] which will be used in this section.
For these optimal coverings we have $$\frac{1}{2}e\le \be_R=\frac{1}{2}\left(\be_{\bfx_1,R}+\be_{\bfx_2,R}\right)\le e\;$$ and $$\frac{1}{2}E\le \bE_R=\frac{1}{2}\left(\bE_{\bfx_1,R}+\bE_{\bfx_2,R}\right)\le E\;.$$
Thus, if we sum up (\[outer\_loc\_ene\_bal\]) over $\bfx_1$ and $\bfx_2$ and use (\[out\_ene\_est\]), we obtain the following bounds on the ensemble average of time-averaged local fluxes at scales $R$ $$\bPhi_R=\frac{1}{2}\left(\bPhi_{\bfx_1,R}+\bPhi_{\bfx_2,R}\right)\le \bE_R+\frac{C_0}{R_0^2}\be_R\le \nu E +\frac{C_0}{R_0^2}e\;$$ and $$\bPhi_R\ge \bE_R-\frac{C_0}{R_0^2}\be_R\ge \frac{1}{2}\nu E -\frac{C_0}{R_0^2}e\;.$$
Consequently,
$$\label{outer_Phi_bds}
\frac{\nu}{2} E \left(1-2C_0\frac{\tau^2}{R_0}\right)\le\bPhi_R\le \nu E \left(1+C_0\frac{\tau^2}{R_0}\right)\;.$$
Going back to the (\[outer\_glob\_assu\]) we obtain the following.
\[back\_casc\_thm\] Assume $$\label{back_ene_casc_con}
\tau\le\gamma R_0\;$$ for some $0<R_0<D/2$ and $0<\gamma<1/\sqrt{2C_0}$. Then, for all $R$ satisfying $$\label{back_iner_range}
R_0<R<\frac{D}{2}$$ we have $$\label{back_ene_casc}
\bar{c}_{0,\gamma}\nu E \le\lgl\bPhi\rgl_R\le\bar{c}_{0,\gamma} \nu E\;$$ where $$\label{back_casc_constants}
\bar{c}_{0,\gamma}=\frac{1}{2}(1-2C_0\gamma^2)\quad\mbox{and}\quad\bar{c}_{0,\gamma}=1+C_0\gamma^2\;,$$ while the averages are taken with respect to optimal coverings and over time intervals $T\ge R_0^2/\nu$.
[*The meaning of the theorem above is that if the condition (\[back\_ene\_casc\_con\]) is satisfied, then for a range of scales $R$, the average backward energy flux is comparable to the total energy dissipation rate $\nu E$. Thus we have a backward energy cascade over the inertial range defined by (\[back\_iner\_range\]). The sufficient condition (\[back\_ene\_casc\_con\]) does not call for $\tau$ to be much smaller then the internal integral scale $R_0$. However, the inertial range for backwards energy cascade is wide provided $R_0\ll D/2$, which means that backwards energy cascade will exist for a wide range of scales provided $\tau\ll D$ (according to (\[back\_iner\_range\]) it will start at scales comparable with $\tau$ and end at scales comparable with $D$). In particular, the scales $D$ and $R_0$ do not have to coincide.* ]{}
[*By combining Theorem \[back\_casc\_thm\] with Remark \[ene\_casc\_rem\] we note that if on some ball $B(\bfx_0,R_1)\subset\Omega$ the local Taylor scale satisfies $\tau_0\ll R_1$, while the global Taylor scale $\tau\ll D$, we have both inverse energy cascade on $\Omega$ over the range of scale satisfying (\[back\_iner\_range\]) as well as the direct energy cascade inside $B(\bfx_0,R_1)$ over the range of scale defined by (\[ene\_inert\_range\]) (with $R_0$ replaced by $R_1$).* ]{}
[*Since $\bfu$ is zero on $\partial\Omega$, we may replace in Theorem \[back\_casc\_thm\] the ensemble average $\bPhi_R$ with the uniform space average $$\bPhi_R^u=\frac{1}{D^2}\int\limits_{\Omega}\bPhi_{\bfx, R}\,d\bfx\;.$$* ]{}
[*We work with the no-slip boundary condition on $\Omega$, but the results of this section (with slightly modified $e$ and $E$) will hold for space periodic or vanishing at infinity flows as well.* ]{}
Locality of the averaged fluxes {#locality}
===============================
Let $\bfx_0\in B(\bfo,R_0)$, $0<R_2<R_1\le R_0$. In order to study the enstrophy flux through the shell $A(\bfx_0,R_1,R_2)$ between the spheres $S(\bfx_0,R_2)$ and $S(\bfx_0,R_1)$ we will consider the modified cut-off functions $\phi=\phi_{\bfx_0,T,R_1,R_2}(t,\bfx)=\eta(t)\psi(\bfx)$ to be used in the local enstrophy balance (\[loc\_enst\_eq\]) where $\eta=\eta_T(t)$ as in (\[eta\_def\]) and $\psi=\psi_{\bfx_0,R_1,R_2} \in \mathcal{D}(A(\bfx_0,2R_1,R_2/2))$ satisfying $$\label{psi_shells_def}\begin{aligned}
&0\le\psi\le\psi_0,\quad\psi=1\ \mbox{on}\
A(\bfx_0,R_1,R_2)\cap B(\bfo,R_0),\\
&\frac{|\nabla\psi|}{\psi^{\delta}}\le\frac{C_0}{\tilde{R}},\quad
\frac{|\Delta\psi|}{\psi^{2\delta-1}}\le\frac{C_0}{\tilde{R}^2}\;,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\psi_0$ is defined in (\[psi0\]) and $$\label{tilde_R}
\tilde{R}=\tilde{R}(R_1,R_2)=\min\{R_2,R_1-R_2\}\;.$$
Use $\phi$ to define the time-averaged energy, enstrophy, and palinstrophy in the shell between the spheres $S(\bfx_0,R_2)$ and $S(\bfx_0,R_1)$ by $$\begin{aligned}
&e_{\bfx_0,R_1,R_2}=\frac{1}{T}\iint\frac{1}{2}
|\bfu|^2\phi^{2\delta-1}\,d\bfx\,dt\;,\\
&E_{\bfx_0,R_1,R_2}=\frac{1}{T}\iint\frac{1}{2}
|\omega|^2\phi^{2\delta-1}\,d\bfx\,dt
\ \left(\; E'_{\bfx_0,R_1,R_2}=\frac{1}{T}\iint\frac{1}{2}
|\omega|^2\phi\,d\bfx\,dt\; \right)\,,\\
&P_{\bfx_0,R_1,R_2}=\frac{1}{T}\iint
|\nabla\otimes\omega|^2\phi\,d\bfx\,dt\;.
\end{aligned}$$ Then, $$\begin{aligned}
&\tau_{\bfx_0,R_1,R_2}=\left(\frac{e_{\bfx_0,R_1,R_2}}{E'_{\bfx_0,R_1,R_2}}\right)^{1/2}\;,\\
&\sigma_{\bfx_0,R_1,R_2}=\left(\frac{E_{\bfx_0,R_1,R_2}}{P_{\bfx_0,R_1,R_2}}\right)^{1/2}
\end{aligned}$$ are the *local* Taylor and Kraichnan length scales associated with the shell $A(\bfx_0,R_1,R_2)$.
Also define the localized time-averaged flux through the shell between the spheres $S(\bfx_0,R_2)$ and $S(\bfx_0,R_1)$ as $$\label{shell_enst_flux_def}
\Psi_{\bfx_0,R_1,R_2}=\frac{1}{T}\iint
\frac{1}{2}|\omega|^2\,\bfu\cdot\nabla\phi\,d\bfx\,dt\;.$$ Note that $\phi$ can be chosen radially (almost radially in case $A(\bfx_0,R_1,R_2)\not\subset B(\bfo,R_0)$) so that $\Psi_{\bfx_0,R_1,R_2}=\Psi_{\bfx_0,R_1}-\Psi_{\bfx_0,R_2/2}$. Moreover, (\[loc\_enst\_eq\]) implies that this flux contributes to increase $E_{\bfx_0,R_1,R_2}$ on average. Thus $\Psi_{\bfx_0,R_1,R_2}$ can be viewed as [*total enstrophy flux into*]{} the shell $A(\bfx_0,R_1,R_2)$.
Similarly, total [*energy*]{} flux into the shell $A(\bfx_0,R_1,R_2)$ is defined by $$\label{shell_ene_flux_def}
\Phi_{\bfx_0,R_1,R_2}=\frac{1}{T}\iint
\left(\frac{1}{2}|\bfu|^2+p\right)\,\bfu\cdot\nabla\phi\,d\bfx\,dt\;.$$
Note that $\phi$ satisfies similar estimates to (\[phi\_bd\]) (with $R$ replaced by $\tilde{R}$), and so, if $T\ge R_0^2/\nu$, the local enstrophy balance (\[loc\_enst\_eq\]) leads to
$$\begin{aligned}
\Psi_{\bfx_0,R_1,R_2} &\ge \nu P_{\bfx_0,R_1,R_2}-\nu \frac{C_0}{\tilde{R}^2}E_{\bfx_0,R_1,R_2}\\
&= \nu
P_{\bfx_0,R_1,R_2}\,\left(1-C_0\frac{\sigma^2_{\bfx_0,R_1,R_2}}{\tilde{R}^2}\right)\;,
\end{aligned}$$
for any $\bfx_0\in B(\bfo,R_0)$ and any $0<R_2<R_1\le R_0$.
Similarly, utilizing (\[loc\_enst\_eq\]) again, we obtain an upper bound $$\label{shells_up_bd}
\begin{aligned}
\Psi_{\bfx_0,R_1,R_2} &\le\nu P_{\bfx_0,R_1,R_2}+\frac{C_0}{\tilde{R}^2}E_{\bfx_0,R_1,R_2}\\
&= \nu
P_{\bfx_0,R_1,R_2}\,\left(1+C_0\frac{\sigma^2_{\bfx_0,R_1,R_2}}{\tilde{R}^2}\right)\;,
\end{aligned}$$
Combining the two bounds on $\Psi_{\bfx_0,R_1,R_2}$ we obtain $$\label{Psi_loc_bd}
\nu P_{\bfx_0,R_1,R_2}\,\left(1-C_0\frac{\sigma^2_{\bfx_0,R_1,R_2}}{\tilde{R}^2}\right)
\le\Psi_{\bfx_0,R_1,R_2}\le
\nu P_{\bfx_0,R_1,R_2}\,\left(1+C_0\frac{\sigma^2_{\bfx_0,R_1,R_2}}{\tilde{R}^2}\right)\;;$$ thus, we have arrived at our first locality result.
\[shells\_thm1\] Let $0<\gamma<1$, $\bfx_0\in B(\bfo,R_0)$ and $0<R_2<R_1\le R_0$. If $$\label{scales_con2_fin}
\sigma_{\bfx_0,R_1,R_2}<\frac{\gamma}{C_0^{1/2}}\tilde{R}\;$$ with $\tilde{R}$ defined by (\[tilde\_R\]), then $$\label{ener_casc1}
(1-\gamma^2)\,\nu P_{\bfx_0,R_1,R_2}\le\Psi_{\bfx_0,R_1,R_2}\le
(1+\gamma^2)\,\nu P_{\bfx_0,R_1,R_2}\;$$ where the time average is taken over an interval of time $[0,T]$ with $T\ge R_0^2/\nu$.
[*The theorem states that if the local Kraichnan scale $\sigma_{\bfx_0,R_1,R_2}$, associated with a shell $A(\bfx_0,R_1,R_2)$, is smaller than the thickness of the shell $\tilde{R}$ (a local integral scale), then the time average of the total enstrophy flux into that shell towards its center $\bfx_0$ is comparable to the time average of the localized palinstrophy in the shell, $P_{\bfx_0,R_1,R_2}$. Thus, under the assumption (\[scales\_con2\_fin\]) the flux through the shell $A(\bfx_0,R_1,R_2)$ depends essentially only on the palinstrophy contained in the neighborhood of the shell, regardless of what happens at the other sales, making (\[scales\_con2\_fin\]) a sufficient condition for the *locality* of the flux through $A(\bfx_0,R_1,R_2)$.* ]{}
[*Similarly as in the case of condition (\[scales\_con\_fin\]), we can observe that condition (\[scales\_con2\_fin\]) can be viewed as a requirement that the time average of a Poincaré-like inequality on the shell is not saturating making it plausible in the case of intense fluid activity in a neighborhood of the shell.* ]{}
In order to further study the locality of the enstrophy flux, we will estimate the ensemble averages of the fluxes through the shells $A(\bfx_i,2R,R)$ of thickness $\tilde{R}=R$. Since we are interested in the shells inside $B(\bfo,R_0)$, we require the lattice points $\bfx_i$ to satisfy $$\label{x_i_shells_con}
B(\bfx_i,R)\subset B(\bfo,R_0)\;.$$ To each $A(\bfx_i,2R,R)$ we associate a test function $\phi_i=\eta\psi_i$ where $\eta$ satisfies (\[eta\_def\]) and $\psi_i$ satisfies (\[psi\_shells\_def\]) with $\bfx_0=\bfx_i$ and $\tilde{R}=R$.
If $A(\bfx_i,2R,R)\not\subset B(\bfo,R_0)$ (i.e. we have $B(\bfx_i,R)\subset B(\bfo,R_0)$ and $B(\bfx_i,2R)\setminus B(\bfo,R_0)\not=\emptyset$), then $\psi_i\in\mathcal{D}(B(\bfo,2R_0))$ with $\psi_i=1\ \mbox{on}\ A(\bfx_0,2R,R)
\cap B(\bfo,R_0)$ satisfying, in addition to (\[psi\_shells\_def\]), the following: $$\label{psi_shells_def_add1}
\begin{aligned}
&
\psi_i=\psi_0\ \mbox{on the part of the cone in}\ \mR\ \mbox{centered at
zero and passing}\\ &\mbox{ through}\ S(\bfo,R_0)\cap B(\bfx_i,2R)\
\mbox{between}\ S(\bfo,R_0)\ \mbox{and}\
S(\bfo,2R_0)
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\label{psi_shells_def_add2}
\begin{aligned}
&
\psi_i=0\ \mbox{on}\ B(\bfo,R_0)\setminus A(\bfx_i,4R,R/2)\ \mbox{and outside the part of the}\\ &
\mbox{cone in}\ \mR\ \mbox{centered at zero and passing through}\ S(\bfo,R_0)\cap B(\bfx_i,4R)\\
&
\mbox{between}\ S(\bfo,R_0)\ \mbox{and}\ S(\bfo,2R_0).
\end{aligned}$$
Figure \[shall\_fig\] illustrates the definition of $\psi_i$ in the case $A(\bfx_i,2R,R)$ is not entirely contained in $B(\bfo,R_0)$.
![Regions of supp$(\psi_i)$ in the case $A(\bfx_i,2R,R)\not\subset B(\bfo,R_0)$.[]{data-label="shall_fig"}](dg_fig2.eps)
Similarly as in the previous section, we consider [*optimal*]{} coverings of $B(\bfo,R_0)$ by shells $\{A(\bfx_i,2R,R)\}_{i=1,n}$ such that (\[x\_i\_shells\_con\]) is satisfied, $$\label{shells_n_con1}
\left(\frac{R_0}{R}\right)^2\le n\le
K_1\left(\frac{R_0}{R}\right)^2,$$ and $$\label{Shells_n_con2}
\mbox{any}\ \bfx\in B(\bfo,R_0)\ \mbox{is covered by at most}\ K_2\
\mbox{shells}\ A(\bfx_i,4R,R/2)\;.$$
Introduce $$\begin{aligned}
&\tilde{e}_{2R,R}=\frac{1}{n}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}e_{\bfx_i,2R,R}\;,\\
&\tilde{E}_{2R,R}=\frac{1}{n}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}E_{\bfx_i,2R,R}
\quad\left(\ \tilde{E}'_{2R,R}=\frac{1}{n}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}E_{\bfx_i,2R,R}\ \right)\;,\\
&\tilde{P}_{2R,R}=\frac{1}{n}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}P_{\bfx_i,2R,R}\;,
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&\tilde{\Phi}_{2R,R}=\frac{1}{n}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}\Phi_{\bfx_i,2R,R}\;,\\
&\tilde{\Psi}_{2R,R}=\frac{1}{n}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}\Phi_{\bfx_i,2R,R}\;
\end{aligned}$$ the ensemble averages of the time-averaged energy, enstrophy, palinstrophy, and energy and enstrophy fluxes on the shells of thickness $R$ corresponding to the covering $\{A(\bfx_i,2R,R)\}_{i=1,n}$.
Taking the ensemble averages in (\[loc\_enst\_eq\]) and applying the bounds for derivatives of $\phi_i$, we arrive at $$\label{low_R12_bd}
\tilde{\Psi}_{2R,R}\ge \nu\tilde{P}_{2R,R}-\nu\frac{C_0}{R^2}\,\tilde{E}_{2R,R}\;,$$ provided $T\ge R_0^2/\nu$.
If the covering is optimal, i.e., if (\[x\_i\_shells\_con\]) and (\[shells\_n\_con1\]-\[Shells\_n\_con2\]) hold, then $$\label{E_R12_E_ineq}
\tilde{P}_{2R,R}\ge \frac{1}{n}\tilde{P}\ge \frac{1}{K_1}\left(\frac{R}{R_0}\right)^{2}\tilde{P}_0$$ and $$\label{e_R12_e_ineq}
\tilde{E}_{2R,R}\le \frac{K_2}{n}\tilde{E}\le
K_2\left(\frac{R}{R_0}\right)^2\tilde{E}_0\;$$ where $$\tilde{P}_0=\frac{1}{T}\iint
|\nabla\otimes\omega|^2\phi_0\,d\bfx\,dt=R_0^2\,P_0\;$$ is the time average of the localized palinstrophy on $B(\bfo,R_0)$ and $$\tilde{E}_0=\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{T}\iint
|\omega|^2\phi_0^{2\delta-1}\,d\bfx\,dt=R_0^2\, E_0\;$$ is the time average of the localized enstrophy on $B(\bfo,R_0)$ with $\phi_0$ is defined by (\[phi0\]).
Let us note that $$\label{tau_obs}
\sigma_0=\left(\frac{E_0}{P_0}\right)^{1/2}=\left(\frac{\tilde{E}_0}{\tilde{P}_0}\right)^{1/2}\;.$$
Utilizing (\[E\_R12\_E\_ineq\]), (\[e\_R12\_e\_ineq\]) and (\[tau\_obs\]) in the inequality (\[low\_R12\_bd\]) gives $$\label{Psi_R12_low}
\tilde{\Psi}_{2R,R}\ge
\frac{1}{K_1}\left(\frac{R}{R_0}\right)^2\,\nu\tilde{P}_0
\left(1-C_0K_1K_2\frac{\sigma_0^2}{R^2}\right)\;.$$ Taking the ensemble averages in the localized enstrophy equation (\[loc\_enst\_eq\]) again, this time looking for an upper bound, yields $$\tilde{\Psi}_{2R,R}\le \nu\tilde{P}_{2R,R}+\nu\frac{C_0}{R^2}\tilde{E}_{2R,R}\;.$$ If the covering $\{A(\bfx_i,2R,R)\}_{i=1,n}$ of $B(\bfo,R_0)$ is optimal, then, in addition to (\[e\_R12\_e\_ineq\]), $$\label{e_R12_ineq}
\tilde{P}_{2R,R}\le \frac{K_2}{n}\tilde{P}_0\le
K_2\left(\frac{R}{R_0}\right)^2\tilde{P}_0\;;$$ hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\Psi}_{2R,R}&\le \nu K_2\left(\frac{R}{R_0}\right)^2\tilde{P}_0
+\nu K_2\frac{C_0}{R^2}\left(\frac{R}{R_0}\right)^2\tilde{E}_0\\
&=K_2\left(\frac{R}{R_0}\right)^2\,\nu\tilde{P}_0
\left(1+C_0\frac{\sigma_0^2}{R^2}\right)\;.
\end{aligned}$$
Collecting all the bounds on $\tilde{\Psi}_{2R,R}$ we obtain $$\frac{1}{K_1}\left(\frac{R}{R_0}\right)^2\,\nu\tilde{P}_0
\left(1-C_0K_1K_2\frac{\sigma_0^2}{R^2}\right)
\le\tilde{\Psi}_{2R,R} \le
K_2\left(\frac{R}{R_0}\right)^2\,\nu\tilde{P}_0
\left(1+C_0\frac{\sigma_0^2}{R^2}\right)\;$$ which readily implies the following theorem.
\[shells\_thm\] Assume that the condition (\[scales\_con\_fin\]) holds for some $0<\gamma<1$. Then, for any $R$ satisfying (\[inert\_range\]), the ensemble average of the time-averaged enstrophy flux into the shells of thickness $R$, $\tilde{\Psi}_{2R,R}$, satisfies $$\label{ener_casc2}
c_{0,\gamma}\left(\frac{R}{R_0}\right)^2\,\nu\tilde{P}_0\le\tilde{\Psi}_{2R,R}\le
c_{1,\gamma} \left(\frac{R}{R_0}\right)^2\,\nu\tilde{P}_0\;$$ where $c$, $c_{0,\gamma}$, and $c_{1,\gamma}$ are defined in (\[c\_con1\]) and (\[c\_con2\]) and the average is computed over a time interval $[0,T]$ with $T\ge R_0^2/\nu$ and determined by an optimal covering $\{A(\bfx_i,2R,R)\}_{i=1,n}$ of $B(\bfo,R_0)$ (i.e. satisfying (\[x\_i\_shells\_con\]), (\[shells\_n\_con1\]), and (\[Shells\_n\_con2\])).
Note that if $$\Psi_{2R,R}=\frac{1}{R^2}\tilde{\Psi}_{2R,R}$$ denotes the ensemble average of the time-*space* averaged modified energy flux through the shells of thickness $R$ then, dividing (\[ener\_casc2\]) by $R^{2}$, we obtain the following.
Under the conditions of the previous theorem, $$\label{ener_casc3}
c_{0,\gamma}\nu P_0\le\Psi_{2R,R}\le c_{1,\gamma} \nu P_0\;.$$
Theorem \[shells\_thm\] allows us to show locality of the time-averaged modified enstrophy flux under the assumption (\[scales\_con\_fin\]). Indeed, the ensemble average of the time-averaged flux through the spheres of radius $R$ satisfying (\[inert\_range\]) is $$\tilde{\Psi}_R=R^2\Psi_R\;.$$ According to Theorem \[balls\_thm\], $$c_{0,\gamma}\left(\frac{R}{R_0}\right)^2\,\nu\tilde{P}_0\le\tilde{\Psi}_R\le
c_{1,\gamma} \left(\frac{R}{R_0}\right)^2\,\nu\tilde{P}_0\;.$$ On the other hand, the ensemble average of the flux through the shells between spheres of radii $R_2$ and $2R_2$, according to Theorem \[shells\_thm\] is $$c_{0,\gamma}\left(\frac{R_2}{R_0}\right)^2\,\nu\tilde{P}_0\le\tilde{\Psi}_{2R_2,R_2}\le
c_{1,\gamma} \left(\frac{R_2}{R_0}\right)^2\,\nu\tilde{P}_0\;.$$ Consequently, $$\label{time_locality}
\frac{c_{0,\gamma}}{c_{1,\gamma}}\left(\frac{R_2}{R}\right)^2\le
\frac{\tilde{\Psi}_{2R_2,R_2}}{\tilde{\Psi}_R}\le\frac{c_{1,\gamma}}{c_{0,\gamma}}
\left(\frac{R_2}{R}\right)^2\;.$$
Thus, under the assumption (\[scales\_con\_fin\]), throughout the inertial range given by (\[inert\_range\]), the contribution of the shells at scales comparable to $R$ is comparable to the total flux at scales $R$, the contribution of the the shells at scales $R_2$ much smaller than $R$ becomes negligible (ultraviolet locality) and the flux through the shells at scales $R_2$ much bigger than $R$ becomes substantially bigger and thus essentially uncorrelated to the flux at scales $R$ (infrared locality).
Moreover, if we choose $R_2=2^kR$ with $k$ an integer, the relation (\[time\_locality\]) becomes $$\label{exp_time_locality}
\frac{c_{0,\gamma}}{c_{1,\gamma}}2^{2k}\le
\frac{\tilde{\Psi}_{2^{k+1}R,2^k{R}}}{\tilde{\Psi}_R}\le\frac{c_{1,\gamma}}{c_{0,\gamma}}
2^{2k}\;,$$ which implies that the aforementioned manifestations of locality propagate *exponentially* in the shell number $k$.
In contrast to (\[time\_locality\]), since $\tilde{E}_0=R_0^2E_0$, $\tilde{P}_0=R_0^2P_0$, $\tilde{\Psi}_{2R_2,R_2}=R_2^2{\Psi}_{2R_2,R_2}$ and $\tilde{\Psi}_R=R^2{\Psi}_R$, $$\label{space_time_locality}
\frac{c_{0,\gamma}}{c_{1,\gamma}}\le
\frac{{\Psi}_{2R_2,R_2}}{{\Psi}_R}\le\frac{c_{1,\gamma}}{c_{0,\gamma}}\;,$$ i.e., the ensemble averages of the time-*space* averaged modified fluxes of the flows satisfying (\[scales\_con\_fin\]) are comparable throughout the scales involved in the inertial range (\[inert\_range\]) which is consistent with the existence of the enstrophy cascade.
We conclude this section by noticing that the remarks similar to those at the end of section \[balls\] can be applied here. Namely we have the following.
\[E’\_rem3\]
*If the additional assumptions (\[psi\_shells\_def\_add1\]) and (\[psi\_shells\_def\_add2\]) for the test functions on the shells $A(\bfx_i,2R,R)$ which are not contained entirely in $B(\bfo,R_0)$ are not imposed, then the lower bounds in (\[Psi\_R12\_low\]) and (\[ener\_casc2\]) hold with $\tilde{P}_0$ replaced by the time average of the [*[non-localized]{}*]{} in space enstrophy on $B(\bfo, R_0)$, $$\tilde{P}'_0=\frac{1}{T}\int\limits_0^{2T}
\int\limits_{B(\bfx_\bfo,R_0)}|\nabla\otimes\omega|^2\eta\,d\bfx\,dt=R_0^2P'\;.$$ This is the case because the estimate (\[E\_R12\_E\_ineq\]) gets replaced with $$\tilde{P}_{2R,R}\ge\frac{1}{K_1}\left(\frac{R}{R_0}\right)^2\tilde{P}'_0\;.$$*
Also, the estimates (\[time\_locality\]) and (\[space\_time\_locality\]) will contain the terms $P'_0/P_0(=\tilde{P}'_0/\tilde{P}_0)$ in the lower and $P_0/P'_0$ in the upper bounds.
\[unif\_ave-obs2\] [*If we integrate the relation (\[loc\_enst\_eq\]) over $B({\bf 0}, R_0)$ (instead of summing over the optimal covering) and use Lemma \[U\_ave\_lem\], the $\tilde{\Psi}_{2R,R}$ in Theorem \[shells\_thm\] can be replaced with the uniform averaged enstrophy flux into shells of thickness $R$, $$\tilde{\Psi}^{u}_{2R,R}=\frac{1}{R_0^2}\int\limits_{B({\bf 0}, R_0)} \Psi_{\bfx,2R,R}\; d\bfx\;,$$ with $K_1=2^2$ and $K_2=4^2$.*]{}
[*Working with (\[loc\_ene\_ineq\]) yields similar results for the locality of the energy fluxes $\Phi_{\bfx_0,R_1,R_2}$ and $\tilde{\Phi}_{2R,R}$. Namely, Theorems \[shells\_thm1\] and \[shells\_thm\] hold with $\Psi$ replaced with $\Phi$, $P$ replaced with $E'$ and length scales $\sigma$ in the sufficient conditions (\[scales\_con2\_fin\]) and (\[scales\_con\_fin\]) replaced with $\tau$.* ]{}
The locality of energy flux into shells related to the inverse energy cascades is established in similar way (except, because of the no-slip boundary condition (\[no\_slip\]) we can set $\psi_0\equiv 1$). Note that the flux on a shell is defined exactly in the same way as in (\[shell\_ene\_flux\_def\]), and we obtain the exact equivalent of Theorem \[shells\_thm1\] in this setting. If in addition the sufficient condition for inverse energy cascade (\[back\_ene\_casc\_con\]) holds, then for $R_0<R_2<R_1<D/2$ we can prove the following equivalent of Theorem \[shells\_thm\].
\[back\_shells\_thm\] Assume that the condition (\[back\_ene\_casc\_con\]) holds for some $0<\gamma<1/\sqrt{2C_0}$. Then, for any $R$ satisfying (\[back\_iner\_range\]), the ensemble average of the time-averaged total energy flux out of the shells of thickness $R$, $\tilde{\bar{\Phi}}_{2R,R}$, satisfies $$\label{back_ener_casc2}
\bar{c}_{0,\gamma}\left(\frac{R}{R_0}\right)^2\,\nu{E}\le\tilde{\bar{\Phi}}_{2R,R}\le
\bar{c}_{1,\gamma} \left(\frac{R}{R_0}\right)^2\,\nu{E}\;,$$ where $E$ is as in (\[back\_E\_def\]), $\bar{c}_{0,\gamma}$ and $\bar{c}_{1,\gamma}$ are defined in (\[back\_casc\_constants\]), and the average is computed over a time interval $[0,T]$ with $T\ge
R_0^2/\nu$ and determined by an optimal covering $\{A(\bfx_i,2R,R)\}_{i=1,n}$ of $B(\bfo,R_0)$ (i.e. satisfying (\[x\_i\_shells\_con\]), (\[shells\_n\_con1\]), and (\[Shells\_n\_con2\])).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The index of a graded ideal measures the number of linear steps in the graded minimal free resolution of the ideal. In this paper we study the index of powers and squarefree powers of edge ideals. Our results indicate that the index as a function of the power of an edge ideal $I$ is strictly increasing if $I$ has linear relations. Examples show that this need not to be the case for monomial ideals generated in degree greater than two.'
address:
- 'Mina Bigdeli, Faculty of Mathematics, Institute for Advanced Studies in Basic Sciences (IASBS), Gava zang, 45195-1159 Zanjan 45137-66731 Iran'
- 'Jürgen Herzog, Fachbereich Mathematik, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Campus Essen, 45117 Essen, Germany'
- 'Rashid Zaare-Nahandi, Faculty of Mathematics, Institute for Advanced Studies in Basic Sciences (IASBS), Gava zang, 45195-1159 Zanjan 45137-66731 Iran'
author:
- 'Mina Bigdeli, Jürgen Herzog and Rashid Zaare-Nahandi'
title: On the index of powers of edge ideals
---
[^1]
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
In recent years the study of algebraic and homological properties of powers of ideals has been one of the main subjects of research in Commutative Algebra. Generally speaking many of those properties, like for example depth, projective dimension or regularity stabilize for large powers (see [@B], [@Ca], [@Ch], [@CHT], [@Co], [@HH], [@HW], [@HHZ1], [@HHZ2]), while their initial behavior is often quite mysterious, even for monomial ideals. However with many respects monomial ideals generated in degree 2 behave more controllable from the very beginning. So now let $I$ be a monomial ideal generated in degree $2$. The second author together with Hibi and Zheng showed in [@HHZ2] that if $I$ has a linear resolution, then all of its powers have a linear resolution as well. More recently there have been several interesting generalizations of this result. In case that $I$ is squarefree, $I$ may be viewed as the edge ideal of a finite simple graph $G$, and in this case Francisco, H$\grave{a}$ and Van Tuyl raised the question whether $I^k$ has a linear resolution for $k\geq 2$, assuming the complementary graph contains no induced $4$-cycle, equivalently, $G$ is gap free. However, Nevo and Peeva showed by an example [@NP Counterexample 1.10] that this is not always the case. On the other hand, Nevo [@N] showed that $I^2$ has a linear resolution if $G$ is gap and claw free, and Banerjee [@B] gives a positive answer to the above question under the additional assumption that $G$ is gap and cricket free. Here we should note that claw free implies cricket free.
In this paper we attempt to generalize the result of Hibi, Zheng and the second author of this paper in a different direction. An ideal $I$ is called $r$ steps linear, if $I$ has a linear resolution up to homological degree $r$. In other words, if $I$ is generated in a single degree, say $d$, and $\beta_{i,i+j}(I)=0$ for all pairs $(i,j)$ with $0\leq i\leq r$ and $j>d$. The number $$\index(I)=\sup\{r\: \text{$I$ is $r$ steps linear}\}+1$$ is called the index of $I$. The main result of Section 2 (Theorem \[main\]) is the following: Let $I$ be a monomial ideal generated in degree $2$. We interpret $I$ as the edge ideal of a graph $G$ which may also have loops (corresponding to squares among the monomial generators of $I$). Then the following conditions are equivalent: $G$ is gap free, i.e. no induced subgraph of $G$ consists of two disjoint edges, (b) $\index(I^k)>1$ for all $k$, (c) $\index(I^k)>1$ for some $k$.
Theorem \[main\] is not valid for monomial ideals generated in degree $>2$. There is an example by Conca [@Co] of a monomial ideal $I$ generated in degree $3$ with linear resolution, that is, $\index(I)=\infty$, and with the property that $\index(I^2)=1$.
Theorem \[main\] implies in particular that for a monomial ideal generated in degree $2$ we have $\index(I)=1$ if and only if $\index(I^k)=1$ for all $k$ . Again this fails if $I$ is not generated in degree $2$. Indeed, for $n\geq 4$ consider the ideal $I=(x^n,x^{n-1}y,y^{n-1}x,y^n)$. Then $\index(I^k)=1$ for $k=1,\ldots,n-3$ and $\index(I ^k)=\infty$ for $k>n-3$. There are also many such counterexamples of monomial ideals generated in degree $3$.
The ideal $I$ in the example of Nevo and Peeva has index 2, its square has index 7, while $I^3$ and $I^4$ have a linear resolution. This example and other experimental evidence leads us to conjecture that for a monomial ideal $I$ generated in degree $2$, one has $\index(I^{k+1})>\index(I^k)$ for all $k$ if $\index(I)>1$. This conjecture implies that $\index(I^k)>k$ if $\index(I)>1$. In particular, if $G$ is a graph (possibly with loops) on the vertex set $[n]$, this would imply that $I(G)^k$ has a linear resolution for $k>n-2$.
For the proof of our Theorem \[main\] we use the theory of $\lcm$-lattices introduced by Gasharov, Peeva and Welker [@GPW]. As an easy application of their theory the monomial ideals of index $>1$ can be characterized by the fact that certain graphs associated with such ideals are connected. This criterion is used in the proof of Theorem \[main\].
If the index of a graded ideal is finite, then it is at most its projective dimension. In the case that $\index(I)=\projdim(I)$ we say that $I$ has maximal finite index. In Section 3 edge ideals of maximal finite index are classified. They turn out to be the edge ideals of the complement of a cycle, see Theorem \[main2\]. The essential tools to prove this result are Hochster’s formula to compute the graded Betti numbers of a squarefree monomial ideal as well as the result of [@EGHP Theorem 2.1] in which the index of an edge ideal is characterized in terms of the underlying graph. As a consequence of Theorem \[main2\] it is shown in Corollary \[maxlinear\] that all powers $I^k$ for $k\geq 2$ have a linear resolution for an ideal of maximal finite index $>1$. This supports our conjecture that the index of the powers $I^k$ of an edge ideal $I$ is a strictly increasing function on $k$.
Our final Section 4 is devoted to the study of the index of the squarefree powers of edge ideals. The index of squarefree powers shows a quite different behavior than that of ordinary powers. Let $I$ be the edge ideal of a finite graph $G$. We denote the $k$th squarefree power of $I$ by $I^{[k]}$. It is clear that the unique minimal monomial set of generators of $I^{[k]}$ corresponds to the matchings of $G$ of size $k$. In particular, if $\nu(G)$ denotes the matching number of $G$, that is maximal size of a matching of $G$, then $\nu(G)$ coincides with the maximal number $k$ such that $I^{[k]}\neq 0$. In Theorem \[lin.quo\] we show that $I^{[\nu(G)]}$ always has linear quotients. In particular $\index(I^{[\nu(G)]})=\infty$ no matter whether or not $\index(I)=1$. Matchings with the property that one edge of the matching forms a gap with any other edge of the matching will be called a restricted matching. We denote by $\nu_0(G)$ the maximal size of a restricted matching of $G$. If there is no restricted matching we set $\nu_0(G)=1$. There are examples which show that $\nu(G)-\nu_0(G)$ may be arbitrary large. However for trees one can see that $\nu_0(G)\geq \nu(G)-1$. It is shown in Lemma \[levico\] that $\index(I^{[k]})=1$ for $k<\nu_0(G)$, and we conjecture that $\index(I^{[k]})>1$ for all $k\geq \nu_0(G)$ and prove this conjecture in Theorem \[cycle\] for any cycle.
Monomial ideals with index $>1$.
================================
Let $K$ be a field, $S=K[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ the polynomial ring over $K$ in $n$ indeterminates, and let $I\subset S$ be a monomial ideal generated in degree $d$.
The ideal is called [*$r$ steps linear*]{}, if $I$ has a linear resolution up to homological degree $r$, in other words, if $\beta_{i,i+j}(I)=0$ for all pairs $(i,j)$ with $0\leq i\leq r$ and $j>d$. Then the number $$\index(I)=\sup\{r\: \text{$I$ is $r$ steps linear}\}+1$$ is called the [*index*]{} of $I$. In particular, $I$ has a linear resolution if and only if $\index(I)=\infty$, and $I$ is linearly related if and only if $\index(I)>1$.
In this section we derive a criterion for a monomial ideal to be linearly related. This criterion is actually an immediate consequence of the lcm-lattice formula [@GPW] by Gasharov, Peeva and Welker for the multi-graded Betti numbers of a monomial ideal $I$, not necessarily generated in a single degree.
Let $G(I) = \{u_1,\ldots,u_m\}$ be the unique minimal set of monomial generators of $I$. We denote by $L(I)$ the lcm-lattice of $I$, i.e. the poset whose elements are labeled by the least common multiples of subsets of monomials in $G(I)$ ordered by divisibility. The unique minimal element in $L(I)$ is $1$. For any $u\in L(I)$ we denote by $(1,u)$ the open interval of $L(I)$ which by definition is the induced subposet of $L(I)$ with elements $v\in L(I)$ with $1<v<u$. Furthermore, we denote by $\Delta((1,u))$ the order complex of the poset $(1,u)$.
The minimal graded free resolution of $I$ is multi-graded. Identifying a monomial with its multi-degree we denote the multi-graded Betti numbers of $I$ by $\beta_{i,u}(I)$ where $i$ is the homological degree and $u$ is a monomial. By Gasharov, Peeva and Welker one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lcm}
\beta_{i,u}(I)=\dim_K \widetilde{H}_{i-1}(\Delta((1,u)); K) \quad \text{for all $i\geq 0$ and all $u\in L(I)$.}\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, $\beta_{i,u}(I)=0$ if $u\not \in L(I)$.
Now suppose that all generators of $I$ are of degree $d$. We define the graph $G_I$ whose vertex set is $G(I)$ and for which $\{u,v\}$ is an edge of $G_I$ if and only if $\deg (\lcm(u,v))=d+1$.
For all $u, v\in G(I)$ let $G^{(u,v)}_I$ be the induced subgraph of $G_I$ with vertex set $$V(G^{(u,v)}_I)=\{w\: \text{$w$ divides $\lcm(u, v)$}\}.$$
\[graph\] \[criterion\] Let $I$ be a monomial ideal generated in degree $d$. Then $I$ is linearly related if and only if $G^{(u,v)}_I$ is connected for all $u, v\in G(I)$.
By (\[lcm\]) the ideal $I$ is linearly related if and only if all the open intervals $(1,w)$ with $w\in L(I)$ and $\deg w>d+1$ are connected. Considering the Taylor complex of $I$ we see that $\beta_{1,w}(I)=0$ if there exists no $u ,v \in G(I)$ such that $w=\lcm(u,v)$. Thus we need only to consider intervals $(1,w)$ with $w=\lcm(u,v)$ for some $u ,v \in G(I)$, and hence $I$ is linearly related if and only if $\Delta((1,\lcm(u, v)))$ is connected for all $u,v\in G(I)$ with $\deg(\lcm(u,v))>d+1$.
We first assume that $G_I^{(u,v)}$ is connected for all $u,v \in G(I)$. Now let $u,v \in G(I)$ with $\deg(\lcm(u,v))>d+1$. Let $C$ and $C'$ be maximal chains of the interval $(1,\lcm(u,v))$ (i.e. facets of $\Delta((1,\lcm(u,v)))$). For a chain $D$ in $(1,\lcm(u,v))$ we denote by $\min(D)$ the minimal element in $D$. Obviously, $\min(D)\in V(G_I^{(u,v)})$. Let $w=\min(C)$ and $w'=\min(C')$. Then $w,w'\in V(G^{(u,v)}_I)$. Hence there exists a sequence $w_{1},\ldots,w_{r}\in V(G^{(u,v)}_I)$ with $w=w_{1}$ and $w'=w_{r}$ and such that the degree of $v_j:=\lcm(w_{j},w_{j+1})$ is $d+1$ for $j=1,\ldots,r-1$. Since $v_j$ divides $\lcm(u,v)$ and since $\deg v_j<\deg (\lcm(u,v))$ it follows that $v_j\in (1,\lcm(u,v))$. Thus there exist maximal chains $C_j$ and $D_j$ with $w_{j},v_j\in C_j$ and $v_j,w_{j+1}\in D_j$. Consider the sequence of maximal chains $$C,C_1,D_1,C_2,D_2,\ldots,C_{r-1},D_{r-1}, C'.$$ By construction any two successive chains in this sequence have a non-trivial intersection. This shows that $\Delta((1,\lcm(u,v)))$ is connected.
Conversely, assume that $\Delta((1,\lcm(u,v)))$ is connected for all $u,v \in G(I)$ with $\deg(\lcm(u,v))>d+1$. By induction on $\deg (\lcm(u,v))$ we prove that $G_I^{(u,v)}$ is connected for all $u,v \in G(I)$ with $\deg(\lcm(u,v))>d+1$.
In order to prove this, let $u,v \in G(I)$ with $\deg(\lcm(u,v))>d+1$, and let $w,w'\in G^{(u,v)}_I$ with $w\neq w'$. There exist maximal chains $C$ and $D$ in $(1,\lcm(u,v))$ with $\min(C)=w$ and $\min(D)=w'$. Since $\Delta((1,\lcm(u,v)))$ is connected, there exist maximal chains $C_1,\ldots,C_r$ in $\Delta((1,\lcm(u,v)))$ with $C=C_1$ and $C_r=D$ and such that $C_j\sect C_{j+1}\neq \emptyset$ for $j=1,\ldots,r-1$. Let $w_{j}=\min(C_j)$ for $j=1,\ldots,r$. Let $j$ be such that $w_{j}\neq w_{j+1}$. Then $d+1 \leq \deg (\lcm(w_{j}, w_{j+1}))<\deg (\lcm(u,v))$ because $\lcm(w_{j}, w_{j+1})$ divides $\lcm(u,v)$ and $\lcm(w_{j}, w_{j+1})\in (1,\lcm(u,v))$ because $C_j\sect C_{j+1}\neq \emptyset$. If $\deg(\lcm(u,v))=d+2$, it follows that $\deg (\lcm(w_{j}, w_{j+1}))=d+1$ for all $j$ with $w_{j}\neq w_{j+1}$. This shows that $G_I^{(u,v)}$ is connected whenever $\deg(\lcm(u,v))=d+2$ and establishes the proof of the induction begin.
Suppose now that $\deg (\lcm(u,v))>d+2$. Since $\Delta((1,\lcm(w_{j},w_{j+1})))$ is connected and $\deg (\lcm(w_{j}, w_{{j+1}}))<\deg (\lcm(u,v))$ we may apply our induction hypothesis and deduce that $w_{j}$ and $w_{j+1}$ are connected in $G_I^{(w_{j},w_{j+1})}$. Since $G_I^{(w_{j},w_{j+1})}$ is an induced subgraph of $G_I^{(u,v)}$ it follows that $w_{j}$ and $w_{{j+1}}$ are also connected in $G_I^{(u,v)}$. Finally, since $w=w_{1}$ and $w'=w_{r}$. It follows that $G_I^{(u,v)}$ is connected for all $u,v\in G(I)$ with $\deg(\lcm(u,v))>d+1$. If $\deg(\lcm(u,v))\leq d+1$, then $G_I^{(u,v)}$ is obviously connected.
\[connected\] Let $I$ be a monomial ideal generated in degree $d$. Then $I$ is linearly related if and only if for all $u, v\in G(I)$ there is a path in $G^{(u,v)}_I$ connecting $u$ and $v$.
Because of Proposition \[graph\] it suffices to show that the following statements are equivalent:
1. $G^{(u,v)}_I$ is connected for all $u, v\in G(I)$;
2. for all $u, v\in G(I)$, there is a path in $G^{(u,v)}_I$ connecting $u$ and $v$.
(i)(ii) is obvious.
(ii)(i): Let $w\in G^{(u,v)}_I$ with $w\neq u$. It is enough to show that $w$ is connected to $u$ by a path in $G^{(u,v)}_I$. By assumption $w$ is connected to $u$ by a path in $G^{(u,w)}_I$. Since $w\in G^{(u,v)}_I$ it follows that $\lcm(u,w)$ divides $\lcm(u,v)$. This implies that $G^{(u,w)}_I$ is an induced subgraph of $G^{(u,v)}_I$. Thus the path connecting $w$ with $u$ in $G^{(u,w)}_I$ also connects $w$ and $u$ in $G^{(u,v)}_I$.
Powers of edge ideals of index $>1$
===================================
Let $\MM$ be the set of all monomial ideals of $S$ generated in degree two and $\MT$ be the set of all graphs on the vertex set $[n]$ which do not have double edges but may have loops. There is an obvious bijection between $\MM$ and $\MT$. Indeed, if $I\in \MM$ then the graph $G\in \MT$ corresponding to $I$ has the edge set $E(G)=\{\{i,j\}\: x_ix_j\in G(I)\}$. In case $i=j$, the corresponding edge is a loop.
We say a graph $G$ is gap free if for any two disjoint edges $e,e'\in E(G)$ there exists an edge $f\in E(G)$ such that $e\cap f\neq\emptyset\neq e'\cap f$. In the case that $G$ is simple, $G$ is gap free if and only if its complement $\bar{G}$ has no 4-cycle.
\[main\] Let $G$ be a finite graph (possibly with loops) and let $I$ be its edge ideal. The following conditions are equivalent:
- $G$ is gap free.
- $\index (I^{k})>1$ for all $k\geq 1$.
- $\index(I^{k})>1$ for some $k\geq 1$.
(a)(b): By Corollary \[connected\] it is enough to show that for all $k\geq 1$ and for all $u, v\in G(I^k)$ there is a path in $G^{(u,v)}_{I^k}$ connecting $u$ and $v$. We may assume that $\deg(\lcm(u,v))>2k+1$, since otherwise the assertion is trivial. We will prove this by induction on $k$. If $k=1$, consider $G^{(u,v)}_{I}$ for $u,v \in G(I)$. Hence $u=x_ix_j$ and $v=x_{i'}x_{j'}$ with $\{i, j\}, \{i', j'\}$ edges in $G$. Since $\deg(\lcm(u,v))>3$ we have $\deg (\lcm(u,v))=4$. Our assumption implies that at least one of the edges $\{i, i'\}, \{i, j'\}, \{i', j\}, \{i', j'\}$ is in $E(G)$. Without loss of generality we may assume that $\{i, i'\}\in E(G)$. Set $w=x_ix_{i'}$. So $w\in V(G^{(u,v)}_{I})$ and $w$ connects $u$ to $v$.
Now let $k>1$, and suppose that $G^{(u,v)}_{I^{k-1}}$ is connected for all $u, v\in G(I^{k-1})$ with $\deg(\lcm(u,v))>2(k-1)+1$.
Assume that $u/\tilde{w}, v/\tilde{w}\in G(I^{k-1})$ for some $\tilde{w}\in G(I)$. Since $\deg (\lcm(u/\tilde{w}, v/\tilde{w}))> 2(k-1)+1$, our induction hypothesis implies that there is a path $w_0, w_1, \ldots, w_r$ in $G^{({u}/{\tilde{w}},{v}/{\tilde{w}})}_{I^{k-1}}$ with $w_0={u}/{\tilde{w}}$ and $w_r={v}/{\tilde{w}}$. Since $\deg (\lcm(w_i,w_{i+1})) =2(k-1)+1$ it follows that $\deg (\lcm(\tilde{w}w_i, \tilde{w}w_{i+1}))=2k+1$ for all $0\leq i\leq r-1$, and since $\tilde{w}w_j\in V(G^{(u,v)}_{I^{k}})$ for all $j$, the sequence $u=\tilde{w}w_0, \tilde{w}w_1, \ldots, \tilde{w}w_r=v $ is a path in $G^{(u,v)}_{I^{k}}$ connecting $u$ and $v$.
We may now suppose that $u/\tilde{w}, v/\tilde{w}\notin G(I^{k-1})$ for all $\tilde{w}\in G(I)$. Since $u\neq v$ and $\deg u=\deg v$, there is an index $ i$ with $\deg_{x_i}v>\deg_{x_i}u$. In particular, there exists $\tilde{v}\in G(I)$ such that $v/\tilde{v}\in G(I^{k-1})$ and $\tilde{v}=x_ix_j$ for some $j$. In the further discussions we will distinguish four cases.
- $\deg_{x_i}u\neq 0$ and $\deg_{x_j}u\neq 0$,
- $\deg_{x_i}u\neq 0$ and $\deg_{x_j}u= 0$,
- $\deg_{x_i}u= 0$ and $\deg_{x_j}u\neq 0$,
- $\deg_{x_i}u= 0$ and $\deg_{x_j}u= 0$.
We now first consider the cases (i), (ii) and (iii) and construct in these cases $w\in V(G^{(u,v)}_{I^{k}})$ such that following conditions hold:
- $\deg (\lcm(u,w)) =2k+1$;
- $w/\tilde{v}\in G({I^{k-1}})$.
Condition ($\alpha$) implies that $\{u,w\}\in E(G^{(u,v)}_{I^{k}})$. In the case that $\deg(\lcm(w,v))\leq 2k+1$, $w$ is connected to $v$ in $G^{(u,v)}_{I^{k}}$, and so $u$ and $v$ are connected in $G^{(u,v)}_{I^{k}}$. If $\deg(\lcm(w,v))>2k+1$, then condition ($\beta$) allows us to use induction on $k$ as before, and to conclude that $w$ is connected to $v$ by a path in $G^{(u,v)}_{I^{k}}$, and hence $u$ and $v$ are connected in $G^{(u,v)}_{I^{k}}$. Thus ($\alpha$) together with ($\beta$) implies that there is a path in $G^{(u,v)}_{I^{k}}$ connecting $u$ and $v$.
There exists a factor $\tilde{u}\in G(I)$ of $u$ such that $u/\tilde{u}\in G(I^{k-1})$ which in the cases (i) and (iii) is of the form $x_jx_{i_1}$ for some $i_1$ and in case (ii) is of the form $x_ix_{i_2}$ for some $i_2$. It is seen that $\tilde{v}\neq \tilde{u}$, since otherwise $u/\tilde{v}, v/\tilde{v}\in G(I^{k-1})$, a contradiction. It follows that $i_1\neq i$ and $i_2\neq j$.
Let $w=(u/\tilde{u})\tilde{v}$. Then $w\in G(I^k)$.
In case (i), $\deg_{x_i}w= \deg_{x_i}u+1$. Since $\deg_{x_i}v>\deg_{x_i}u$, it follows that $\deg_{x_i}w\leq \deg_{x_i}v$. We also note that $\deg_{x_j}w=\deg_{x_j}u$ and $\deg_{x_{i_1}}w=\deg_{x_{i_1}}u-1\leq \deg_{x_{i_1}}u$.
In case (ii), $\deg_{x_i}w= \deg_{x_i}u$. Moreover, $\deg_{x_j}w=\deg_{x_j}u+1=1$ because $x_j$ does not divide $u$. However, since $x_j$ divides $v$, it follows that $\deg_{x_j}w\leq \deg _{x_j}v$. Finally $\deg_{x_{i_2}}w=\deg_{x_{i_2}}u-1\leq \deg_{x_{i_2}}u$.
In case (iii), $\deg_{x_i}w= \deg_{x_i}u+1=1$ because $x_i$ does not divide $u$. However, since $x_i$ divides $v$, it follows that $\deg_{x_i}w\leq \deg _{x_i}v$. Moreover, $\deg_{x_j}w=\deg_{x_j}u$ and $\deg_{x_{i_1}}w=\deg_{x_{i_1}}u-1\leq \deg_{x_{i_1}}u$.
Thus in all the three cases $\deg_{x_t}w \leq\deg_{x_t}(\lcm (u, v))$ for all variables $x_t$. Therefore $w$ divides $\lcm(u,v)$, and so by definition $w\in V(G^{(u,v)}_{I^{k}})$.
Note that $\deg (\lcm(u, w))=2k+1$, and $w/\tilde{v}=u/\tilde{u}$ which implies that $w/\tilde{v}\in G({I^{k-1}})$. Therefore the assertion follows in these three cases.
Now we consider case (iv). Let $\tilde{u}\in G(I)$ with $u/\tilde{u}\in G(I^{k-1})$, and let $w=(u/\tilde{u})\tilde{v}$ with $\tilde{v}$ as above. Then $w\in G(I^k)$. Since neither $x_i$ nor $x_j$ divides $u$, we have $\deg_{x_i}w=1=\deg_{x_j}w$. Thus $\deg_{x_t}w \leq\deg_{x_t}(\lcm (u, v))$ for all variables $x_t$. It follows that $w$ divides $\lcm(u,v)$ and so $w\in V(G^{(u,v)}_{I^{k}})$.
Moreover, $w\neq v$. Indeed, suppose that $w= v$. Then $v/\tilde{v}=u/\tilde{u}$. Let $\tilde{w}\in G(I)$ with $(v/\tilde{v})/\tilde{w}\in G(I^{k-2})$. Then $v/\tilde{w}, u/\tilde{w}\in G({I^{k-1}})$, a contradiction.
Furthermore, $w/\tilde{v}, v/\tilde{v}\in G({I^{k-1}})$, and so if $\deg(\lcm(w,v))>2k+1$, by using the induction hypothesis there exists a path between $w/\tilde{v}$ and $v/\tilde{v}$ in $G^{(w/\tilde{v},v/\tilde{v})}_{I^{k-1}}$. As above this implies that $v$ and $w$ are connected in $G^{(w,v)}_{I^{k}}$ and hence in $G^{(u,v)}_{I^{k}}$, since $G^{(w,v)}_{I^{k}}$ is a subgraph of $G^{(u,v)}_{I^{k}}$. In the case that $\deg(\lcm(w,v))\leq 2k+1$, it is obvious that $v$ and $w$ are connected in $G^{(u,v)}_{I^{k}}$. Also by construction of $w$, we have $\deg(\lcm(u,w))>2k+1$, and the monomials $u$ and $w$ have a common factor, say $\tilde{w}\in G(I)$ such that $w/\tilde{w}, u/\tilde{w}\in G({I^{k-1}})$. Again by using our induction hypothesis, we conclude that there exists a path between $w$ and $u$ in $G^{(u,v)}_{I^{k}}$. Therefore $u$ and $v$ are connected in $G^{(u,v)}_{I^{k}}$ also in this case.
(b)(c) is obvious.
(c)(a): Assume that $G$ is not gap free. Thus there exist four different vertices $i, i', j, j'$ such that $\{i, i'\}, \{j, j'\}\in E(G)$ while the edges $\{i, j \}, \{i, j'\}, \{i', j\}$ and $\{i', j'\}$ are not in $E(G)$. Let $k>0$ be an arbitrary integer. We will show that $u=(x_{i}x_{i'})^k$ and $v=(x_{j}x_{j'})^k$ are not connected in $G_{I^k}^{(u, v)}$. Suppose that they are connected. Then there exists a monomial $w\in V(G_{I^k}^{(u, v)})$ such that $\deg (\lcm(u,w))=2k+1$. Clearly, $w\in V(G_{I^k}^{(u, v)})$ yields that $w\in G(I^k)$ with the property that $w$ divides $\lcm(u,v)$. Moreover, $\deg (\lcm(u,w))=2k+1$ implies that either $x_i^kx_{i'}^{k-1}$ or $x_i^{k-1}x_{i'}^{k}$ divides $w$.
Note that $\lcm(u, v)=x_i^kx_{i'}^kx_{j}^kx_{j'}^k$ and since $w$ divides $\lcm(u,v)$, either $x_j$ or $x_{j'}$ divides $w$. This means that one of $\{i, j \}$, $\{i, j'\}$, $\{i', j\}$ or $\{i', j'\}$ must be an edge of $G$ which is a contradiction. Therefore, $u$ and $v$ are not connected in $G_{I^k}^{(u, v)}$. Corollary \[connected\] implies that $I^k$ does not have linear relations, a contradiction.
\(a) Let $G$ be a tree on the vertex set $[n]$ and $I$ its edge ideal. Then either $\index(I^k)=1$ or $\index(I^k)=\infty$ for any $k>0$. Indeed, suppose that $\index(I)=t<\infty$. If $n\leq 4$, Fröberg’s theorem [@F Theorem 1 ] implies that $\index(I)=\infty$. Therefore, $n>4$. By [@EGHP Theorem 2.1] there exists a minimal cycle $C$ of length $t+3$ in $\bar{G}$. Suppose that $V(C)=\{1, 2, \ldots, t+3\}$ and $E(C)=\{\{i, i+1\}\:\ 1\leq i\leq t+2\}\cup\{\{1, t+3\}\}$. If $t>1$, then $|V(C)|\geq 5$ and since $C$ is minimal we have $\{1,3\}, \{1,4\}, \{2,4\}, \{2,5\}, \{3,5\}\notin E(\bar{G})$. Therefore there exists a cycle in $G$, a contradiction.
By using [@HHZ2 Theorem 3.2] if $\index(I)=\infty$, then $\index(I^k)=\infty$ for any $k>0$. Moreover, by using Theorem \[main\], if $\index(I)=1$, then $\index(I^k)=1$ for any $k>0$.
\(b) Let $G$ be a simple graph on the vertex set $\{x_{1}, x_{2}, \ldots, x_{n}\}$. We define the [*whisker graph*]{} $W(G)$ of $G$ by adding to the vertex set of $G $ the new vertices $\{y_1, y_2, \ldots, y_n\}$. The edge set of $W(G)$ is $E(G)\cup \{\{x_{i}, y_{i}\}: 1\leq i\leq n\}$. Furthermore by $ L(G)$ we denote a graph obtained from $G$ by adding a loop to each of its vertices and call it the [*loop graph*]{} of $G$.
Again as a consequence of Theorem \[main\], it follows together with [@HHZ2 Theorem 3.2] that $I(L(G))^k$ has a linear resolution for all $k$ if and only if $G$ is complete, and $\index (I(L(G))^k)=1$ for all $k$ if and only if $G$ is not complete. A similar statement holds for $I(W(G))$, because $I(W(G))$ is obtained from $I(L(G))$ by polarization.
Edge ideals of maximal finite index
===================================
A monomial ideal $I$ of finite index has $\index(I)\leq \projdim(I)$. We say that $I$ has [*maximal finite index*]{} if equality holds. In this section we classify those graphs whose edge ideal has maximal finite index. In particular our aim is to prove the following result.
\[main2\] Let $G$ be a simple graph on the vertex set $[n]$ with no isolated vertices, and let $I$ be its edge ideal. The following conditions are equivalent:
- The complement $\bar{G}$ of $G$ is a cycle of length $n$.
- $\index(I)=\projdim(I)$.
If the equivalent conditions hold, then $\projdim(I)=n-3$.
To prove this theorem we need some intermediate steps. We first observe the following fact which will used several times in the sequel:
Let $G$ be a graph on the vertex set $[n]$ and $\Delta(G)$ be its clique complex. For any $W\subseteq [n]$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Delta1}
\Delta(G_W)=\Delta(G)_W.\end{aligned}$$ In other words, $\Delta(G)_W$ is the clique complex of induced subgraph of $G$ on the vertex set $W$. Moreover, $G_W$ is connected if and only if $\Delta_W$ is connected. Here $G_W$ (resp. $\Delta(G)_W$) denotes the induced subgraph of $G$ (resp. the induced subcomplex of $\Delta(G)$) whose vertex set is $W$.
\[index\] Let $G$ be a simple graph on the vertex set $[n]$ and $I$ its edge ideal. Suppose that $\index(I)=\projdim(I)=t$. Then $\beta_{t,t+2}(I)=0$
By using Hochster’s formula [@HH Theorem 8.1.1], it is enough to show that $\widetilde{H}_{0}(\Delta_{W}; K)= 0$ for any $W\subset [n]$ with $|W|=t+2$. To show this, it is sufficient to prove that $\Delta_{W}$ (equivalently $(\bar{G})_W$) is connected for any $W\subset [n]$ with $|W|=t+2$.
Since $\index(I)=t$, [@EGHP Theorem 2.1] implies that there exists a minimal cycle $C$ of length $t+3$ in $\bar{G}$. Without loss of generality we may suppose that $V(C)=\{1, 2, \ldots, t+3\}$ and $E(C)=\{\{i, i+1\} \:\ 1\leq i\leq t+2\}\cup \{\{1, t+3\}\}$.
Let $W$ be a subset of $[n]$ with $|W|=t+2$. We consider different cases for $W$ and prove in each case that $(\bar{G})_W$ is connected.
First assume that $W\subset V(C)$. Since $V(C)$ has just one vertex more than $W$ we see that $(\bar{G})_W$ is a line graph and thus is connected.
It remains to consider the case $W\setminus V(C)\neq \emptyset$.
We first claim that for all $j\in W\setminus V(C)$ and all $i\in V(C)$ we have $\{j, i\}\in E(\bar{G})$.
Indeed, suppose that $\{j, i\}\notin E(\bar{G})$ for some $j\in W\setminus V(C)$ and some $i\in V(C)$. Let $W'=V(C)\cup \{j\}$ and consider $\Delta_{W'}$. Note that $\Delta_{W'}$, as a topological space, is homotopy equivalent either to $\mathcal{S}_1$ or to $\mathcal{S}_1$ together with an isolated point. The second case happens only if $\{j, i\}\notin E(\bar{G})$ for all $i\in V(C)$. In either case we see that $\widetilde{H}_{1}(\Delta_{W'}; K)\neq 0$. Now Hochster’s formula implies that $\beta_{t+1,t+4}(I)\neq 0$, and so $\projdim(I)\geq t+1$, a contradiction. Thus the claim follows.
Now Hochster’s formula implies that $\beta_{t+1,t+4}(I)\neq 0$, and so $\projdim(I)\geq t+1$, a contradiction. Thus the claim follows.
Our claim implies that $(\bar{G})_W$ is connected, if $W\cap V(C)\neq \emptyset$.
Now suppose that $W\cap V(C)= \emptyset$. Then $|W\setminus V(C)|=|W|=t+2\geq 3$. Suppose that there exist $j, j'\in W$ such that $\{j, j'\}\notin E(\bar{G})$. Let $W''=V(C)\cup\{ j, j'\}$. Since $C$ is a minimal cycle and since $j, j'$ are neighbors of all vertices of $C$ we have $\mathcal{F}(\Delta_{W''})=\{\{i, i+1, j\}, \{i, i+1, j'\}:\ 1\leq i\leq t+2\}\cup \{\{1, t+3, j\}, \{1, t+3, j'\}\}$. It follows that $\Delta_{W''}$, as a topological space, is homotopy equivalent to $\mathcal{S}_2$. Therefore $\widetilde{H}_2(\Delta_{W''}; K)\neq 0$ and so $\beta_{t+1, t+5}\neq 0$, by Hochster’s formula. This implies that $\projdim(I)\geq t+1$, a contradiction. So in this case $\{j, j'\}\in E(\bar{G})$ for all $j, j'\in W$. It follows that $(\bar{G})_W$ is a complete graph and so is connected. This completes the proof.
\[beta\] Let $G$ be a simple graph on the vertex set $[n]$ with no isolated vertices, and let $I$ be its edge ideal. Suppose that $\index(I)=\projdim(I)=t$. Then
- $n=t+3$,
- $\beta_{t,t+3}(I)=1$.
\(a) Let $\Delta=\Delta(\bar{G})$. By Lemma \[index\], $\beta_{t, t+2}(I)=0$, and so as a consequence of Hochster’s formula, $\Delta_W$ is connected for any $W\subset [n]$ with $|W|=t+2$. Since $\index(I)=t$, [@EGHP Theorem 2.1] implies that there exists a minimal cycle of length $t+3$ in $\bar{G}$, say $C$. We may assume that $V(C)=\{1, 2, \ldots, t+3\}$ and $E(C)=\{\{i, i+1\} \:\ 1\leq i\leq t+2\}\cup \{\{1, t+3\}\}$.
Assume that $n> t+3$. We will show that under this assumption, there exists $W\subset [n]$ such that either $|W|=t+2$ and $(\bar{G})_W$ is disconnected which implies that $\Delta_W$ is disconnected, or $|W|=t+5$ and $\widetilde{H}_2(\Delta_W; K)\neq 0$ which implies that $\beta_{t+1, t+5}(I)\neq 0$, and so in that case $\projdim(I)>t$. Both cases are not possible, and hence it will follow that $n=t+3$.
For the construction of such $W$ we consider two cases. Let $j\in [n]\setminus [t+3]$.
Suppose first that there exists $1\leq i\leq t+3$ such that $\{j, i\}\notin E(\bar{G})$. Let $W=\{j\}\cup V(C) \setminus \{r, s\}$ where $r$ and $s$ are neighbors of $i$ in $C$. So $|W|=t+2$ and $(\bar{G})_W$ is not connected.
Suppose now that $\{j, i\}\in E(\bar{G})$ for all $1\leq i\leq t+3$. Assume that either $[n]\setminus V(C)=\{j\}$ or for all $j' \in [n]\setminus V(C)$ we have $\{j, j'\}\in E(\bar{G})$. Then $j$ is an isolated vertex of $G$, a contradiction, since by assumption $G$ has no isolated vertices. So there exists $j'\in [n]\setminus V(C)$ such that $\{j, j'\} \notin E(\bar{G})$.
We may assume that $\{j', i\}\in E(\bar{G})$ for all $1\leq i\leq t+3$, because otherwise, as we have seen before for $j$, there exists $W\subset [n]$ with $|W|=t+2$ such that $(\bar{G})_W$ is not connected. Now let $W=V(C)\cup\{ j, j'\}$. As we mentioned in the proof of Lemma \[index\], $\widetilde{H}_2(\Delta_{W}; K)\neq 0$ and so $\beta_{t+1, t+5}\neq 0$.
\(b) Since $\index(I)=t$, [@EGHP Theorem 2.1] implies that there exists a minimal cycle of length $t+3$ in $\bar{G}$, say $C$. Let $\Delta=\Delta(\bar{G})$. Then $\widetilde{H}_1(\Delta_{V(C)}; K)\neq 0$. Hochster’s formula implies that $\beta_{t,t+3}(I)\geq1$. Since $n=t+3$, the only $W\subseteq [n]$ with $|W|=t+3$ is $V(C)$, and so $\beta_{t,t+3}(I)=1$, again by Hochster’s formula.
Now we are ready to prove the main theorem of this section.
The implication (a)(b) and also $\projdim(I)=n-3$ follows from [@EGHP Example 2.2].
(b)(a): Let $\index (I)=t$. By [@EGHP Theorem 2.1], $\bar{G}$ contains a minimal cycle of length $t+3$. Proposition \[beta\] implies that $G$ has $t+3$ vertices and so does $\bar{G}$. Hence in $\bar{G}$ there are no other vertices. Therefore $\bar{G}$ is a minimal cycle of length $t+3$. Moreover, $\projdim (I)=n-3$.
The following result supports our conjecture that for a monomial ideal $I$ generated in degree $2$ one has $\index(I^{k+1})>\index(I^k)$ if $\index(I)>1$.
\[maxlinear\] Let $I$ be the edge ideal of a simple graph $G$ and suppose that $I$ has maximal finite index $>1$. Then $\index(I^k)=\infty$ for all $k\geq 2$.
We may assume that $G$ has no isolated vertices. By Theorem \[main2\] we know that $G$ is the complement of an $n$-cycle with $n\geq 5$, in particular $G$ is gap free. We claim that $G$ is claw free. Then by a theorem of Banerjee [@B Theorem 6.17], the assertion follows. In order to prove the claim, let $\{i,i+1\}$, $i=1,\ldots,n-1$ and $\{1,n\}$ be the edges of the cycle $\bar{G}$. Suppose $G$ admits a claw. Then by symmetry we may assume that $\{1,i\}, \{1,j\}$ and $\{1,k\}$ with $1<i<j<k$ are the edges of the claw. However, $\{i,k\}\in \bar{G}$, a contradiction.
Squarefree powers
=================
Let $I\subset S$ be a squarefree monomial ideal. Then the [*$k$-th squarefree power*]{} of $I$, denoted by $I^{[k]}$, is the monomial ideal generated by all squarefree monomials in $G(I^k)$.
Let $J$ be an arbitrary monomial ideal and let $\alpha=(a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_n)$ be an integer vector with $a_i\geq 0$. Then we let $J_{\leq \alpha}$ be the monomial ideal generated by all monomials $x_1^{c_1}\cdots x_n^{c_n}\in G(J)$ with $c_i\leq a_i$ for $i=1, \ldots, n$.
Now let $\alpha=(1,1,\ldots,1)$. Then $(I^k)_{\leq \alpha}=I^{[k]}$. Therefore it follows from [@HHZ1 Lemma 4.4] that $\beta_{i,j}(I^{[k]})\leq \beta_{i,j}(I^k)$ for all $k$. This together with Theorem \[main\] implies:
1. $\index(I^{[k]})\geq \index(I^k)$ for all $k$;
2. if $G$ is gap free and $I=I(G)$, then $\index(I^{[k]})>1$ for all $k$.
Here we use the convention that the index of the zero ideal is infinity.
The inequality (i) may be strict or not. Indeed, if $I$ is the monomial ideal given by Nevo and Peeva in [@NP Counterexample 1.10], then it can be shown by computer that $\index(I^k)=\index(I^{[k]})$ for $k=1,\ldots,4$. On the other hand, if $G$ is a $9$-cycle, then $\index(I)=1$, $\index(I^{[2]})=1$, $\index(I^{[3]})=2$ and $\index(I^{[k]})=\infty$ for $k> 3$, while by Theorem \[main\], $\index(I^k)=1$ for all $k$.
The converse of (ii) is not true, that is, $G$ may not be gap free but $\index(I^{[k]})>1$ for some $k$. Of course, $\index(I^{[k]})>1$ for $k>n/2$, since for such powers $I^{[k]}=0$. But even if $I^{[k]}\neq 0$ and $G$ is not gap free we may have $\index(I^{[k]})>1$. For example, if $G$ is the graph with vertex set $[4]$ and edges $\{1,2\},\{3,4\}$. Then $G$ is not gap free, but $\index(I(G)^{[2]})=\infty$, because in this case $I(G)^{[2]}=(x_1x_2x_3x_4)$. This and many other examples lead us the Conjecture \[squarefree\] below.
In the following we assume $G$ admits no isolated vertices. Recall that a set of edges of $G$ without common vertices is called a [*matching*]{} of $G$. The [*matching number*]{} of $G$, denoted $\nu(G)$, is the maximal size of a matching of $G$. Let $I$ be the edge ideal of $G$. Note that the generators of $I^{[k]}$ correspond bijectively to the set of matchings of $G$ of size $k$.
A matching with the property that one edge in this matching forms a gap with any other edge of this matching will be called a [*restricted matching*]{}. We denote by $\nu_0(G)$ the maximal size of a restricted matching of $G$. If there is no restricted matching we set $\nu_0(G)=1$. Obviously we have $$\nu_0(G)\leq \nu(G)=\max\{k\: I^{[k]}\neq 0\}.$$ For example if $G$ is the whisker graph of a $5$-cycle, then $\nu(G)=5$ and $\nu_0(G)=3$.
(-1.18,-2.44) rectangle (17.32,4.76); (12.3,-0.38)– (14.3,-0.38); (12.3,-0.38)– (11.3,1.62); (11.3,1.62)– (13.32,3.08); (13.32,3.08)– (15.3,1.62); (15.3,1.62)– (14.3,-0.38); (12.3,-0.38)– (11.3,-1.38); (11.3,1.62)– (10.02,1.62); (13.32,3.08)– (13.32,4.3); (16.6,1.62)– (15.3,1.62); (15.3,-1.38)– (14.3,-0.38); (1.88,-0.34)– (3.88,-0.34); (1.88,-0.34)– (0.88,1.66); (0.88,1.66)– (2.9,3.12); (2.9,3.12)– (4.88,1.66); (4.88,1.66)– (3.88,-0.34); (1.88,-0.34)– (0.88,-1.34); (0.88,1.66)– (-0.4,1.66); (2.9,3.12)– (2.9,4.34); (6.18,1.66)– (4.88,1.66); (4.88,-1.34)– (3.88,-0.34); (-0.5,-1.72) node\[anchor=north west\] [A matching of maximal size]{}; (8.7,-1.8) node\[anchor=north west\] [A matching of maximal size with gaps]{};
(12.3,-0.38) circle (1.5pt); (14.3,-0.38) circle (1.5pt); (11.3,1.62) circle (1.5pt); (13.32,3.08) circle (1.5pt); (15.3,1.62) circle (1.5pt); (11.3,-1.38) circle (1.5pt); (11.3,1.62) circle (1.5pt); (10.02,1.62) circle (1.5pt); (13.32,3.08) circle (1.5pt); (13.32,4.3) circle (1.5pt); (16.6,1.62) circle (1.5pt); (15.3,1.62) circle (1.5pt); (15.3,-1.38) circle (1.5pt); (14.3,-0.38) circle (1.5pt); (1.88,-0.34) circle (1.5pt); (3.88,-0.34) circle (1.5pt); (0.88,1.66) circle (1.5pt); (2.9,3.12) circle (1.5pt); (4.88,1.66) circle (1.5pt); (0.88,-1.34) circle (1.5pt); (0.88,1.66) circle (1.5pt); (-0.4,1.66) circle (1.5pt); (2.9,3.12) circle (1.5pt); (2.9,4.34) circle (1.5pt); (6.18,1.66) circle (1.5pt); (4.88,1.66) circle (1.5pt); (4.88,-1.34) circle (1.5pt); (3.88,-0.34) circle (1.5pt);
In general $\nu(G)-\nu_0(G)$ can be arbitrarily large. For example, let $K_n$ be the complete graph on $n$ vertices. Then for its whisker graph $W(K_n)$ we have $\nu(W(K_n))=n$ and $\nu_0(W(K_n))=1$.
On the other hand, let $G$ be an arbitrary tree. We claim that $\nu_0(G)\geq \nu(G)-1$. To see this, let $G$ be an arbitrary graph. We introduce for each matching $M$ of $G$ a graph $\Gamma_M(G)$ which we call the [*matching graph*]{} of $G$. The vertices of $\Gamma_M(G)$ are the elements of $M$. Let $e_1, e_2$ be two elements of $M$ (which are edges of $G$). Then $\{e_1, e_2\}$ is an edge of $\Gamma_M(G)$ if and only if there is another edge $e$ in $G$ such that $e\cap e_1\neq \emptyset$ and $e\cap e_2\neq \emptyset$.
Observe that if $G$ is a tree, then $\Gamma_M(G)$ is a tree. Indeed, suppose that $G$ is a tree and $M$ a matching of $G$. Assume that $\Gamma_M(G)$ contains a cycle $C$ which we may assume to be minimal. Without loss of generality we may furthermore assume that $V(C)=\{e_1, e_2, \ldots, e_t\}$ and $E(C)=\{\{e_i, e_{i+1}\}\:\ 1\leq i\leq t-1\}\cup \{\{e_1, e_t\}\}$. Therefore there exist $e'_1, e'_2, \ldots, e'_t \in E(G)$ such that $e'_i\cap e_i\neq \emptyset\neq e'_i\cap e_{i+1}$ for all $1\leq i\leq t-1$ and $e'_t\cap e_t\neq \emptyset\neq e'_t\cap e_{1}$. Assume that $e'_i\cap e_i=\{v_i\}$, $e'_i\cap e_{i+1}=\{w_i\}$ for all $1\leq i\leq t-1$, and $e'_t\cap e_t=\{v_t\}$ and $e'_t\cap e_{1}=\{w_t\}$. Since $\{e_1, e_2, \ldots, e_t\}$ is a matching, it follows that for all $i$ and $j$ with $i\neq j$ the edges $e_i$ and $e_{j}$ do not have common vertex. Thus $\{v_i\}=e'_i\cap e_i\neq e'_j\cap e_{j}=\{v_j\}$ for all $1\leq i\leq t-1$, and $\{v_t\}=e'_t\cap e_t\neq e'_1\cap e_{1}=\{v_1\}$. Similarly $w_i\neq w_j$ for all $i, j$ with $i\neq j$. Suppose that $v_i=w_j$ for some $i, j$. Then $e_i\cap e_{j+1}\neq \emptyset$. This is only possible if $j=i-1$. Therefore $v_i\neq w_j$ for all $i, j$ with $i-j>1$. Now consider the sequence of vertices $v_1, w_1, v_2, w_2, \ldots, v_t, w_t$ in $V(G)$. Clearly $v_i$ is connected to $w_i$ in $G$ by $e'_i$. Moreover $w_i$ is connected to $v_{i+1}$ in $G$ by $e_{i+1}$, and also $w_t$ is connected to $v_1$ by $e_1$. If $w_i=v_{i+1}$, then $w_i$ is connected to $w_{i+1}$ by $e'_{i+1}$. By removing all $v_{i+1}$ from the above sequence whenever $w_i=v_{i+1}$, we obtain a cycle in $G$, a contradiction.
Now suppose that $G$ is a tree and $M$ is a maximal matching of $G$. So $|M|=\nu(G)$. If $\Gamma_M(G)$ contains an isolated vertex $e$, then $M$ is a restricted matching and hence in this case $\nu_0(G)=\nu(G)$. Suppose that there exists no maximal matching $M$ with the property that $\Gamma_M(G)$ admits an isolated vertex. Since $\Gamma_M(G)$ is a tree, as we have seen before, there exists a vertex $e$ in $\Gamma_M(G)$ of degree one. Suppose that $\{e, e'\}\in E(\Gamma_M(G))$. Then $e$ is an isolated vertex in the induced subgraph of $\Gamma_M(G)$ on the vertex set $V(\Gamma_M(G))\setminus \{e'\}$. Hence $M\setminus \{e'\}$ is a maximal restricted matching of $G$, and so $\nu_0(G)=\nu(G)-1$.
In contrast to the ordinary powers of edge ideals there exists for any edge ideal $I$ a nonzero squarefree power of $I$ with linear resolution, as follows from the next result.
\[lin.quo\] Let $G$ be a simple graph on the vertex set $[n]$ and $I$ its edge ideal. Then $I^{[\nu(G)]}$ has linear quotients.
Let $u_1>u_2>\cdots>u_t$ be the generators of $I^{[\nu(G)]}$ ordered lexicographically and let $u_j=u^{(j)}_{1}u^{(j)}_{2}\ldots u^{(j)}_{\nu}$ for all $1\leq j\leq t$ where $u^{(j)}_{k}\in G(I)$ is a monomial corresponding to an edge of $G$. We will show that for all $2\leq i\leq t$, the colon ideal $(u_1, u_2, \ldots, u_{i-1})\: u_i$ is generated by linear forms. Set $J_i=(u_1, u_2, \ldots, u_{i-1})$. Note that $\{u_k/ \gcd(u_k, u_i) \: 1\leq k\leq i-1\}$ is a set of generators of $J_i\:u_i$, see for example [@HH Propositon 1.2.2]. Suppose $l$ is an integer such that $u_l/ \gcd(u_l, u_i)$ is not a variable, and assume that $x_rx_s$ divides $u_l/ \gcd(u_l, u_i)$. Suppose $\{r, s\}\in E(G)$. Then $\{r, s\}$ together with the edges corresponding to the factors $u^{(i)}_{k}$ of $u_i$ is a matching of $G$ of size $\nu+1$, a contradiction. Hence no distinct pair of variables which divide $u_l/ \gcd(u_l, u_i)$ corresponds to an edge of $G$.
By induction on the degree of $u_l/ \gcd(u_l, u_i)$ we prove that $u_l/ \gcd(u_l, u_i)$ does not belong to the minimal generating set of $J_i: u_i$, if $\deg(u_l/ \gcd(u_l, u_i))>1$. Indeed we will show that there exists a monomial $u_{l'}$ with $1\leq l'\leq i-1$ such that $u_{l'}/ \gcd(u_{l'}, u_i)$ is of degree one and divides $u_l/ \gcd(u_l, u_i)$.
Assume that $\deg(u_l/ \gcd(u_l, u_i))=2$. Let $u_l/ \gcd(u_l, u_i)=x_rx_s$. Since $x_r$ and $x_s$ divide $u_l$ there exist $1\leq k ,k'\leq \nu$ and $1\leq r' ,s'\leq n$ such that $u^{(l)}_{k}=x_rx_{r'}$ and $u^{(l)}_{{k'}}=x_sx_{s'}$. Since $\{r, r'\}, \{s, s'\}\in E(G)$, the above argument shows that $x_rx_{r'}$ and $x_sx_{s'}$ do not divide $u_l/\gcd(u_l, u_i)$. Therefore, since $x_r$ and $x_s$ divide $u_l/\gcd(u_l, u_i)$ we conclude that $x_{r'}, x_{s'}$ divide $u_i$. Thus there exist $1\leq f ,f'\leq \nu$ and $1\leq r'' ,s''\leq n$ such that $u^{(i)}_{f}=x_{r'}x_{r''}$ and $u^{(i)}_{f'}=x_{s'}x_{s''}$.
Suppose that $r<r''$. Let $u=(u_i/u^{(i)}_{f})u^{(l)}_{k}$. Obviously $u\in G(I^{[\nu]})$ and since $r<r''$ and $u=(u_i/x_{r''})x_r$, we have $u>u_i$. Therefore there exists $l'<i$ such that $u_{l'}=u$. This implies that $u_{l'}\in G(J_i)$. Moreover, $u_{l'}/ \gcd(u_{l'}, u_i)=x_r$ and $x_r$ divides $u_l/\gcd(u_l, u_i)$.
Now suppose that $r>r''$. Let $u=(u_l/u^{(l)}_{k})u^{(i)}_{f}$. So $u\in G(I^{[\nu]})$ and since $r>r''$ and $u=(u_l/x_r)x_{r''}$ we have $u>u_l$. Therefore there exists $l'$ with $l'<i$ such that $u_{l'}=u$. This implies that $u_{l'}\in G(J_i)$. Moreover, $u_{l'}/ \gcd(u_{l'}, u_i)=x_s$ and $x_s$ divides $u_l/\gcd(u_l, u_i)$.
Thus in both cases $u_l/ \gcd(u_l, u_i)$ is divided by a degree one generator of $J_i\: u_i$.
Suppose now that $m>2$ and for any $j<i$ with $1<\deg(u_j/ \gcd(u_j, u_i))<m$ the monomial $u_j/ \gcd(u_j, u_i)$ is divided by a degree one generator of $J_i\:u_i$. Assume that $\deg(u_l/ \gcd(u_l, u_i))=m$. Let $x_rx_s$ divide $u_l/ \gcd(u_l, u_i)$. The same argument as above implies that there exists a monomial $u_{j}$ with $1\leq j\leq i-1$ such that $\deg(u_{j}/ \gcd(u_{j}, u_i))=m-1$ and $u_{j}/ \gcd(u_{j}, u_i)$ divides $u_l/ \gcd(u_l, u_i)$. By induction hypothesis here exists a monomial $u_{l'}$ with $1\leq l'\leq i-1$ such that $u_{l'}/ \gcd(u_{l'}, u_i)$ is of degree one and divides $u_{j}/ \gcd(u_{j}, u_i)$. It follows that $u_{l'}/ \gcd(u_{l'}, u_i)$ divides $u_l/ \gcd(u_l, u_i)$. Therefore $u_l/ \gcd(u_l, u_i)$ does not belong to the minimal generating set of $J_i\: u_i$. So the assertion follows.
Let $I$ be an edge ideal of a simple graph $G$. Because of Theorem \[lin.quo\], $\index(I^{[\nu(G)]})>1$. The question arises which is the smallest integer $k_0$ such that $\index(I^{[k]})>1$ for all $k\geq k_0$. A partial answer to this question is given by the next lemma which implies that $k_0\geq \nu_0(G)$.
\[levico\] Let $G$ be a simple graph and $I$ its edge ideal. Then $\index(I^{[k]})=1$ if $0<k<\nu_0(G)$.
Let $\{e_1,e_2,\ldots, e_{\nu_0(G)}\}$ be a restricted matching of $G$ such that the pairs $e_1,e_i$ form a gap of $G$ for $i=2,\ldots,\nu_0(G)$, and let $u_1,\ldots, u_{\nu_0(G)}\in G(I)$ be the corresponding monomials. Let $0<k<\nu_0(G)$, and $u=u_1u_2\cdots u_{k}$ and $v=u_2u_3\cdots u_{k+1}$. We claim that $u$ and $v$ are disconnected in $G^{(u,v)}_{I^{[k]}}$ which then by Corollary \[connected\] yields the desired conclusion.
Let $w\in G^{(u,v)}_{I^{[k]}}$ and suppose that $u_1=x_rx_s$. Since $\lcm(u,v)=u_1u_2\cdots u_{k+1}$, the condition on the edges $e_i$ implies that if $x_r$ or $x_s$ divides $w$ then $u_1$ divides $w$. Thus either $w=v$ or $u_1$ divides $w$. Assume now that $u$ and $v$ are connected in $G^{(u,v)}_{I^{[k]}}$. Then there exists $w\in G^{(u,v)}_{I^{[k]}}$ with $w \neq v$ and such that $\lcm(w,v)=2k+1$. However, $\lcm(w,v)=2k+2$ since $u_1$ divides $w$, a contradiction.
We actually expect that $k_0=\nu_0(G)$. Thus we have the following
\[squarefree\] Let $G$ be a simple graph and $I$ its edge ideal. Then $\index(I^{[k]})>1$ if and only if $k\geq \nu_0(G)$.
In support of our conjecture we prove the following result.
\[cycle\] Let $C_n$ be a cycle of length $n>3$ and $I$ its edge ideal. Then the conjecture holds for $C_n$. More precisely we have
- $\nu(C_n)=\lfloor n/2\rfloor$;
- $\nu_0(C_n)=\nu(C_n)-1$;
- If $n$ is even, then the ideal $I^{[\nu_0(C_n)]}$ has linear quotients. If $n$ is odd, then $\index(I^{[\nu_0(C_n)]})=2$.
To prove this theorem we need some preliminary steps.
\[e-o cycle\] Let $C_n$ be a cycle of length $n>3$ and $I$ its edge ideal.
- If $n$ is even, then $$\displaystyle G(I^{[\frac{n}{2}-1]})=\{\frac{\prod_{i=1}^nx_i}{x_rx_s}\:\ r<s,\ s-r \text{ odd}\}.$$
- If $n$ is odd, then $$\displaystyle G(I^{[\frac{n-1}{2}-1]})=\{\frac{\prod_{i=1}^nx_i}{x_rx_sx_t}\:\ r<s<t,\ \text{$s-r$ and $t-s$ odd}\}.$$
\(a) Since the generators of $G(I^{[n/2-1]})$ correspond to matchings of $C_n$ of size $n/2-1$ and since any such matching misses exactly two vertices, say $r$ and $s$ with $r<s$, it follows that each component of $C_n\setminus \{r, s\}$ has an even number of vertices. One of the components is $[r+1, s-1]$. Therefore $s-r$ is an odd number.
\(b) Since the generators of $G(I^{[(n-1)/2-1]})$ correspond to matchings of $C_n$ of size $(n-1)/2-1$ and since any such matching misses exactly three vertices, say $r$, $s$ and $t$ with $r<s<t$, it follows that each component of $C_n\setminus \{r, s, t\}$ has an even number of vertices. Two of the components are $[r+1, s-1]$ and $[s+1, t-1]$. Therefore $s-r$ and $t-s$ are odd numbers.
\[odd cycle\] Let $C_n$ be a cycle of odd length $n>3$ and $I$ its edge ideal. Then $$I^{[\frac{n-1}{2}-1]}=I_{\Delta},$$ where $\Delta$ is the simplicial complex with facet set $$\{ [n]\setminus \{r, s, t\}\: \ \ r<s<t,\ \text{$s-r$ or $t-s$ even}\}.$$
For $F\subseteq [n]$ we set $\xb_F=\prod_{i\in F}x_i$. Let $\Delta$ be a simplicial complex with the set of minimal nonfaces $$\mathcal{N}(\Delta)=\{F\: \xb_F\in G(I^{[(n-3)/{2}]})\}.$$ Then $I_{\Delta}=I^{[(n-3)/2]}$, and hence $F\subset [n]$ with $|F|=n-3$ belongs to $\Delta$ if and only if $\xb_F\notin G(I^{[(n-3)/{2}]})$. By Lemma \[e-o cycle\] this is the case if and only if $F=[n]\setminus \{r, s, t\}$ for some $r, s, t$ with $r<s<t$ and such that $s-r$ or $t-s$ is even.
Next we claim that all sets $H\subset [n]$ with $|H|\geq n-2$ are non-faces of $\Delta$. For that it suffices to show that each $H\subset [n]$ with $|H|=n-2$ is a non-face of $\Delta$, i.e. $\xb_H\in (I^{[(n-3)/{2}]})$. Let $H=[n]\setminus \{r, s\}$ with $r<s$. Then $\xb_H\in (I^{[(n-3)/{2}]})$ if and only if there exists a matching of $C_n$ of size $(n-3)/{2}$ whose vertex set does not contain $r, s$.
Removing the vertices $r$ and $s$ from $C_n$ we obtain two line graphs $L_1$ and $L_2$ with $|V(L_1)|=k_1$ and $|V(L_2)|=k_2$ and such that $k_1+k_2=n-2$, possibly with one of $k_1, k_2$ equal to zero. Thus a matching of $C_n$ which avoids the vertices $r$ and $s$ is the same as a matching of $L_1$ and $L_2$. It follows that such a maximal size matching has size $\lfloor k_1/2\rfloor +\lfloor k_2/2\rfloor$. Since $n$ is odd and $k_1+k_2=n-2$, we conclude that one of $k_1, k_2$ is odd and the other one is even. So that in any case $\lfloor k_1/2\rfloor +\lfloor k_2/2\rfloor=(n-3)/2$, as desired.
It remains to be shown that there are no facets $F\in \Delta$ with $|F|\leq n-4$. This fact will follow once we have shown that for any subset $M\subset [n]$ with $|M|=4$ there exists $N=\{r, s, t\}\subset M$ with $r<s<t$ and such that $s-r$ or $t-s$ is even. But this immediately follows from the next lemma.
In order to simplify our discussion we introduce the set $$\mathcal{S}=\{\{r, s, t\}\:\ \text{$r<s<t$, $s-r$ or $t-s$ even} \}.$$
For this set there are 6 different patterns possible as indicated in the following list:
\(i) $e e e$, (ii) $e e o$, (iii) $o e e$, (iv) $o o o$, (v) $o o e$, (vi) $e o o$.
Here $e$ stands for even and $o$ for odd. For example, (iii) describes the case where $r$ is odd, $s$ is even and $t$ is even.
The following observation will be useful in the proof of Proposition \[beta odd\].
\[evenodd\] For any $M=\{t_1,t_2,t_3,t_4\}$ with $1\leq t_1<t_2<t_3<t_4\leq n$. We set $M_i=M\setminus\{t_i\}$. Let $$\mathcal{S}(M)=\{i\:\; M_i\in\mathcal{S}\}.$$ Then $\mathcal{S}(M)$ has $2$ or $4$ elements. More precisely, if $|\mathcal{S}(M)|=2$, then either $\mathcal{S}(M)=\{i, i+1\}$ for some $1\leq i\leq 3$ or $\mathcal{S}(M)=\{1, 4\}$.
The set $\mathcal{S}(M)$ consists of $4$ elements, if the even-odd pattern on $M$ is one of the following $e e e e$, $e e e o$, $o e e e$, $e e o o$, $o o e e $, $e o o o$, $o o o e$, $o o o o$.
Otherwise we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{S}(e o e e)=\{1, 2\},\hspace{.3cm}\mathcal{S}(e e o e)=\{3, 4\},
\hspace{.3cm}\mathcal{S}(o e o e)=\{2, 3\},\hspace{.3cm}\mathcal{S}(o e e o)=\{1, 4\},\\
\mathcal{S}(e o e o)=\{2, 3\},\hspace{.3cm}\mathcal{S}(e o o e)=\{1, 4\},
\hspace{.3cm}\mathcal{S}(o e o o)=\{1, 2\},\hspace{.3cm}\mathcal{S}(o o e o)=\{3, 4\}.\end{aligned}$$ The assertion of the lemma follows from this list.
\[beta odd\] Let $C_n$ be a cycle of odd length $n>3$ and $I$ its edge ideal. Then $$\beta_{2,n}(I^{[\frac{n-3}{2}]})\neq 0.$$
By Lemma \[odd cycle\], $I^{[\frac{n-3}{2}]}=I_{\Delta}$ with $$\mathcal{F}(\Delta)=\{[n]\setminus \{r, s, t\}\: \ \{r, s, t\}\ \in \mathcal{S} \}.$$ So, by using Hochster’s formula, it is enough to show that $ \widetilde{H}_{n-4}(\Delta; K)\neq 0$.
Let $\partial_j$ be $j$-th chain map in augmented oriented chain complex $\widetilde{\mathcal{C}}=\widetilde{\mathcal{C}}(\Delta)$ of $\Delta$. The elements $b_F=[i_0, i_1, \ldots, i_{j}]$ with $F=\{i_0, i_1, \ldots, i_{j}\}\in \Delta$ and $i_0<i_1<\cdots<i_{j}$ form a $K$-basis of $\widetilde{\mathcal{C}}_{j}$. By $({b_F})_{t}$ we denote the basis element $[i_0, i_1, \ldots, i_{t-1}, i_{t+1}, \ldots, i_{j}]$.
We have $\widetilde{H}_{n-4}(\Delta; K)= \Ker \partial_{n-4}/\Im \partial_{n-3}$. Since $\dim \Delta=n-4$, this implies that $\Im \partial_{n-3}=0$. Set $\sigma(F)=\sum_{t=0}^{j}i_t$. We let $$\tau=\sum _{F\in {\mathcal{F}(\Delta)}}(-1)^{\sigma(F)}b_F,$$ and claim that $\tau\in\Ker \partial_{n-4}$. The claim will imply that $$\widetilde{H}_{n-4}(\Delta; K)= \Ker \partial_{n-4}\neq 0.$$ We have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{partial}
\partial_{n-4}(\tau)&=&\sum_{b_F\in \widetilde{\mathcal{C}}_{n-4}}(-1)^{\sigma(F)}(\sum_{j=0}^{n-4}(-1)^{j}{(b_F)}_j)\\
\nonumber
&=& \sum_{b_G\in \widetilde{\mathcal{C}}_{n-5}}(\sum_{j=0}^{n-4}\sum_{b_F\in \widetilde{\mathcal{C}}_{n-4}\atop (b_F)_j=b_G}(-1)^ {\sigma(F)+j})b_G.\end{aligned}$$ We will show that for any $b_G\in \widetilde{\mathcal{C}}_{n-5}$, the coefficient $$\alpha_G=\sum_{j=0}^{n-4}\sum_{b_F\in \widetilde{\mathcal{C}}_{n-4}\atop (b_F)_j=b_G}(-1)^ {\sigma(F)+j}$$ of $b_G$ in (\[partial\]) is zero. This then will imply that $\partial_{n-4}(\tau)=0$, as desired.
Let $G=[n]\setminus M$ where $M=\{t_1, t_2, t_3, t_4\}$ with $t_1< t_2< t_3< t_4$. We set $G^{(i)} =G\union \{t_i\}$. Let $n_i$ be the position of $t_i$ in $b_{G^{(i)}}$. Thus $({b_{G^{(i)}}})_{n_i}=b_G$ for all $1\leq i\leq 4$. In order to determine the integers $i$, $1\leq i\leq 4$, with $G^{(i)}\in \Delta$, it is enough to consider $\mathcal{S}(M)$. By Lemma \[evenodd\], $\mathcal{S}(M)$ is either $\{1,2,3, 4\}$ or $\{i, i+1\}$ for some $1\leq i\leq 3$ or $\{1, 4\}$.
In the following we compute $\alpha_G$ depending on the set $\mathcal{S}(M)$.
Suppose first that $\mathcal{S}(M)=\{1,2,3, 4\}$. Then $\alpha_G=\sum_{i=1}^4(-1)^ {\sigma(G^{(i)})+n_i}=0$, because $(-1)^{\sigma(G^{(i)})+n_i}=-(-1)^{\sigma(G^{(i+1)})+n_{i+1}}$ for any $1\leq i\leq 3$.
Indeed, since all the integers between $t_i$ and $t_{i+1}$ belong to $G^{(i)}$ as well as to $G^{(i+1)}$, it follows that $n_{i+1}=n_i+r$ where $r=t_{i+1}-t_i-1$. Assume first that $t_i$ and $t_{i+1}$ both are even or both are odd. Then $r$ is odd and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sigma1}
(-1)^{\sigma(G^{(i)})+n_i}&=&(-1)^{(\sigma(G)+t_i)+n_i}\\
\nonumber
&=&(-1)^{\sigma(G)+n_i}(-1)^{t_i}\\
\nonumber
&=&(-1)^{\sigma(G)+(n_{i+1}-r)}(-1)^{t_{i+1}}\\
\nonumber
&=&(-1)^{(\sigma(G)+t_{i+1})+(n_{i+1}-r)}\\
\nonumber
&=&(-1)^{\sigma(G^{(i+1)})+n_{i+1}}(-1)^r=-(-1)^{\sigma(G^{(i+1)})+n_{i+1}},
\end{aligned}$$ for all $1\leq i\leq 3$.
Next assume that one of $t_i, t_{i+1}$ is odd and the other one is even. Then $r$ is even and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sigma2}
(-1)^{\sigma(G^{(i)})+n_i}&=&(-1)^{(\sigma(G)+t_i)+n_i}\\
\nonumber
&=&(-1)^{\sigma(G)+n_i}(-1)^{t_i}\\
\nonumber
&=&(-1)^{\sigma(G)+(n_{i+1}-r)}(-1)^{t_{i+1}+1}\\
\nonumber
&=&(-1)^{(\sigma(G)+t_{i+1})+(n_{i+1}-r)+1}\\
\nonumber
&=&(-1)^{\sigma(G^{(i+1)})+n_{i+1}}(-1)^{r+1}=-(-1)^{\sigma(G^{(i+1)})+n_{i+1}},
\end{aligned}$$ for $1\leq i\leq 3$.
Now we assume that $\mathcal{S}(M)=\{i, i+1\}$ for some $1\leq i\leq 3$. Since $$(-1)^{\sigma(G^{(i)})+n_i}=-(-1)^{\sigma(G^{(i+1)})+n_{i+1}}$$ for $1\leq i\leq 3$ as we have seen before, we have $$\alpha_G=(-1)^{\sigma(G^{(i)})+n_i}-(-1)^{\sigma(G^{(i+1)})+n_{i+1}}=0.$$
Finally assume that $\mathcal{S}(M)= \{1, 4\}$. Since $t_2$ and $t_3$ are the only integers between $t_1$ and $t_4$ which do not belong to $G^{(1)}$ as well as to $G^{(4)}$, we have $n_4=n_1+r-2$ where $r=t_4-t_1-1$. Moreover, the proof of Lemma \[evenodd\] shows that in the case that $\mathcal{S}(M)= \{1, 4\}$, the integers $t_1$ and $t_4$ are both even or both odd. In particular, $r$ is odd. Consequently $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sigma3}
(-1)^{\sigma(G^{(1)})+n_1}&=&(-1)^{(\sigma(G)+t_1)+n_1}\\
\nonumber
&=&(-1)^{\sigma(G)+n_1}(-1)^{t_1}\\
\nonumber
&=&(-1)^{\sigma(G)+(n_{4}-r+2)}(-1)^{t_{4}}\\
\nonumber
&=&(-1)^{(\sigma(G)+t_{4})+(n_{4}-r)+2}\\
\nonumber
&=&(-1)^{\sigma(G^{(4)})+n_{4}}(-1)^{r+2}=-(-1)^{\sigma(G^{(4)})+n_{4}}.
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore $\alpha_G=(-1)^{\sigma(G^{(1)})+n_1}-(-1)^{\sigma(G^{(4)})+n_{4}}=0$. Hence $\alpha_G$ is zero in any case and this completes the proof.
Now we are ready to prove the Theorem \[cycle\].
Let us first discus the case $n=4, 5$. Since there is no restricted matching for cycles of length $4$ and $5$, we have $\nu_0(C_n)=1$. Moreover, $\nu(C_4)=2$ and $\nu(C_5)=2$. Furthermore $I^{[k]}$ has linear quotients for $k\geq \nu_0(C_n)$ for $n= 4$. If $n=5$, then clearly $\index(I)=2$. Therefore in these cases all statements of the theorem hold.
Suppose now that $n>5$. Without loss of generality we can assume that $V(C_n)=[n]$ and $E(C_n)=\{\{i, i+1\}\: \ 1\leq i\leq n-1\}\cup \{\{1, n\}\}$.
\(a) In the case $n$ is even the set $T=\{\{1, 2\}, \{3, 4\}, \ldots,\{n-1, n\}\}$ is a matching of maximal size. So $\nu=|T|=n/2$. In the case that $n$ is odd the set $T'=\{\{1, 2\}, \{3, 4\}, \ldots,\{n-2, n-1\}\}$ is a matching of maximal size and so $\nu=|T|=(n-1)/2$. Thus in general $\nu=\lfloor n/2\rfloor$.
\(b) In the case $n$ is even the set $T=\{\{1, 2\}, \{4, 5\}, \{6, 7\}, \ldots,\{n-2, n-1\}\}$ is a matching of maximal size such that $\{1, 2\}$ forms a gap with any other edge in this matching and so $\nu_0(C_n)=|T|=(n-2)/2$. Also in the case that $n$ is odd the set $T'=\{\{1, 2\}, \{4, 5\}, \{6, 7\}, \ldots,\{n-3, n-2\}\}$ is a matching of maximal size such that $\{1, 2\}$ forms a gap with any other edge in this matching and so $\nu_0(C_n)=|T'|=(n-3)/2$. Thus in both cases $\nu_0(C_n)=\nu(C_n)-1$, using part (a).
\(c) Let $n$ be even. By using Theorem \[lin.quo\] and part (b), it is enough to show that $I^{[\nu(C_n)-1]}$ has linear quotients.
Let $u_1>u_2>\cdots>u_r$ be the monomial generators of $I^{[\nu(C_n)-1]}$ ordered lexicographically. We will show that the colon ideal $(u_1, u_2, \ldots, u_{i-1})\:u_i$ is generated by linear forms for any $2\leq i\leq r$. Let $J_i=(u_1, u_2, \ldots, u_{i-1})$. As we mentioned in the proof of Theorem \[lin.quo\], $\{u_j/ \gcd(u_j, u_i) \: 1\leq j\leq i-1\}$ is a set of generators of $J_i\: u_i$. By Lemma \[e-o cycle\], for all $1\leq j\leq r$ we have $u_j=(\prod_{k=1}^nx_k)/(x_{l_j}x_{l'_j})$ for some $l_j< l'_j\leq n$ with $l'_j-l_j$ odd.
Let $t<i$ and $f_t=u_t/ \gcd(u_t, u_i)$, and suppose that two of the integers $l_t, l'_t, l_i, l'_i$ are equal. Then, since $u_t>u_i$, $f_t=x_{l_i}$ if $l_t\neq l_i$, and $f_t=x_{l'_i}$ if $l_t=l_i$.
Next suppose that no two of the integers $l_t, l'_t, l_i, l'_i$ are equal. Then the integers $l_t, l'_t, l_i, l'_i$ are pairwise different. Thus $f_t=x_{l_i}x_{l'_i}$. If $l'_i\leq n-2$, then let $u_j=(\prod_{j=1}^nx_j)/(x_{l_i}x_{l'_i+2})$. Since $l'_i-l_i$ is odd, it follows that $u_j\in G(I^{[\nu(C_n)-1]})$. Also $u_j>u_i$ and $f_j=x_{l'_i}\in G(J_i:u_i)$. Therefore $f_j$ divides $f_t$.
Suppose that $l'_i\geq n-1$. First let $l'_i=n-1$. Let $u_j=(\prod_{j=1}^nx_j)/(x_{l'_i}x_{n})$. Since $l_i< n-1$, it follows that $u_j>u_i$, and hence $u_j\in G(J_i)$ and $f_j=x_{l_i}\in G(J_i:u_i)$. Thus $f_j$ divides $f_t$.
In the case that $l'_i=n$, since $u_i$ is not the greatest monomial among monomial generators of $I^{\nu(C_n)-1}$ we have $l_i\leq n-2$, and since $l'_i-l_i$ is odd, it follows that $l_i\leq n-3$. Let $u_j=(\prod_{j=1}^nx_j)/(x_{l_i+2}x_{l'_i})$. So $u_j>u_i$, $u_j\in G(J_i)$, $f_j=x_{l_i}\in G(J_i:u_i)$ and $f_j$ divides $f_t$.
The above discussion of the various cases shows that $J_i:u_i$ is generated by variables, and so $I^{[\nu(C_n)-1]}$ has linear quotients.
Now let $n$ be odd. We will prove that $\index(I^{[\nu_0(C_n)]})=2$. By Proposition \[beta odd\], $\beta_{2, n}(I^{[\nu_0(C_n)]})\neq 0$, and since by part (b) of this theorem, $I^{[\nu_0(C_n)]}$ is generated in degree $n-3$, it follows that the minimal free resolution of $I^{[\nu_0(C_n)]}$ is not linear at $i=2$ and so $\index(I^{[\nu_0(C_n)]})\leq 2$. Therefore it is enough to show that $\index(I^{[\nu_0(C_n)]})>1$. By using Corollary \[connected\] it is sufficient to prove that for any $u, v \in G(I^{[\nu_0(C_n)]})$ there exists a path in the graph $G^{(u, v)}_{I^{[\nu_0(C_n)]}}$ connecting $u$ and $v$. Clearly, if $u, v \in G(I^{[\nu_0(C_n)]})$ with $\deg(\lcm(u, v))\leq (n-3)+1$, then $u$ and $v$ are connected in $G^{(u, v)}_{I^{[\nu_0(C_n)]}}$. Suppose that $u, v \in G(I^{[\nu_0(C_n)]})$ with $\deg(\lcm(u, v))> (n-3)+1$. By Lemma \[e-o cycle\] we have $u={(\prod_{i=1}^nx_i)}/{(x_rx_sx_t)}$ and $v={(\prod_{i=1}^nx_i)}/{(x_{r'}x_{s'}x_{t'})}$ where $r<s<t$, $r'<s'<t'$ with $s-r$, $t-s$, $s'-r'$ and $t'-s'$ odd.
First suppose that $r=r'$. If $s$ or $t$ belongs to $\{s' , t'\}$, then $\deg(\lcm(u, v))=(n-3)+1$, a contradiction. Therefore all the integers $s, t, s', t'$ are pairwise distinct. Without loss of generality we may assume that $s<s'$. Set $w={(\prod_{i=1}^nx_i)}/{(x_rx_sx_{t'})}$. Then since $s-r$ and $s'-r$ are odd, both $s$ and $s'$ are either even or odd. Since $t'-s'$ is odd, it follows that $t'-s$ is also odd. Thus $w\in G(I^{[\nu_0(C_n)]})$. Moreover $w$ divides $\lcm(u,v)$ and $\deg(\lcm(u,w))=(n-3)+1=\deg(\lcm(v,w))$. Therefore $\{u, w\}, \{w, v\}\in E(G^{(u, v)}_{I^{[\nu_0(C_n)]}})$ and so $u$ and $v$ are connected.
For the rest of our discussion we suppose that $r\neq r'$. We may assume that $r<r'$.
First consider the case $s'=t$. If $t$ is odd (resp. even), then since $t-s$, $s-r$ and $s'-r'$ are odd we conclude that $r$ is odd (resp. even) and $r'$ is even (resp. odd). Let $w={(\prod_{i=1}^nx_i)}/{(x_rx_{r'}x_{t})}$. It is seen that $w\in G(I^{[\nu_0(C_n)]})$, $w$ divides $\lcm(u,v)$ and $\deg(\lcm(u,w))=(n-3)+1=\deg(\lcm(v,w))$. Therefore $\{u, w\}, \{w, v\}\in E(G^{(u, v)}_{I^{[\nu_0(C_n)]}})$. This implies that $u$ and $v$ are connected.
Now consider the case that $s'\neq t$. Suppose first that both $r$ and $r'$ are odd (resp. even). Then both $s, s'$ are even (resp. odd), and both $t, t'$ are odd (resp. even). If $s'<t$, then let $w={(\prod_{i=1}^nx_i)}/{(x_rx_{s'}x_{t})}$ and $w'={(\prod_{i=1}^nx_i)}/{(x_{r'}x_{s'}x_{t})}$. If $s'>t$, then let $w={(\prod_{i=1}^nx_i)}/{(x_sx_{t}x_{s'})}$ and $w'={(\prod_{i=1}^nx_i)}/{(x_{t}x_{s'}x_{t'})}$. In both cases $w, w'\in G(I^{[\nu_0(C_n)]})$, they divide $\lcm(u,v)$, and also $\deg(\lcm(u,w))=\deg(\lcm(w,w'))=\deg(\lcm(w',v))=(n-3)+1$. Therefore $\{u, w\}, \{w, w'\}, \{w', v\}\in E(G^{(u, v)}_{I^{[\nu_0(C_n)]}})$ and so $u$ and $v$ are connected. Finally suppose that one of the integers $r, r'$ is odd and the other one is even. We may assume that $r$ is odd. Then both $s', t$ are odd, and both $s, t'$ are even. If $s'<t$, then let $w={(\prod_{i=1}^nx_i)}/{(x_rx_{r'}x_{s'})}$ and $w'={(\prod_{i=1}^nx_i)}/{(x_{r}x_{r'}x_{t})}$. If $s'>t$, then let $w={(\prod_{i=1}^nx_i)}/{(x_rx_{s}x_{s'})}$ and $w'={(\prod_{i=1}^nx_i)}/{(x_{r}x_{r'}x_{s'})}$. Thus in both cases $w, w'\in G(I^{[\nu_0(C_n)]})$, they divide $\lcm(u,v)$, and also $\deg(\lcm(u,w))=\deg(\lcm(w,w'))=\deg(\lcm(w',v))=(n-3)+1$. Therefore $\{u, w\}, \{w, w'\}, \{w', v\}\in E(G^{(u, v)}_{I^{[\nu_0(C_n)]}})$. Hence $u$ and $v$ are connected.
The above argument shows that in any case $u$ and $v$ are connected in $G^{(u, v)}_{I^{[\nu_0(C_n)]}}$, as desired.
A. Banerjee, *The regularity of powers of edge ideals*, To appear in J. Algebraic Combin., arXiv: 1406.0456v1.
M. Chardin, *Powers of ideals: Betti numbers, cohomology and regularity*, Commutative algebra, 317–333, Springer, New York, 2013.
K. A. Chandler, *Regularity of the powers of an ideal*, Commun. Algebra, [**25**]{} (1997), 3773–3776.
D. Cutkosky, J. Herzog, and N. V. Trung, *Asymptotic behaviour of the Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity*, Compositio Math., [**118**]{} (1999), 243–261.
A. Conca, *Regularity jumps for powers of ideals*, Commutative algebra, Lect. Notes Pure Appl. Math. 244 (2006), Chapman $\&$ Hall/CRC, 21–32.
D. Eisenbud, M. Green, K. Hulek and S. Popescu, *Restricting linear syzygies: algebra and geometry*, Compos. Math., [**141**]{} (2005) 1460–1478.
R. Fröberg, *On Stanley-Reisner rings*, Topics in algebra, Banarch Center Publications, [**26**]{} (2) (1990), 57–70.
V. Gasharov, I. Peeva, and V. Welker, *The lcm-lattice in monomial resolutions*, Math. Res. Lett., [**6**]{} (1999), 521–532.
J. Herzog, and T. Hibi, *The depth of powers of an ideal*, Journal of Algebra, [**291**]{} (2005), 534–550.
J. Herzog, T. Hibi, and X. Zheng, *Dirac’s theorem on chordal graphs and Alexander duality*, European J. Combin., [**25**]{} (2004), 949–960.
J. Herzog, T. Hibi, and X. Zheng, *Monomial ideals whose powers have a linear resolution*, Math. Scand., [**95**]{} (2004), 23–32.
J. Herzog, and V. Welker, *The Betti polynomials of powers of an ideal*, J. Pure Appl. Algebra, [**215**]{} (2011), 589–596.
E. Nevo, *Regularity of edge ideals of $C_4$-free graphs via the topology of the lcm-lattice*, J. Combin. Theory Ser. A, [**118**]{} (2011), 491–501.
E. Nevo, and I. Peeva, *$C_4$-free edge ideals*, J. Algebraic Combin., [**37**]{} (2013), 243–248.
[^1]: The paper was written while the first author was visiting the Department of Mathematics of University Duisburg-Essen. She wants to express her thanks for its hospitality.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Given an imaginary quadratic extension $K$ of $\QQ$, we classify the maximal nonelementary subgroups of the Picard modular group $\PU(1,2;\OOO_K)$ preserving a totally real totally geodesic plane in the complex hyperbolic plane $\HH^2_\CC$. We prove that these maximal $\RR$-Fuchsian subgroups are arithmetic, and describe the quaternion algebras from which they arise. For instance, if the radius $\Delta$ of the corresponding $\RR$-circle lies in $\NN-\{0\}$, then the stabiliser arises from the quaternion algebra $\Big(\!\begin{array}{c} \Delta\,,\, |D_K|
\\\hline\QQ\end{array} \!\Big)$. We thus prove the existence of infinitely many orbits of $K$-arithmetic $\RR$-circles in the hypersphere of $\PP_2(\CC)$.[^1]
author:
- Jouni Parkkonen
- Frédéric Paulin
bibliography:
- 'lemniscate.bib'
title: |
A classification of $\RR$-Fuchsian subgroups\
of Picard modular groups
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Let $h$ be a Hermitian form with signature $(1,2)$ on $\CC^3$. The projective unitary Lie group $\PU(1,2)$ of $h$ contains exactly two conjugacy classes of connected Lie subgroups locally isomorphic to $\PSLR$. The subgroups in one class are conjugate to $\operatorname{P}(\operatorname{SU}(1,1)\times\{1\})$ and they preserve a complex projective line for the projective action of $\PU(1,2)$ on the projective plane $\PP_2(\CC)$, and those of the other class are conjugate to $\PO(1,2)$ and preserve a maximal totally real subspace of $\PP_2(\CC)$. The groups $\PSLR$ and $\PU(1,2)$ act as the groups of holomorphic isometries, respectively, on the upper halfplane model $\hdr$ of the real hyperbolic space and on the projective model $\hdc$ of the complex hyperbolic plane defined using the form $h$.
If $\Ga$ is a discrete subgroup of $\PU(1,2)$, the intersections of $\Ga$ with the connected Lie subgroups locally isomorphic to $\PSLR$ are its [*Fuchsian subgroups*]{}. The Fuchsian subgroups preserving a complex projective line are called [*$\CC$-Fuchsian*]{}, and the ones preserving a maximal totally real subspace are called [ *$\RR$-Fuchsian*]{}. In [@ParPau17MS], we gave a classification of the maximal $\CC$-Fuchsian subgroups of the Picard modular groups, and we explicited their arithmetic structures, completing work of Chinburg-Stover (see Theorem 2.2 in version 3 of [@ChiSto11] and [@ChiSto18 Theo. 4.1]) and Möller-Toledo in [@MolTol15], in analogy with the result of Maclachlan-Reid [@MacRei03 Thm. 9.6.3] for the Bianchi subgroups in $\PSLC$. In this paper, we prove analogous results for $\RR$-Fuchsian subgroups, thus completing an arithmetic description of all Fuchsian subgroups of the Picard modular groups. The classification here is more involved, as in some sense, there are more $\RR$-Fuchsian subgroups than $\CC$-Fuchsian ones. Our approach is elementary, some of the results can surely be obtained by more sophisticated tools from the theory of algebraic groups.
Let $K$ be an imaginary quadratic number field, with discriminant $D_K$ and ring of integers $\OOO_K$. We consider the Hermitian form $h$ defined by $$(z_0,z_1,z_2)\mapsto -\frac{1}{2}\,z_0\,\overline{z_2}
-\frac{1}{2}\,z_2\,\overline{z_0}+ z_1\overline{z_1}\;.$$ The [*Picard modular group*]{} $\Ga_K=\PU(1,2)\cap\PGL_3(\OOO_K)$ is a nonuniform arithmetic lattice of $\PU(1,2)$.[^2] In this paper, we classify the maximal $\RR$-Fuchsian subgroups of $\Ga_K$, and we explicit their arithmetic structures. The results stated in this introduction do not depend on the choice of the Hermitian form $h$ of signature $(2,1)$ defined over $K$, since the algebraic groups over $\QQ$ whose groups of $\QQ$-points are $\PU(1,2)\cap \PGL_3(K)$ depend up to $\QQ$-isomorphism only on $K$ and not on $h$, see for instance [@Stover11 § 3.1], so that the Picard modular group $\Ga_K$ is well defined up to commensurability.
Let $I_3$ be the identity matrix and let $I_{1,2}$ be the matrix of $h$. Let $$\hahi(\QQ)=\{Y\in\M_3(K)\;:\;\;
Y^*I_{1,2}Y=I_{1,2} \;\;{\rm and}\;\;Y\,\ov{Y}=I_3\}$$ be the set of $\QQ$-points of an algebraic subset defined over $\QQ$, whose real points consist of the matrices of the Hermitian anti-holomorphic linear involutions $z\mapsto Y\,\ov{z}$ of $\CC^3$. For instance, $$Y_\Delta=\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{\overline{\Delta}}\\ 0 & 1 &
0 \\ \Delta & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}$$ belongs to $\hahi(\QQ)$ for every $\Delta\in K^\times$. The group $\operatorname{U}(1,2)$ acts transitively on $\hahi(\RR)$ by $$(X,Y)\mapsto X\,Y\,\ov{X}^{\,-1}$$ for all $X\in \operatorname{U}(1,2)$ and $Y\in\hahi(\RR)$. In Section \[sect:class\], we prove the following result that describes the collection of maximal $\RR$-Fuchsian subgroups of the Picard modular groups $\Ga_K$.
\[theo:classification\] The stabilisers in $\Ga_K$ of the projectivized rational points in $\hahi(\QQ)$ are arithmetic maximal nonelementary $\RR$-Fuchsian subgroups of $\Ga_K$. Every maximal nonelementary $\RR$-Fuchsian subgroup of $\Ga_K$ is commensurable up to conjugacy in $\PU(1,2)\cap\PGL_3(K)$ with the stabiliser $\Ga_{K,\,\Delta}$ in $\Ga_K$ of the projective class of $Y_\Delta$, for some $\Delta\in\OOO_K-\{0\}$.
A nonelementary $\RR$-Fuchsian subgroup $\Ga$ of $\PU(1,2)$ [ *arises from*]{} a quaternion algebra $\Q$ over $\QQ$ if $\Q$ splits over $\RR$ and if there exists a Lie group epimorphism $\varphi$ from $\Q(\RR)^1$ to the conjugate of $\PO(1,2)$ containing $\Ga$ such that $\Ga$ and $\varphi(\Q(\ZZ)^1)$ are commensurable. In Section \[sect:ternquad\], we use the connection between quaternion algebras and ternary quadratic forms to describe the quaternion algebras from which the maximal nonelementary $\RR$-Fuchsian subgroups of the Picard modular groups $\Ga_K$ arise.
\[theo:main\] For every $\Delta\in \OOO_K-\{0\}$, the maximal nonelementary $\RR$-Fuchsian subgroup $\Ga_{K,\,\Delta}$ of $\Ga_K$ arises from the quaternion algebra with Hilbert symbol $\big(\frac{2 \Tr_{K/\QQ}\Delta
,\, N_{K/\QQ}(\Delta) \,|D_K|}{\QQ}\big)$ if $\Tr_{K/\QQ}\Delta\ne 0$ and from $\big(\frac{1,\,1}{\QQ}\big)\simeq \M_2(\QQ)$ otherwise.
This arithmetic description has the following geometric consequence. Recall that an [*$\RR$-circle*]{} is a topological circle which is the intersection of the [*Poincaré hypersphere*]{} $$\HS=\{[z]\in\PP_2(\CC)\;:\;h(z)=0\}$$ with a maximal totally real subspace of $\PP_2(\CC)$. It is [ *$K$-arithmetic*]{} if its stabiliser in $\Ga_K$ has a dense orbit in it.
\[coro:intro\] There are infinitely many $\Ga_K$-orbits of $K$-arithmetic $\RR$-circles in the hypersphere $\HS$.
The figure below shows the image under vertical projection from $\partial_\infty\HH^2_\CC$ to $\CC$ of part of the $\Ga_{\QQ(i)}$-orbit of the standard infinite $\RR$-circle, which is $\QQ(i)$-arithmetic. The image of each finite $\RR$-circle is a lemniscate. We refer to Section \[sec:R-circles\] and [@Goldman99 § 4.4] for an explanation of the terminology. See the main body of the text for other pictures of $K$-arithmetic $\RR$-circles.
{width="9cm"}
The complex hyperbolic plane {#sec:cxhyp}
============================
Let $h$ be the nondegenerate Hermitian form on $\CC^3$ defined by $$h(z)=z^*I_{1,2}z=-\Re(z_0\overline{z_2})+|z_1|^2\,,$$ where $I_{1,2}$ is the antidiagonal matrix $$I_{1,2}=\begin{pmatrix} \ \ 0 & 0 & -\frac{1}{2} \\ \ \ 0 & 1 &\ \ 0 \\
-\frac{1}{2} & 0 & \ \ 0 \end{pmatrix}\,.$$ A point $z=(z_0,z_1,z_2)\in\CC^3$ and the corresponding element $[z]=[z_0:z_1:z_2]\in \PP_2(\CC)$ (using homogeneous coordinates) is [*negative, null or positive*]{} according to whether $h(z)<0$, $h(z)=0$ or $h(z)>0$. The [*negative/null/positive cone*]{} of $h$ is the subset of negative/null/positive elements of $ \PP_2(\CC)$.
The negative cone of $h$ endowed with the distance $d$ defined by $$\cosh^2d([z],[w])=\frac{|\langle z,w\rangle|^2}{h(z)\,h(w)}\;,$$ where $\langle \cdot\,,\cdot\rangle$ is the sesquililnear form associated with $h$, is the [*complex hyperbolic plane*]{} $\hdc$. The distance $d$ is the distance of a Riemannian metric with pinched negative sectional curvature $-4\le K\le -1$. The null cone of $h$ is the Poincaré hypersphere $\HS$, which is naturally identified with the boundary at infinity of $\hdc$.
The Hermitian form $h$ in this paper differs slightly from the one we used in [@ParPau10GT; @ParPau17MA; @ParPau17MS] and from the main Hermitian form used by Goldman and Parker (see [@Goldman99; @Parker12; @Parker16]). Hence we will need to give some elementary computations that cannot be found in the literature. This form is a bit more appropriate for arithmetic purposes concerning $\RR$-Fuchsian subgroups, as it allows us to consider $\ZZ$-points of our linear algebraic groups and not their $2\ZZ$-points.
Let $\operatorname{U}(1,2)$ be the linear group of $3\times3$ invertible matrices with complex coefficients preserving the Hermitian form $h$. Let $\PU(1,2)=\operatorname{U}(1,2)/ \operatorname{U}(1)$ be its associated projective group, where $\operatorname{U}(1)=
\{\zeta\in\CC \;:\;|\zeta|=1\}$ acts by scalar multiplication. We denote by $[X]=[a_{ij}]_{1\leq i,j\leq n}\in\PU(1,2)$ the image of $X=(a_{ij})_{1\leq i,j\leq n}\in\operatorname{U}(1,2)$. The linear action of $\operatorname{U}(1,2)$ on $\CC^3$ induces a projective action of $\PU(1,2)$ on $\PP_2(\CC)$ that preserves the negative, null and positive cones of $h$ in $\PP_2(\CC)$, and is transitive on each of them.
If $$X=\begin{pmatrix} a & \ov{\ga} & b\\
\alpha & A & \beta \\ c & \ov{\delta} & d\end{pmatrix}\in\M_3(\CC),
\textrm{ then }\quad
I_{1,2}^{-1}X^*I_{1,2}=\begin{pmatrix} \ \ \ov{d} & -2\ov\beta &
\ \ \ov{b} \vspace{.1cm}\\
-\frac{\delta}{2} & \ \ \ov{A} & -\frac{\ga}{2} \vspace{.1cm}\\
\ \ \ov{c} & -2\ov{\alpha} & \ \ \ov{a}\end{pmatrix}.$$ The matrix $X$ belongs to $\operatorname{U}(1,2)$ if and only if $X$ is invertible with inverse $I_{1,2}^{-1}X^*I_{1,2}$, that is, if and only if $$\label{eq:equationsU}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
a\ov{d}+b\overline{c}-\frac{1}{2}\delta\ov{\ga} =1\\
\ov{d}\alpha+\overline{c}\beta-\frac{1}{2}A\delta =0\\
c\ov{d}+d\ov{c}-\frac{1}{2}|\delta|^2 = 0 \\
A \ov{A}-2\alpha\ov{\beta}- 2\beta\ov{\alpha} =1 \\
a\ov{b}+b\overline{a}-\frac{1}{2}|\ga|^2 = 0 \\
\ov{b}\alpha+\ov{a}\beta-\frac{1}{2}A\ga =0 \;.
\end{array}\right.$$
\[rem:cnultriangsup\] A matrix $X\in \operatorname{U}(1,2)$ in the above form is upper triangular if and only if $c=0$. Indeed, then the third equality in Equation implies that $\delta=0$. The first two equations then become $a\ov{d}=1$ and $\ov{d}\alpha=0$, so that $\alpha =0$.
The [*Heisenberg group*]{} $$\Heis_3=\big\{[w_0:w:1]\in\PP_2(\CC):\Re\, w_0=|w|^2\big\}$$ with law $[w_0:w:1][w'_0,w':1]= [w_0+w'_0+2w'\,\overline{w},
w+w':1]$ is identified with $\CC\times\RR$ by the coordinate mapping $[w_0:w:1]\mapsto(w,\Im\, w_0)=(\zeta,v)$. It acts isometrically on $\hdc$ and simply transitively on $\HS- \{[1:0:0]\}$ by [ *Heisenberg translations*]{} $$\transl{\zeta,v}=
\begin{bmatrix} 1 & 2\,\ov{\zeta} & |\zeta|^2+iv\\ 0 & 1 &
\zeta \\ 0 & 0 & 1\end{bmatrix}\in\PU(2,1)$$ with $\zeta\in\CC$ and $v\in\RR$. Note that $\transl{\zeta,v}^{-1}
=\transl{-\zeta,-v}$ and $\overline{\transl{\zeta,v}}=
\transl{\overline{\zeta},-v}$. The [*Heisenberg dilation*]{} with factor $\lambda\in\CC^\times$ is the element $$\dil\lambda=\begin{bmatrix} \lambda & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0
& 0 & \frac{1}{\ov{\lambda}}\end{bmatrix}\in\PU(1,2)\,,$$ which normalizes the group of Heisenberg translations. The subgroup of $\PU(1,2)$ generated by Heisenberg translations and Heisenberg dilations is called the group of [*Heisenberg similarities*]{}.
We end this subsection by defining the discrete subgroup of $\PU(1,2)$ whose $\RR$-Fuchsian subgroups we study in this paper.
Let $K$ be an imaginary quadratic number field, with $D_K$ its discriminant, $\OOO_K$ its ring of integers, $\Tr:z\mapsto
z+\overline{z}$ its trace and $N:z\mapsto|z|^2=z\,\overline{z}$ its norm. Recall[^3] that there exists a squarefree positive integer $d$ such that $K=\QQ(i\sqrt{d})$, that $D_K=-d$ and $\OOO_K=\ZZ[\frac{1+i\sqrt{d}}{2}]$ if $d\equiv
-1\mod 4$, and that $D_K=-4d$ and $\OOO_K=\ZZ[i\sqrt{d}]$ otherwise. Note that $\OOO_K$ is stable under conjugation, and that $\Tr$ and $N$ take integral values on $\OOO_K$. A [*unit*]{} in $\OOO_K$ is an invertible element in $\OOO_K$. Since $N:K^\times\ra\RR^\times$ is a group morphism, we have $N(x)=1$ for every unit $x$ in $\OOO_K$.
The [*Picard modular group*]{} $$\Ga_K=\PU(1,2;\OOO_K)=\PU(1,2)\cap \PGL_3(\OOO_K)$$ is a nonuniform lattice in $\PU(1,2)$.
The space of $\RR$-circles {#sec:R-circles}
==========================
A (maximal) [*totally real subspace*]{} $V$ of the Hermitian vector space $(\CC^3,h)$ is the fixed point set of a Hermitian antiholomorphic linear involution of $\CC^3$, or, equivalently, a $3$-dimensional real linear subspace of $\CC^3$ such that $V$ and $\JJ
V$ are orthogonal, where $\JJ:\CC^3\to\CC^3$ is the componentwise multiplication by $i$. The intersection with $\HH^2_\CC$ of the image under projectivization in $\PP_2(\CC)$ of a totally real subspace is called an $\RR$[*-plane*]{} in $\HH^2_\CC$. The group $\PU(1,2)$ acts transitively on the set of $\RR$-planes, the stabiliser of each $\RR$-plane being a conjugate of $\PO(1,2)$. Note that $\PO(1,2)$ is equal to its normaliser in $\PU(1,2)$.
An [*$\RR$-circle*]{} $C$ is the boundary at infinity of an $\RR$-plane. See [@Mostow73], [@Goldman99 §4.4] and [@Jacobowitz90 §9] for references on $\RR$-circles (introduced by E. Cartan). An $\RR$-circle is [*infinite*]{} if it contains $\infty=[1:0:0]$ and [*finite*]{} otherwise. The group of Heisenberg similarities acts transitively on the set of finite $\RR$-circles and on the set of infinite $\RR$-circles.
The [*standard infinite $\RR$-circle*]{} is $$C_\infty=\big\{[x_0:x_1:x_2]\;:\; x_0,x_1,x_2\in\RR,\;x_1^2-x_0x_2=0\big\}\;,$$ which is the boundary at infinity of the intersection with $\HH^2_\CC$ of the image in $\PP_2(\CC)$ of $\RR^3\subset \CC^3$. For every $D\in\CC^\times$, the set $$C_{D}=\big\{[z_0:x_1:D\,\ov{z_0}]\;:\; z_0\in\CC,\;x_1\in\RR,\;
\;x_1^2-\Re(\,\ov{D}z_0^2)=0\big\}$$ is a finite $\RR$-circle, which is the boundary at infinity of the intersection with $\HH^2_\CC$ of the fixed point set of the projective Hermitian anti-holomorphic involution $$[z_0:z_1:z_2]\mapsto [\frac{\ov{z_2}}{\ov{D}}:\ov{z_1}:D\,\ov{z_0}]\,.$$ We call $C_1$ the [*standard finite $\RR$-circle*]{}.
Let $C$ be a finite $\RR$-circle. The [*center*]{} $\cen(C)$ of $C$ is the image of $\infty=[1:0:0]$ by the unique projective Hermitian anti-holomorphic involution fixing $C$. The [*radius*]{} $\ray(C)$ of $C$ is $\lambda^2$ where $\lambda\in\CC^\times$ is such that there exists a Heisenberg translation $\transl{}$ mapping $0=[0:0:1]$ to the center of $C$ with $C=\transl{}\circ \dil{\lambda}(C_1)$. For instance, $\cen(C_D)=0$ and $\ray(C_D)= \frac{1}{\ov{D}}$, since the Heisenberg dilations preserve $0$ and $C_D=
\dil{\frac{1}{\sqrt{\ov{D}}}} (C_1)$. For every Heisenberg translation $\transl{}$, we have $\cen(\transl{} C)=\transl{}\cen(C)$ and $\ray(\transl{} C)= \ray(C)$. For every Heisenberg dilation $\dil\lambda$, we have $\cen(\dil\lambda C)=\dil\lambda\cen(C)$ and $\ray(\dil\lambda C)= \lambda^2\ray(C)$.
The image of a finite $\RR$-circle under the [*vertical projection*]{} $(\zeta,v)\mapsto \zeta$ from $\Heis_3=\partial_\infty\HH^2\CC-
\{\infty\}$ to $\CC$ is a lemniscate, see [@Goldman99 §4.4.5]. The figure below shows on the left six images of the standard infinite $\RR$-circle under transformations in $\Ga_{\QQ(\omega)}$ where $\omega=\frac{-1+i\sqrt 3}2$ is the usual third root of unity, and on the right their images in $\CC$ under the vertical projection.
{width="6cm"} {width="6cm"}
Let us introduce more notation in order to describe the space of $\RR$-circles, see [@Goldman99 §2.2.4] for more background. A $3\times 3$ matrix $Y$ with complex coefficients is called [ *unitary-symmetric*]{} if it is Hermitian with respect to the Hermitian form $h$ and invertible with inverse equal to its complex conjugate, that is, if $Y^*I_{1,2}Y=I_{1,2}$ and $Y\,\ov{Y}=I_3$, where $I_3$ is the $3\times 3$ identity matrix. Note that for instance $I_3$ and, for every $D\in\CC^\times$, the matrix $$Y_D=\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & \frac{1}{\overline{D}}\\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ D & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}$$ is unitary-symmetric.
Let $$\hahi=\{Y\in\M_3(\CC)\;:\;\;
Y^*I_{1,2}Y=I_{1,2} \;\;{\rm and}\;\;Y\,\ov{Y}=I_3\}$$ be the set of unitary-symmetric matrices, which is a closed subset of $\operatorname{U}(1,2)$, identified with the set of Hermitian anti-holomorphic linear involutions $z\mapsto Y\,\ov{z}$ of $\CC^3$. Note that $|\det Y|=1$ for any $Y\in\hahi$. Let $$\phahi=\{[Y]\in\PU(1,2)\;:\;\; Y\,\ov{Y}=I_3\}$$ be the image of $\hahi$ in $\PU(1,2)$, that is, the quotient $\operatorname{U}(1)\bs\hahi$ of $\hahi$ modulo scalar multiplications by elements of $\operatorname{U}(1)$. The group $\operatorname{U}(1,2)$ acts transitively on $\hahi$ by $$(X,Y)\mapsto X\,Y\,\ov{X}^{\,-1}$$ for all $X\in \operatorname{U}(1,2)$ and $Y\in\hahi$, and the stabiliser of $I_3$ is equal to $\operatorname{O}(1,2)$.
For every $Y\in\hahi$, we denote by $P_Y$ the intersection with $\HH^2_\CC$ of the image in $\PP_2(\CC)$ of the set of fixed points of $z\mapsto Y\ov{z}$. Note that $P_Y$ is an $\RR$-plane, which depends only on the class $[Y]$ of $Y$ in $\PU(1,2)$. We denote by $C_Y=\partial_\infty P_Y$ the $\RR$-circle at infinity of $P_Y$, which depends only on $[Y]$. For instance, $C_\infty=C_{I_3}$ and $C_D=C_{Y_D}$.
Let ${\C_\RR}$ be the set of $\RR$-circles, endowed with the topology induced by the Hausdorff distance between compact subsets of $\partial_\infty\HH^2_\CC$,[^4] and let ${\P_\RR}$ be the set of $\RR$-planes[^5] endowed with the topology of the Hausdorff convergence on compact subsets of $\HH^2_\CC$.
The projective action of $\PU(1,2)$ on the set of subsets of $\PP_2(\CC)$ induces continuous transitive actions on ${\C_\RR}$ and ${\P_\RR}$, with stabilisers of $C_\infty=C_{I_3}$ and $P_{I_3}$ equal to $\PO(1,2)$. We hence have a sequence of $\PU(1,2)$-equivariant homeomorphisms $$\label{eq:homeospaceRcercle}
\begin{array}{ccccccc}
\vspace{.1cm}
\PU(1,2)/\PO(1,2) & \longrightarrow & \phahi & \longrightarrow &
{\P_\RR}& \longrightarrow & {\C_\RR}\\
\vspace{.1cm}
{}[X]\PO(1,2) &\longmapsto & \big[X\ov{X}^{-1}\big]& & P &\longmapsto &
\partial_\infty P \;.\\ & & [Y]&\longmapsto & \ P_Y & &
\end{array}$$
\[lem:calccentrerayon\] Let $Y=\begin{pmatrix} a & \ov\ga & b\\ \alpha & A & \beta \\
c & \ov{\delta} & d \end{pmatrix} \in\hahi$.
1. For every $[X]\in\PU(1,2)$, we have $[X]\,C_Y= C_{XY\,\ov{X}^{\,-1}}$.
2. The $\RR$-circle $C_Y$ is infinite if and only if $c=0$.
3. If the $\RR$-circle $C_Y$ is finite, then its center is $$\cen(C_Y)=[Y]\,\infty=[a:\alpha:c]\;,$$ and its radius is $$\ray(C_Y)= \frac{\ov{A\,c}-\ov{\alpha}\,\delta}{\ov{c}^{\,2}} =
-\frac{c}{\ov{c}^{\,2}} \;\overline{\det Y}
\;.$$ In particular, $\big|\ray(C_Y)\big|= |c|^{-1}$.
\(1) This follows from the equivariance of the homeomorphisms in Equation .
\(2) Recall that $C_Y$ is the intersection with $\partial_\infty
\HH^2_\CC$ of the image in the projective plane of the set of fixed points of the Hermitian anti-holomorphic linear involution $z\mapsto
Y\,\ov{z}$. Hence $\infty=[1:0:0]$ belongs to $C_Y$ if and only if the image of $(1,0,0)$ by $Y$ is a multiple of $(1,0,0)$, that is, if and only if $\alpha=c=0$. Using Remark \[rem:cnultriangsup\], this proves the result.
\(3) The first claim follows from the fact that the center of the $\RR$-circle $C_Y$ is the image of $\infty=[1:0:0]$ under the projective map associated with $z\mapsto Y\,\ov{z}$. In order to prove the second claim, we start by the following lemma.
\[lem:formnormhahi\] For every $[Y]\in\phahi$, the center of $C_Y$ is equal to $0=[0:0:1]$ if and only if there exists $D\in\CC^\times$ such that $[Y]=[Y_D]$.
We have already seen that $\cen(C_{Y_D})=\cen(C_{D})=0$. By the first claim of Lemma \[lem:calccentrerayon\] (3), if $\cen(C_Y)=0$, we have $a=\alpha=0$. By the penultimate equality in Equation , we have $\ga=0$. Since $Y\, \ov Y=I_3$, we have $b\,\ov{c}=1$, $b\,\delta=0$, $b\,\ov{d}=0$ and $\beta\,\ov{c}=0$, so that $Y=\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 &
\frac{1}{\ov{c}}\\ 0 & A & 0 \\ c & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix}$ with $|A|=1$. Since $[Y]=[\frac{1}{A} Y]$, the result follows with $D=\frac{c}{A}$.
Now, let $\zeta=\frac{\alpha}{c}$, $v=\Im\,\frac{a}{c}$ and $X=\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 2\,\overline{\zeta} & |\zeta|^2+iv\\ 0 & 1 &
\zeta \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}$. Note that since $Y\in
\operatorname{U}(1,2)$, we have $$|\alpha|^2-\Re(a\,\ov{c})=h(a,\alpha,c)=
h(Y(1,0,0)) = h(1,0,0)=0\,.$$ Hence $$\Re\big(\frac{a}{c}\big)=\frac{1}{|c|^2}\,\Re(a\,\ov{c})=
\Big|\frac{\alpha}{c}\Big|^2=|\zeta|^2\;.$$ The Heisenberg translation $\transl{\zeta,v}=[X]$ maps $0=[0:0:1]$ to $[\frac{a}{c}: \frac{\alpha}{c}:1] =\cen(C_Y)$. Since $$\cen(C_{X^{-1}Y\,\ov{X}}) =
\cen(\transl{\zeta,v}^{-1}C_Y) = \transl{\zeta,v}^{-1} \cen(C_Y) =0\,,$$ and by Lemma \[lem:formnormhahi\], the element $X^{-1}Y\,\ov{X}
\in\hahi$ is anti-diagonal. A simple computation gives $$X^{-1}Y\,\ov{X}
= \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{\ov{c}}\\ 0 & A-\zeta \ov{\delta} &
0 \\ c & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix}.$$ If $D= \frac{c}{A-\zeta \ov{\delta}}$, we hence have $[X^{-1}Y\ov{X}]
= [Y_D]$. Therefore $$\ray(C_Y)=\ray(\transl{\zeta,v}^{-1}C_Y)=\ray(C_{X^{-1}Y\ov{X}})=\ray(C_{Y_D})=
\frac{1}{\ov{D}}\;.$$ Since $\det X=1$, we have $\det Y=-\,\frac{c}{\ov{c}}\,(A-\zeta
\ov{\delta})$, so that $D=-\,\frac{c^2}{\ov{c}\;\det Y}$. The result follows.
We end this section by describing the algebraic properties of the objects in Equation . We refer for instance to [@Zimmer84 §3.1] for an elementary introduction to algebraic groups and their Zariski topology.
Let $\uG$ be the linear algebraic group defined over $\QQ$, with set of $\RR$-points $\PU(1,2)$ and set of $\QQ$-points $$\PU(1,2;K)=\PU(1,2)\cap\PGL_3(K)\;.$$ We identify $\uG$ with its image under the adjoint representation for integral point purposes, so that $\uG(\ZZ)=\Ga_K$.
Since $I_{1,2}$ has rational coefficients, the set $\phahi$ of unitary-symmetric matrices modulo scalars is the set of real points $\phahi= \uphahi(\RR)$ of an affine algebraic subset $\uphahi$ defined over $\QQ$ of $\uG$, whose set of rational points is $$\uphahi(\QQ)=
\phahi\cap\,\uG(\QQ)= \phahi\cap\PGL_3(K)\;.$$ The action of $\uG$ on $\uphahi$ defined by $([X],[Y])\mapsto
[X\,Y\,\ov{X}^{\,-1}]$ is algebraic defined over $\QQ$. This notion of rational point in $\phahi$ will be a key tool in the next section in order to describe the maximal nonelementary $\RR$-Fuchsian subgroups of $\Ga_K$.
A description of the $\RR$-Fuchsian subgroups of $\Ga_K$ {#sect:class}
========================================================
Our first result relates the nonelementary $\RR$-Fuchsian subgroups of the Picard modular group $\Ga_K$ to the rational points in $\phahi$. The proof of this statement is similar to the one of its analog for $\CC$-Fuchsian subgroups in [@ParPau17MS].
\[prop:Fuchsianrationalpoint\] The stabilisers in $\Ga_K$ of the rational points in $\phahi$ are maximal nonelementary $\RR$-Fuchsian subgroups of $\Ga_K$. Conversely, any maximal nonelementary $\RR$-Fuchsian subgroup $\Ga$ of $\Ga_K$ fixes a unique rational point in $\phahi$ and $\Ga$ is an arithmetic lattice in the conjugate of $\PO(1,2)$ containing it.
Let $[Y]\in\uphahi(\QQ)$ be a rational point in $\phahi$. Since the action of $\uG$ on $\uphahi$ is algebraic defined over $\QQ$, the stabiliser $\uH$ of $[Y]$ in $\uG$ is algebraic defined over $\QQ$. Note that $\uH$ is semi-simple with set of real points a conjugate of (the normaliser of $\PO(1,2)$ in $\PU(1,2)$, hence of) $\PO(1,2)$. Therefore by the Borel-Harish-Chandra theorem [@BorelHarishChandra62 Thm. 7.8], the group $\stab_{\Ga_K}[Y]=
\uH(\ZZ)$ is an arithmetic lattice in $\uH(\RR)$, and in particular is a maximal nonelementary $\RR$-Fuchsian subgroup of $\Ga_K$.
Conversely, let $\Ga$ be a maximal nonelementary $\RR$-Fuchsian subgroup of $\Ga_K$. Since it is nonelementary, its limit set $\Lambda\Ga$ contains at least three points. Two $\RR$-circles having three points in common are equal. Hence $\Ga$ preserves a unique $\RR$-plane $P$. Let $Y\in\hahi$ be such that $P=P_Y$. By the equivariance of the homeomorphisms in Equation , $[Y]$ is the unique point in $\phahi$ fixed by $\Ga$.
Let $\uH$ be the stabiliser in $\uG$ of $[Y]$, which is a connected algebraic subgroup of $\uG$ defined over $\RR$, whose set of real points is conjugated to $\PO(1,2)$. Since a nonelementary subgroup of a connected algebraic group whose set of real points is isomorphic to $\PSL_2(\RR)$ is Zariski-dense in it, and since the Zariski-closure of a subgroup of $\uG(\ZZ)$ is defined over $\QQ$ (see for instance [@Zimmer84 Prop. 3.1.8]), we hence have that $\uH$ is defined over $\QQ$. The action of the $\QQ$-group $\uG$ on the $\QQ$-variety $\uphahi$ is defined over $\QQ$, and the Galois group $\Gal(\CC|\QQ)$ acts on $\uphahi$ and on $\uG$ commuting with this action. For every $\sigma\in \Gal(\CC|\QQ)$, we have $\uH^\sigma= \uH$. Hence by the uniqueness of the point in $\phahi$ fixed by a conjugate of $\PO(1,2)$, we have that $[Y]^\sigma=[Y]$ for every $\sigma\in
\Gal(\CC|\QQ)$. Thus $[Y]$ is a rational point.
An $\RR$-circle $C$ is [*$K$-arithmetic*]{} if its stabiliser in $\Ga_K$ has a dense orbit in $C$. Proposition \[prop:Fuchsianrationalpoint\] explains this terminology: The stabiliser in $\Ga_K$ of a $K$-arithmetic $\RR$-circle is arithmetic (in the conjugate of $\PO(1,2)$ containing it). With $\omega=
\frac{-1+i\sqrt{3}}{2}$, the figure below shows part of the $\Ga_{\QQ(\omega)}$-orbit of the standard infinite $\RR$-circle $C_\infty$, which is $K$-arithmetic.
{width="9cm"}
The next result reduces, up to commensurability and conjugacy in $\PU(1,2;K)$, the class of nonelementary $\RR$-Fuchsian subgroups that we will study. Note that $\PU(1,2;K)$ is the commensurator of $\Ga_K$ in $\PU(1,2)$, see [@Borel66 Theo. 2].
\[prop:reducpointrationel\] Any maximal nonelementary $\RR$-Fuchsian subgroup $\Ga$ of $\Ga_K$ is commensurable up to conjugacy in $\PU(1,2;K)$ with the stabiliser in $\Ga_K$ of the rational point $[Y_\Delta]\in\phahi$[^6] for some $\Delta\in\OOO_K$. If $\Delta\in \NN-\{0\}$ and if $$\ga_0=\begin{bmatrix}
\frac{1+i}{2\sqrt{\Delta}} & 0 & \frac{1-i}{2\sqrt{\Delta}} \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
\frac{(1-i)\sqrt{\Delta}}{2} & 0 & \frac{(1+i)\sqrt{\Delta}}{2}
\end{bmatrix}\,,$$ then $\ga_0\in\PU(1,2)$ and we have $\stab_{\Ga_K}[Y_\Delta]=
\ga_0\PO(1,2)\ga_0^{-1}\cap\Ga_K$.
Let $\Ga$ be as in the statement. By Proposition \[prop:Fuchsianrationalpoint\], there exists a rational point $[Y]\in \uphahi(\QQ)$ in $\phahi$ such that $\Ga=\stab_{\Ga_K}[Y]=
\stab_{\Ga_K} C_Y$. Up to conjugating $\Ga$ by an element in $\Ga_K$, we may assume that the $\RR$-circle $C_Y$ is finite. The center of the finite $\RR$-circle $C_Y$ belongs to $\PP_2(K)\cap (\partial_\infty
\HH^2_\CC-\{\infty\})$ by Lemma \[lem:calccentrerayon\] (3). The group of Heisenberg translations with coefficients in $K$ acts (simply transitively) on $\PP_2(K)\cap(\partial_\infty\HH^2_\CC -\{\infty\})$. Hence up to conjugating $\Ga$ by an element in $\PU(1,2;K)$, we may assume that the center of the $\RR$-circle $C_Y$ is $0=[0:0:1]$. By Lemma \[lem:formnormhahi\] (and its proof), there exists $\Delta\in K-\{0\}$ such that $[Y]=[Y_\Delta]$. Since for every $\lambda\in \CC^\times$ we have $\dil\lambda [Y_\Delta]\,
\ov{\dil\lambda}^{\,-1}= [Y_{\Delta\,\ov{\lambda}^{\,-2}}] $, up to conjugating $\Ga$ by a Heisenberg dilation with coefficients in $K$, we may assume that $\Delta\in\OOO_K$.
Fixing square roots of $\Delta$ and $\ov\Delta$ such that $\sqrt{\ov\Delta}=\ov{\sqrt{\Delta}}$ , let $$\ga'_0=\begin{bmatrix}
\frac{1+i}{2\sqrt{\ov{\Delta}}} & 0 & \frac{1-i}{2\sqrt{\ov{\Delta}}}
\\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ \frac{(1-i)\sqrt{\Delta}}{2} & 0 & \frac{(1+i)
\sqrt{\Delta}}{2} \end{bmatrix}\,.$$ One easily checks using Equation that $\ga_0'\in\PU(1,2)$. An easy computation proves that $\ga_0'[I_3]\,\ov{\ga_0'}^{\,-1}= \ga_0'\;\ov{\ga_0'}^{\,-1}
=[Y_\Delta]$. Since the stabiliser of $[I_3]$ for the action of $\PU(1,2)$ on $\phahi$ is equal to $\PO(1,2)$, the fact that $$\stab_{\Ga_K}[Y_\Delta] = \ga'_0\PO(1,2){\ga'_0}^{-1}\cap\Ga_K$$ follows from the equivariance properties of the homeomorphisms in Equation . Furthermore, $\ga'_0$ is the only element of $\PU(1,2)$ satisfying this formula, up to right multiplication by an element of $\PO(1,2)$. The last claim of Proposition \[prop:reducpointrationel\] follows since $\ga_0=\ga'_0$ when $\Delta\in\NN- \{0\}$.
Here is a geometric interpretation of the invariant $\Delta$ introduced in Proposition \[prop:reducpointrationel\]: Since $\ray(C_{Y_\Delta})= \ray(C_\Delta)= \frac{1}{\overline{\Delta}}$ for every $\Delta\in\CC^\times$, the above proof shows that if the $\RR$-circle $C_\Ga$ preserved by $\Ga$ is finite, then we may take $\Delta\in\OOO_K-\{0\}$ squarefree (uniquely defined modulo a square unit, hence uniquely defined if $D_K\neq -4,-3$) such that $$\Delta\in\;\left(\overline{\ray(C_\Ga)}\right)^{-1}\;(K^\times)^2\;.$$
Quaternion algebras, ternary quadratic forms and $\RR$-Fuchsian subgroups {#sect:ternquad}
=========================================================================
In this section, we describe the arithmetic structure of the maximal nonelementary $\RR$-Fuchsian subgroups of $\Ga_K$. By Proposition \[prop:reducpointrationel\], it suffices to say from which quaternion algebra the $\RR$-Fuchsian subgroup $$\Ga_{K,\,\Delta}=\stab_{\Ga_K}[Y_\Delta]$$ arises for any $\Delta\in\OOO_K-\{0\}$.
Let $D,D'\in\QQ^\times$. The quaternion algebra $\Q=
\Big(\frac{D,D'}{\QQ}\Big)$ is the $4$-dimensional central simple algebra over $\QQ$ with standard generators $i,j,k$ satisfying the relations $i^2=D$, $j^2=D'$ and $ij=-ji=k$. If $x= x_0+x_1i+x_2j+x_3k$ is an element of $\Q$, we denote its [*conjugate*]{} by $$\ov x=x_0-x_1i-x_2j-x_3k\,,$$ its (reduced) [*trace*]{} by $$\tr x=x+\ov x = 2x_0\,,$$ and its [*(reduced) norm*]{} by $$\n(x_0+x_1i+x_2j+x_3k)=x\,\ov x=x_0^2-Dx_1^2-D'x_2^2+DD'x_3^2\;.$$ The group of elements in $\Q(\ZZ)=\ZZ+i\ZZ+j\ZZ+k\ZZ$ with norm $1$ is denoted by $\Q(\ZZ)^1$. We refer to [@Vigneras80] and [@MacRei03] for generalities on quaternion algebras.
The quaternion algebra $\Q$ [*splits over $\RR$*]{} if the $\RR$-algebra $\Q(\RR)=\Q\otimes_\QQ\RR$ is isomorphic to the $\RR$-algebra $\M_2(\RR)$ of $2$-by-$2$ matrices with real entries. We say that a nonelementary $\RR$-Fuchsian subgroup $\Ga$ of $\PU(1,2)$ [*arises from*]{} the quaternion algebra $\Q=
\big(\frac{D,D'}{\QQ}\big)$ if $\Q$ splits over $\RR$ and if there exists a Lie group epimorphism $\varphi$ from $\Q(\RR)^1$ to the conjugate of $\PO(1,2)$ containing $\Ga$, with kernel the center $Z(\Q(\RR)^1)$ of $\Q(\RR)^1$, such that $\Ga$ and $\varphi(\Q(\ZZ)^1)$ are commensurable.
Let $\A_\QQ$ be the set of isomorphism classes of quaternion algebras over $\QQ$. For every $A\in \A_\QQ$, we denote by $$A_0=\{x\in A\;:\; \tr x=0\}$$ the linear subspace of $A$ of [*pure quaternions*]{}, generated by $i,j,k$. Let $\T_\QQ$ be the set of isometry classes of nondegenerate ternary quadratic forms over $\QQ$ with [ *discriminant*]{}[^7] a square. It is well known (see for instance [@MacRei03 § 2.3–2.4] and [@Vigneras80 §I.3]) that the map $\Phi$ from $\A_\QQ$ to $\T_\QQ$, which associates to $A\in \A_\QQ$ the [*restricted norm form*]{} $\n_{\mid A_0}$, is a bijection. The map $\Phi$ has the following properties, for every $A\in \A_\QQ$.
\(1) If $a,b\in \QQ^\times$ and $A$ is (the isomorphism class of) $\big(\frac{a,b}{\QQ}\big)$, then $\Phi(A)$ is (the equivalence class of) $-a \,x_1^2 -b \,x_2^2 + ab \, x_3^2$, whose discriminant is $(ab)^2$.
\(2) If $a,b,c\in \QQ^\times$ with $abc$ a square in $\QQ$ and if $q\in \T_\QQ$ is (the equivalence class of) $-a \,x_1^2 -b
\,x_2^2 + c \, x_3^2$, then $\Phi^{-1}(q)$ is (the isomorphism class of) $\big(\frac{a,b}{\QQ}\big)$, since if $abc= \lambda^2$ with $\lambda\in\QQ$, then the change of variables $(x'_1,x'_2,x'_3)=
(x_1,x_2,\frac{\lambda}{ab}x_3)$ over $\QQ$ turns $q$ to the equivalent form $-a \,x_1^2 -b \,x_2^2 + ab \, x_3^2$.
\(3) The quaternion algebra $A$ splits over $\RR$ if and only if $\Phi(A)$ is isotropic over $\RR$ (that is, if the real quadratic form $\Phi(A)$ is indefinite), see [@Vigneras80 Coro I.3.2].
\(4) The map $\Theta_A$ from $A(\RR)^\times$ to the special orthogonal group $\SO_{\Phi(A)}$ of $\Phi(A)$, sending the class of an element $a$ in $A(\RR)^\times$ to the linear map $a_0\mapsto a
a_0 a^{-1}$ from $A_0$ to itself, is a Lie group epimorphism with kernel the center of $A(\RR)^\times$ (see [@MacRei03 Th. 2.4.1]). If $A(\ZZ)=\ZZ+\ZZ i+\ZZ j+\ZZ k$ is the usual order in $A$, then $\Theta_A$ sends $A(\ZZ)^{1}$ to a subgroup commensurable with $\SO_{\Phi(A)}(\ZZ)$.
The set $P_\Delta$ of fixed points of the linear Hermitian anti-holomorphic involution $z\mapsto Y_\Delta \,\ov{z}$ from $\CC^3$ to $\CC^3$ is a real vector space of dimension $3$, equal to $$P_\Delta=\{z\in\CC^3\;:\; z=Y_\Delta \ov{z}\;\}=
\big\{(z_0,z_1,z_2)\in\CC^3\;:\;
z_1=\ov{z_1},\;\; z_2=\Delta \ov{z_0}\;\big\}\;.$$ Let $V$ be the vector space over $\QQ$ such that $V(\RR)=\CC^3$ and $V(\QQ)=K^3$. Since the coefficients of the equations defining $P_\Delta$ are in $\QQ$, there exists a vector subspace $W=W_\Delta$ of $V$ over $\QQ$ such that $W(\RR)=P_\Delta$. The restriction to $W$ of the Hermitian form $h$, which is defined over $\QQ$, is a ternary quadratic form $q=q_\Delta$ defined over $\QQ$, that we now compute.
Since $K=\QQ+i\sqrt{|D_K|}\,\QQ$, we write $$\Delta=u+i\sqrt{|D_K|}\,v$$ with $u,v\in\QQ$, and the variables $z_j=x_j+i\sqrt{|D_K|}\,y_j$ with $x_j, y_j \in \RR$ for $j\in\{0,1,2\}$. If $(z_0, z_1,z_2)\in
P_\Delta$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
h(z_0, z_1,z_2)&=-\Re(z_2\ov{z_0})+|z_1|^2=
-\Re(\Delta\ov{z_0}^2)+|z_1|^2\\ &=
-u \,x_0^2+u|D_K|\,y_0^2-2|D_K|v\,x_0y_0+x_1^2\;.\end{aligned}$$ The right hand side of this formula is a ternary quadratic form $q=q_\Delta$ on $P_\Delta$, whose coefficients are indeed in $\QQ$. It is nondegenerate and has nonzero discriminant $-w$, where $$w=v^2D_K^2+u^2|D_K|= N(\Delta)|D_K|\in\QQ-\{0\}\,.$$
By equivariance of the homeomorphisms in Equation and as $\stab_{\PU(1,2)} [Y_\Delta]$ is equal to its normaliser, the map from $\stab_{\PU(1,2)} [Y_\Delta]$ to the projective orthogonal group $\PO_q$ of the quadratic space $(P_\Delta,q)$, induced by the restriction map from $\stab_{\operatorname{U}(1,2)} P_\Delta$ to $\operatorname{O}(q)$, sending $g$ to $g_{\mid P_\Delta}$, is a Lie group isomorphism. It sends the lattice $\Ga_{K,\,\Delta}$ to a subgroup commensurable with the lattice $\PO_q(\ZZ)$ in $\PO_q$. If we find a nondegenerate quadratic form $q'=q'_\Delta$ equivalent to $q$ over $\QQ$ up to a rational scalar multiple, whose discriminant is a rational square, and which is isotropic over $\RR$, then $\Ga_{K,\,\Delta}$ arises from the quaternion algebra $\Phi^{-1}(q')$, by Properties (3) and (4) of the bijection $\Phi$.
First assume that $u=0$. By an easy computation, we have $$q=-\Big(- x_1^2-\frac{|D_K|v}{2}\,(x_0-y_0)^2+
\frac{|D_K|v}{2} \,(x_0+y_0)^2\Big)\;.$$ The quadratic form $q'=- X_1^2 -\frac{|D_K|v}{2}\,X_2^2+
\frac{|D_K|v}{2}\, X_3^2$ over $\QQ$ is equivalent to $q$ over $\QQ$ up to sign. Its discriminant is the rational square $(\frac{|D_K|v}{2})^2$, and $q'$ represents $0$ over $\RR$. By Property (2) of the bijection $\Phi$, we have $\Phi^{-1}(q')=
\big(\frac{1,\,\frac{|D_K|v}{2}}{\QQ}\big)=
\big(\frac{1,\,1}{\QQ}\big)$. Therefore if $u=0$, then $\Ga_{K,\,\Delta}$ arises from the trivial quaternion algebra $\M_2(\QQ)$.
Now assume that $u\neq 0$. By an easy computation, we have $$\begin{aligned}
q= & -\frac{1}{u}\big(- u\,x_1^2-(v^2D_K^2+u^2|D_K|)y_0^2+
(u\,x_0+|D_K|v\,y_0)^2\big)\\ =&
-\frac{1}{u^2w}\big(- u^2w\,x_1^2-uw^2\,y_0^2+
uw(u\,x_0+|D_K|v\,y_0)^2\big) \;.\end{aligned}$$ The quadratic form $q'=- uw^2\,X_1^2 -wu^2\,X_2^2+uw\,X_3^2$ is equivalent to $q$ over $\QQ$ up to a scalar multiple in $\QQ$. Its discriminant is the rational square $(uw)^4$ and it represents $0$ over $\RR$. By Property (2) of the bijection $\Phi$, we have $\Phi^{-1}(q')= \big(\frac{uw^2,\,wu^2}{\QQ}\big) =
\big(\frac{u,\,w}{\QQ}\big)$. Therefore if $u\neq0$, since $u=\frac{1}{2}\Tr\Delta$ and $w=N(\Delta)|D_K|$, then $\Ga_{K,\,\Delta}$ arises from the quaternion algebra $\big(\frac{2\Tr\Delta,\,N(\Delta)|D_K|}{\QQ}\big)$. This concludes the proof of Theorem \[theo:main\].
\[coro:uniqueness\] Let $\Delta,\Delta'\in \OOO_K-\{0\}$ with nonzero traces. The maximal nonelementary $\RR$-Fuchsian subgroups $\Ga_{K,\,\Delta}$ and $\Ga_{K,\,\Delta'}$ are commensurable up to conjugacy in $\PU(1,2)$ if and only if the quaternion algebras $\big(\frac{2 \Tr\Delta ,\,
N(\Delta) \,|D_K|}{\QQ}\big)$ and $\big(\frac{2 \Tr\Delta' ,\,
N(\Delta') \,|D_K|}{\QQ}\big)$ over $\QQ$ are isomorphic.
Since the action of $\PU(1,2)$ on the set of $\RR$-planes $\P_\RR$ is transitive, this follows from the fact that two arithmetic Fuchsian groups are commensurable up to conjugacy in $\PSL_2(\RR)$ if and only if their associated quaternion algebras are isomorphic (see [@Takeuchi75]).
To complement Theorem \[theo:main\], we give a more explicit version of its proof in the special case when $\Delta \in\NN -\{0\}$.
\[prop:quaternionalgebraarising\] Let $\Delta\in\NN-\{0\}$. The maximal nonelementary $\RR$-Fuchsian subgroup $\Ga_{K,\,\Delta}$ arises from the quaternion algebra $\big(\frac{\Delta,\,|D_K|}{\QQ}\big)$.
Let $\Delta\in\NN-\{0\}$. Let $D=\frac{|D_K|}{4}$ if $D_K\equiv 0
\mod 4$ and $D=|D_K|$ otherwise, so that $\OOO_K\cap\RR=\ZZ$ and $\OOO_K\cap i\RR= i\sqrt{D}\,\ZZ $. Let $D'= D\Delta$. We have $D,D'\in\NN-\{0\}$. Let $\Q=\big(\frac{D,-D'}{\QQ}\big)$.
The matrices $$e_0=\begin{pmatrix} 0 & -1 \\ 0 & \ \ 0 \end{pmatrix}, \
e_1=\begin{pmatrix} 1 & \ \ 0 \\ 0 & -1 \end{pmatrix}, \
e_2=\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 \end{pmatrix}$$ form a basis of the Lie algebra $\sss\lll_2(\RR)=
\bigg\{\begin{pmatrix} x_1 & -x_0 \\ x_2 & -x_1 \end{pmatrix} \;:\;
x_0,x_1,x_2\in\RR\bigg\}$ of $\PSL_2(\RR)$. Note that $$-\det(x_0e_0+x_1e_1+x_2e_2)= - x_0x_2+x_1^2$$ is the quadratic form restriction of $h$ to $\RR^3\subset \CC^3$. We thus have a well known [*exceptional isomorphism*]{} between $\PSL_2(\RR)$ and the identity component $\SO_0(1,2)$ of $\operatorname{O}(1,2)$, which associates to $g \in \PSL_2(\RR)$ the matrix in the basis $(e_0,e_1,e_2)$ of the linear automorphism $\Ad(g):X\mapsto gXg^{-1}$, which belongs to $\GL(\sss\lll_2(\RR))$. We denote by $\Theta: \PSL_2(\RR) \ra \PU(1,2)$ the group isomorphism onto its image $\PO(1,2)$ obtained by composing this exceptional isomorphism first with the inclusion of $\SO_0(1,2)$ in $\operatorname{U}(1,2)$, then with the canonical projection in $\PU(1,2)$. Explicitly, we have by an easy computation $$\Theta: \begin{bmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{bmatrix} \mapsto
\begin{bmatrix}
a^2 & 2ab & b^2 \\ ac & ad+bc & bd \\ c^2 & 2cd & d^2
\end{bmatrix}\;.$$
We have a map $\sigma_{D,-D'}: \Q\to\mat_2(\RR)$ defined by $$(x_0+x_1i+x_2j+x_3k)\mapsto\begin{pmatrix}
x_0+x_1\sqrt D & (x_2+x_3\sqrt D)\sqrt{D'}\\
-(x_2-x_3\sqrt D)\sqrt{D'} & x_0-x_1\sqrt D
\end{pmatrix}\;.$$ As is well-known[^8], the induced map $\sigma: \Q(\RR)^1 \ra\PSLR$ is a Lie group epimorphism with kernel $Z(\Q(\RR)^1)$, such that $\sigma(\Q(\ZZ)^1)$ is a discrete subgroup of $\PSLR$. With $\ga_0$ as in Proposition \[prop:reducpointrationel\], for all $x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3\in\ZZ$, a computation gives that the element $\ga_0\;\Theta\big(\sigma(x_0+x_1i+x_2j+x_3k)\big)\,\ga_0^{-1}$ of $\PU(1,2)$ is equal to $$\begin{bmatrix}
\vspace{.2cm}
a(x)&b(x)&c(x)/\Delta\\
\vspace{.2cm}
d(x)\sqrt\Delta&\n(x)& \overline{d(x)}\,/\sqrt\Delta\\
\overline{c(x)}\,\Delta&\overline{b(x)}&\overline{a(x)}
\end{bmatrix}\,,$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
a(x) & =x_0^2 +Dx_1^2 + (2D'x_2x_3)i\sqrt{D}\,,\\
b(x) & =2(x_1x_2 + x_0x_3 + (x_1x_3 +\frac{x_0x_2}{D})i\sqrt{D})
\frac{\sqrt{DD'}}{\sqrt{\Delta}}\,,\\
c(x) & =DD'x_3^2 + D'x_2^2 + 2x_0x_1 \,i\sqrt{D}\,,\\
d(x) & =(x_0x_3 - x_1x_2 +(\frac{x_0x_2}{D}- x_1x_3)i\sqrt{D})\sqrt{DD'}\,.\end{aligned}$$
Let us consider the order $\OOO$ of $\Q$ defined by $$\OOO=\{x_0+x_1i+x_2j+x_3k\in \Q(\ZZ)\;:\;
x_1,x_2,x_3\equiv 0 \mod D\}\;.$$ Since $\frac{\sqrt{DD'}}{\sqrt{\Delta}}=D\in\ZZ$ and $\sqrt{DD'\Delta}
=D'\in\ZZ$, the above computation shows that the subgroup $\ga_0\;
\Theta(\sigma(\OOO^1))\,\ga_0^{-1}$ of $\PU(1,2)$ is contained in $\Ga_K$. Since $$\Big(\frac{D,\,-D'}{\QQ}\Big)=
\Big(\frac{|D_K|,-|D_K|\Delta}{\QQ}\Big)=
\Big(\frac{|D_K|,\Delta}{\QQ}\Big)\;,$$ the result follows.
[**Remark.**]{} Note that by Hilbert’s Theorem 90, if $\Delta'\in K$ satisfies $|\Delta'|=1$, then there exists $\Delta'' \in\OOO_K-\{0\}$ such that $\Delta'=\frac{\Delta''}{\ov{\Delta''}}$, so that the Heisenberg dilation $\dil{{\Delta''}^{-1}}$ commensurates $\Ga_{K,\,\Delta'}$ to $\Ga_{K,\,N(\Delta'')}$ and $N(\Delta'')$ belongs to $\NN-\{0\}$. Hence Proposition \[prop:quaternionalgebraarising\] implies that $\Ga_{K,\,\Delta'}$ arises from the quaternion algebra $\big(\frac{N(\Delta''),\,|D_K|}{\QQ}\big)$.
We conclude this paper by a series of arithmetic and geometric consequences of the above determination of the quaternion algebras associated with the maximal nonelementary $\RR$-Fuchsian subgroups of the Picard modular groups. Their proofs follow closely the arguments in [@Maclachlan86] pages 309 and 310, and a reader not interested in the arithmetic details may simply admit that they follow by formally replacing $-d$ by $d$ in the statements of loc. cit.
Recall that given $a\in\ZZ-\{0\}$ and $p$ an odd positive prime not dividing $a$, the [*Legendre symbol*]{} $\big(\frac{a}{b}\big)$ is equal to $1$ if $a$ is a square mod $p$ and to $-1$ otherwise. Recall[^9] that if $d\in\ZZ-\{0\}$ is squarefree, a positive prime $p$ is either
- [*ramified*]{} in $\QQ(\sqrt{d})$ when $p\divides d$ if $p$ is odd, and when $d\equiv 2,3\;[4]$ if $p=2$,
- [*split*]{} in $\QQ(\sqrt{d})$ when $p\notdivides d$ and $\big(\frac{d}{p}\big)=1$ if $p$ is odd, and when $d\equiv
1\;[8]$ if $p=2$,
- [*inert*]{} in $\QQ(\sqrt{d})$ when $p\notdivides d$, and $\big(\frac{d}{p}\big)=-1$ if $p$ is odd, and when $d\equiv 5\;
[8]$ if $p=2$.
Recall that a quaternion algebra $A$ over $\QQ$ is determined up to isomorphism by the finite (with even cardinality) set $\operatorname{RAM}(A)$ of the positive primes $p$ at which $A$ [ *ramifies*]{}, that is, such that $A\otimes_\QQ\QQ_p$ is a division algebra.
\[prop:construcRfuchs\] Let $A$ be an indefinite quaternion algebra over $\QQ$. If the positive primes at which $A$ is ramified are either ramified or inert in $\QQ(\sqrt{|D_K|})$, then there exists a maximal nonelementary $\RR$-Fuchsian subgroup of $\Ga_K$ whose associated quaternion algebra is $A$.
Recall[^10] that for all $a,b\in\ZZ-\{0\}$ and for all positive primes $p$, the ($p$-)[ *Hilbert symbol*]{} $(a,b)_p$, equal to $-1$ if $\big(\frac{a,
\,b}{\QQ_p}\big)$ is a division algebra and $1$ otherwise, is symmetric in $a,b$, and satisfies $(a,bc)_p=(a,b)_p(a,c)_p$ and $$\label{eq:properthilbsymbmodp}
(a,b)_p=
\begin{cases}
(-1)^{\frac{u-1}{2}\frac{v-1}{2}+\alpha\frac{v^2-1}{8}+\beta\frac{u^2-1}{8}}
& {\rm if}\;p= 2, a=2^\alpha u, b=2^\beta v, \;{\rm with}\;
u,v \;{\rm odd}\\
\big(\frac{a}{p}\big) &
{\rm if}\;p\neq 2, p\notdivides a, \;p\divides b, \;p^2\notdivides b\,.
\end{cases}$$
Let $d=\frac{|D_K|}{4}$ if $D_K\equiv 0\;[4]$ and $d=|D_K|$ otherwise, so that $d\in\NN-\{0\}$ is squarefree. Given $A$ as in the statement, we may write $\operatorname{RAM}(A)=\{p_1,\dots,p_r,r_1,\dots,r_s\}$ with $p_i$ inert in $\QQ(\sqrt{d})$, and $r_i$ ramified in $\QQ(\sqrt{d})$, so that the prime divisors of $d$ are $r_1,\cdots,
r_s, s_1,\cdots, s_k$, unless some $r_i$, say $r_1$, is equal to $2$ and $d\equiv 3\;[4]$, in which case the prime divisors of $d$ are $r_2,\cdots, r_s,s_1,\cdots, s_k$. As in [@Maclachlan86 page 310], let $q$ be an odd prime different from all $p_i,r_i,s_i$ such that
$\bullet$ $q\equiv p_1\cdots p_r\;[8]$ if no $r_i$ is equal to $2$, $q\equiv 5\,p_1\cdots p_r\;[8]$ if $r_i=2$ and $d\equiv 2\;[4]$ and $q\equiv 3\,p_1\cdots p_r\;[8]$ if $r_i=2$ and $d\equiv 3\;[4]$,
$\bullet$ for every $i=1,\dots, s$, if $r_i$ is odd, then $\big(\frac{q}{r_i}\big)= - \big(\frac{p_1\cdots\, p_r} {r_i}\big)$,
$\bullet$ for every $i=1,\dots, k$, if $s_i$ is odd, then $\big(\frac{q}{s_i}\big)= \big(\frac{p_1\cdots\, p_r} {s_i}\big)$.
With $\Delta=p_1\cdots p_r q$, which is a positive squarefree integer, let us prove that $A$ is isomorphic to $\big(\frac{d, \,\Delta}
{\QQ}\big)$. This proves the result by Proposition \[prop:quaternionalgebraarising\]. By the characterisation of the quaternion algebras over $\QQ$, we only have to prove that for every positive prime $t$ not in $\operatorname{RAM}(A)$, we have $(d,\Delta)_t=1$ and for every positive prime $t$ in $\operatorname{RAM}(A)$, we have $(d,\Delta)_t=-1$. We distinguish in the first case between $t=q$, $t=s_i$, $t=2$ and $t\neq q,s_1,\cdots,
s_k,2$, and in the second case between $t=p_i$ and $t=r_i$. By using several times Equation and the fact that $\big(\frac{d}{q}\big)=1$ since $r+s$ is even as $A$ is indefinite, the result follows (see the Appendix for details).
Recall that the [*wide commensurability*]{} class of a subgroup $H$ of a given group $G$ is the set of subgroups of $G$ which are commensurable up to conjugacy to $H$. Two groups are [ *abstractly commensurable*]{} if they have isomorphic finite index subgroups.
\[coro:manyclasses\] Every Picard modular group $\Ga_K$ contains infinitely many wide commensurability classes in $\PU(1,2)$ of (uniform) maximal nonelementary $\RR$-Fuchsian subgroups.
Corollary \[coro:intro\] of the introduction follows from Corollary \[coro:manyclasses\]. Note that there is only one wide commensurability class of nonuniform maximal nonelementary $\RR$-Fuchsian subgroups of $\Ga_K$, by [@MacRei03 Thm. 8.2.7].
As seen in Corollary \[coro:uniqueness\], two maximal nonelementary $\RR$-Fuchsian subgroups are commensurable up to conjugacy in $\PU(1,2)$ if and only if their associated quaternion algebras are isomorphic. Two such quaternion algebras are isomorphic if and only if they ramify over the same set of primes. By Proposition \[prop:construcRfuchs\], for every finite set $I$ with even cardinality of positive primes which are inert over $\QQ(\sqrt{|D_K|})$, the quaternion algebra with ramification set equal to $I$ is associated with a maximal nonelementary $\RR$-Fuchsian subgroup. Since there are infinitely many inert primes over $\QQ(\sqrt{|D_K|})$, the result follows.
Any arithmetic Fuchsian group whose associated quaternion algebra $A$ is defined over $\QQ$ has a finite index subgroup isomorphic to an $\RR$-Fuchsian subgroup of some Picard modular group $\Ga_K$.
As in [@Maclachlan86] page 310, if $\operatorname{RAM}(A)=
\{p_1,\cdots,p_n\}$, let $d\in\NN-\{0\}$ be such that $\big(\frac{d}{p_i} \big) =-1$ if $p_i$ is odd and $d\equiv 5\;[8]$ if $p_i=2$, so that $p_1,\dots,p_n$ are inert in $\QQ(\sqrt{d})$, and take $K=\QQ(\sqrt{-d})$.
For all quadratic imaginary number fields $K$ and $K'$, there are infinitely many abstract commensurability classes of Fuchsian subgroups with representatives in both Picard modular groups $\Ga_K$ and $\Ga_{K'}$.
There are infinitely many primes $p$ such that $\big(\frac{|D_K|}{p} \big) = \big(\frac{|D_{K'}|}{p} \big) = -1$, hence infinitely many finite subsets of them with an even number of elements.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The second author would like to thank the Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Cambridge, for support and hospitality in April 2017 during the programme “Non-positive curvature group actions and cohomology”. This work was supported by EPSRC grant EP/K032208/1 and by the French-Finnish CNRS grant PICS 6950. We thank a lot John Parker, in particular for simplifying Lemma \[lem:calccentrerayon\], and Yves Benoist, whose suggestion to use the relation between quaternion algebras and ternary quadratic form was critical for the conclusion of Section \[sect:ternquad\]. We also thank Gaëtan Chenevier for his help with the final corollaries.
Details on the proof of Proposition \[prop:construcRfuchs\]
===========================================================
Let us prove in preamble that $$\label{eq:doverq}
\big(\frac{d}{q}\big)=1\;.$$
By using the quadratic reciprocity law for the Jacobi symbol, and its multiplicativity properties, by the second and third assumptions on $q$, since the $p_\ell$’s are inert in $\QQ(\sqrt{d})$, since $r+s$ is even and $q-p_1\dots p_r\equiv 0\;[4]$ by the first assumption on $q$, we have if the $r_j$’s, $s_i$’s and $p_\ell$’s are odd $$\begin{aligned}
\big(\frac{d}{q}\big)&=(-1)^{\frac{q-1}2\frac{d-1}2}
\big(\frac{q}{d}\big)=(-1)^{\frac{q-1}2\frac{d-1}2}
\prod_{j}\big(\frac{q}{r_j}\big)\prod_{i}
\big(\frac{q}{s_i}\big)\nonumber\\ &=(-1)^{s+\frac{q-1}2\frac{d-1}2}
\prod_{j}\big(\frac{p_1\dots p_r}{r_j}\big)\prod_{i}
\big(\frac{p_1\dots p_r}{s_i}\big)\nonumber\\ &=(-1)^{s+\frac{q-1}2\frac{d-1}2}
\big(\frac{p_1\dots p_r}{d}\big)=
(-1)^{s+(\frac{q-1}2-\frac{p_1\dots p_r-1}2)\frac{d-1}2}
\big(\frac{d}{p_1\dots p_r}\big)\nonumber\\&=
(-1)^{s+(\frac{q-p_1\dots p_r}2)\frac{d-1}2}
\prod_{\ell=1}^r\big(\frac{d}{p_\ell}\big)=
(-1)^{r+s+(\frac{q-p_1\dots p_r}2)\frac{d-1}2}=1\;.\end{aligned}$$
Recall that the Jacobi symbol satisfies $\big(\frac{2}{n}\big)
=(-1)^{\frac{n^2-1}{8}}$ for every odd positive integer $n$. Similarly, if some $s_i$ is not odd (which implies that the $r_j$’s and $p_\ell$’s are odd), say $s_1=2$, then with $d'=d/2$ which is odd, since $q^2- (p_1\dots p_r)^2\equiv 0\;[16]$ by the first assumption on $q$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\big(\frac{d}{q}\big)&=\big(\frac{2}{q}\big)\big(\frac{d'}{q}\big)
=(-1)^{\frac{q^2-1}{8}+\frac{q-1}2\frac{d'-1}2}
\big(\frac{q}{d'}\big)=(-1)^{\frac{q^2-1}{8}+\frac{q-1}2\frac{d'-1}2}
\prod_{j}\big(\frac{q}{r_j}\big)\prod_{i\neq 1}
\big(\frac{q}{s_i}\big)\\ &=(-1)^{s+\frac{q^2-1}{8}+\frac{q-1}2\frac{d'-1}2}
\prod_{j}\big(\frac{p_1\dots p_r}{r_j}\big)\prod_{i\neq 1}
\big(\frac{p_1\dots p_r}{s_i}\big)\\ &=
(-1)^{s+\frac{q^2-1}{8}+\frac{q-1}2\frac{d'-1}2}
\big(\frac{p_1\dots p_r}{d'}\big)\\ &=
(-1)^{s+\frac{q^2-1}{8}+(\frac{q-1}2-\frac{p_1\dots p_r-1}2)\frac{d'-1}2}
\big(\frac{d'}{p_1\dots p_r}\big)\\&=
(-1)^{s+\frac{q^2-1}{8}+(\frac{q-1}2-\frac{p_1\dots p_r-1}2)\frac{d'-1}2}
\big(\frac{2}{p_1\dots p_r}\big)\big(\frac{d}{p_1\dots p_r}\big)\\&=
(-1)^{s+\frac{q^2-1}{8}+(\frac{q-1}2-\frac{p_1\dots p_r-1}2)\frac{d'-1}2-
\frac{(p_1\dots p_r)^2-1}{8}} \big(\frac{d}{p_1\dots p_r}\big)\\&=
(-1)^{s+(\frac{q-p_1\dots p_r}2)\frac{d'-1}2+\frac{q^2-(p_1\dots p_r)^2}{8}}
\prod_{\ell=1}^r\big(\frac{d}{p_\ell}\big)\\&=
(-1)^{r+s+(\frac{q-p_1\dots p_r}2)\frac{d'-1}2+\frac{q^2-(p_1\dots p_r)^2}{8}}=1\;.\end{aligned}$$
Similarly, if some $p_\ell$ is not odd (which implies that the $r_j$’s and $s_i$’s are odd), say $p_1=2$, then $d\equiv 5\; [8]$ since $p_1$ is inert in $\QQ(\sqrt{d})$, hence $\frac{d-1}2\equiv 0\;[2]$ and $\frac{d^2-1}8\equiv 1\;[2]$. Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\big(\frac{d}{q}\big)&=(-1)^{\frac{q-1}2\frac{d-1}2}
\big(\frac{q}{d}\big)=(-1)^{\frac{q-1}2\frac{d-1}2}
\prod_{j}\big(\frac{q}{r_j}\big)\prod_{i}
\big(\frac{q}{s_i}\big)\nonumber\\ &=(-1)^{s+\frac{q-1}2\frac{d-1}2}
\prod_{j}\big(\frac{p_1\dots p_r}{r_j}\big)\prod_{i}
\big(\frac{p_1\dots p_r}{s_i}\big)\nonumber\\ &=(-1)^{s+\frac{q-1}2\frac{d-1}2}
\big(\frac{p_1\dots p_r}{d}\big)=(-1)^{s+\frac{q-1}2\frac{d-1}2}
\big(\frac{2}{d}\big)\big(\frac{p_2\dots p_r}{d}\big)\\ &=
(-1)^{s+\frac{d^2-1}{8}+(\frac{q-1}2-\frac{p_2\dots p_r-1}2)\frac{d-1}2}
\big(\frac{d}{p_2\dots p_r}\big)\nonumber\\&=
(-1)^{s+\frac{d^2-1}{8}+(\frac{q-p_2\dots p_r}2)\frac{d-1}2}
\prod_{\ell=2}^r\big(\frac{d}{p_\ell}\big)=
(-1)^{r-1+s+\frac{d^2-1}{8}+(\frac{q-p_2\dots p_r}2)\frac{d-1}2}=1\;.\end{aligned}$$
Similarly, assume that some $r_i$ is not odd (which implies that the $s_i$’s and $p_\ell$’s are odd), say $r_1=2$. Since $r_1$ is ramified in $\QQ(\sqrt{d})$, we have either $d\equiv 2\;[4]$ or $d\equiv
3\;[4]$. Assume first that $d\equiv 2\;[4]$. Then with $d'=d/2$ which is odd, since the first assumption $q\equiv 5\,p_1\dots p_r\;[8]$ on $q$ implies that $q- p_1\dots p_r\equiv 0\;[4]$ and that $\frac{q^2-
(p_1\dots p_r)^2}8 \equiv 1\;[2]$ as the $p_\ell$’s are then odd, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\big(\frac{d}{q}\big)&=\big(\frac{2}{q}\big)\big(\frac{d'}{q}\big)
=(-1)^{\frac{q^2-1}{8}+\frac{q-1}2\frac{d'-1}2}
\big(\frac{q}{d'}\big)=(-1)^{\frac{q^2-1}{8}+\frac{q-1}2\frac{d'-1}2}
\prod_{j\neq 1}\big(\frac{q}{r_j}\big)\prod_{i}
\big(\frac{q}{s_i}\big)\\ &=(-1)^{s-1+\frac{q^2-1}{8}+\frac{q-1}2\frac{d'-1}2}
\prod_{j\neq 1}\big(\frac{p_1\dots p_r}{r_j}\big)\prod_{i}
\big(\frac{p_1\dots p_r}{s_i}\big)\\ &=
(-1)^{s-1+\frac{q^2-1}{8}+\frac{q-1}2\frac{d'-1}2}
\big(\frac{p_1\dots p_r}{d'}\big)\\ &=
(-1)^{s-1+\frac{q^2-1}{8}+(\frac{q-1}2-\frac{p_1\dots p_r-1}2)\frac{d'-1}2}
\big(\frac{d'}{p_1\dots p_r}\big)\\&=
(-1)^{s-1+\frac{q^2-1}{8}+(\frac{q-1}2-\frac{p_1\dots p_r-1}2)\frac{d'-1}2}
\big(\frac{2}{p_1\dots p_r}\big)\big(\frac{d}{p_1\dots p_r}\big)\\&=
(-1)^{s-1+\frac{q^2-1}{8}+(\frac{q-1}2-\frac{p_1\dots p_r-1}2)\frac{d'-1}2-
\frac{(p_1\dots p_r)^2-1}{8}} \big(\frac{d}{p_1\dots p_r}\big)\\&=
(-1)^{s-1+(\frac{q-p_1\dots p_r}2)\frac{d'-1}2+\frac{q^2-(p_1\dots p_r)^2}{8}}
\prod_{\ell=1}^r\big(\frac{d}{p_\ell}\big)\\&=
(-1)^{r+s-1+(\frac{q-p_1\dots p_r}2)\frac{d'-1}2+\frac{q^2-(p_1\dots p_r)^2}{8}}=1\;.\end{aligned}$$ Assume secondly that $d\equiv 3\;[4]$, so that as already said we have $d=r_2\dots r_ss_1\dots s_k$ which is odd. Then $\frac{d-1}2$ is odd and $\frac{q-p_1\dots p_r}2$ is odd by the first assumption on $q$, hence as above $$\begin{aligned}
\big(\frac{d}{q}\big)&=(-1)^{\frac{q-1}2\frac{d-1}2}
\big(\frac{q}{d}\big)=(-1)^{\frac{q-1}2\frac{d-1}2}
\prod_{j\neq 1}\big(\frac{q}{r_j}\big)\prod_{i}
\big(\frac{q}{s_i}\big)\\ &=(-1)^{s-1+\frac{q-1}2\frac{d-1}2}
\prod_{j\neq 1}\big(\frac{p_1\dots p_r}{r_j}\big)\prod_{i}
\big(\frac{p_1\dots p_r}{s_i}\big)\\ &=
(-1)^{s-1+\frac{q-1}2\frac{d-1}2}
\big(\frac{p_1\dots p_r}{d}\big)\\ &=
(-1)^{s-1+(\frac{q-1}2-\frac{p_1\dots p_r-1}2)\frac{d-1}2}
\big(\frac{d}{p_1\dots p_r}\big)\\&=
(-1)^{s-1+(\frac{q-p_1\dots p_r}2)\frac{d-1}2}
\prod_{\ell=1}^r\big(\frac{d}{p_\ell}\big)\\&=
(-1)^{r+s-1+(\frac{q-p_1\dots p_r}2)\frac{d-1}2}=1\;.\end{aligned}$$ This proves Equation .
Let $t$ be a positive prime. First assume that $t$ does not belong to $\operatorname{RAM}(A)$. Then one of the following case occurs: $t=q$, $t=s_i\neq 2$ for some $i$, $t=s_i= 2$ for some $i$, $t=2\neq s_i$ for every $i$, or $t\neq q,s_1,\cdots, s_k,2$.
If $t=q$, then $t\neq 2$, $t\notdivides d$, $t\divides \Delta$, $t^2\notdivides \Delta$, so that by the second claim of Equation and by Equation , we have as wanted $$(d,\Delta)_t=\big(\frac{d}{q}\big)=1\;.$$
If $t= s_i\neq 2$ for some $i=1,\dots, k$, by the second claim of Equation since $s_i\divides d$, $s_i^2\notdivides d$, and by the third assumption on $q$, we have as wanted $$(d,\Delta)_t=(d,p_1\dots p_r)_{s_i}(d,q)_{s_i}=
\big(\frac{p_1\cdots\, p_r} {s_i}\big)\big(\frac{q}{s_i}\big)=
\big(\frac{q}{s_i}\big)^2=1\;.$$
If $t= s_i = 2$ for some $i=1,\dots, k$, then $d$, which is squarefree, is equal to $2d'$ for some odd $d'$. The $p_i$’s are odd, and $q\equiv p_1\cdots p_r\;[8]$ by the first assumption on $q$, hence $\Delta$ is odd, of the form $(2\Delta'+1)^2+8\Delta''=1+8\Delta'''$ for some $\Delta', \Delta'', \Delta'''\in\NN$. By the first claim of Equation , we have as wanted $$(d,\Delta)_t=(-1)^{\frac{d'-1}{2}\frac{\Delta-1}{2}+ (\Delta^2-1)/8}=
(-1)^{\frac{d'-1}{2}(4\Delta''')+ 2\Delta'''+8{\Delta'''}^2}=1\;.$$
If $t=2\neq s_i$ for every $i=1,\dots, k$, then $\Delta$ and $d$ are odd, and $\Delta\equiv (p_1\dots p_r)^2 \;[8]$ by the first assumption on $q$ so that $\Delta\equiv 1\; [4]$ since the $p_i$’s are odd. Hence by the first claim of Equation , we have as wanted $$(d,\Delta)_t=(-1)^{\frac{d-1}{2}\frac{\Delta-1}{2}}=1\;.$$
Now assume that $t$ belongs to $\operatorname{RAM}(A)$. In particular $t$ is equal either to $p_i$ for some $i=1,\dots, r$ or to $r_i$ for some $i=1,\dots, s$.
If $t=p_i\neq 2$, then $t$ does not divide $d$ since $p_i$ is inert in $\QQ(\sqrt{d})$, and $t$ divides $\Delta$ which is squarefree. Hence by the second claim of Equation , since $p_i$ is inert in $\QQ(\sqrt{d})$, we have as wanted $$(d,\Delta)_t= \big(\frac{d}{p_i}\big)=-1\;.$$
If $t=p_i= 2$, then $d\equiv 5\;[8]$ since $p_i$ is inert in $\QQ(\sqrt{d})$, hence $d$ is odd, $\frac{d-1}{2}$ is even and $\frac{d^2-1}8$ is odd. Moreover $\Delta=2\Delta'$ with $\Delta'$ odd. Therefore by the first claim of Equation , we have as wanted $$(d,\Delta)_t= (-1)^{\frac{d-1}{2}\frac{\Delta'-1}{2}+ (d^2-1)/8}=-1\;.$$
If $t=r_i\neq 2$ for some $i=1,\dots, k$, then $t$ divides $d$ which is squarefree and does not divide $\Delta$, hence by the second assumption on $q$, we have as wanted $$(d,\Delta)_t=(d,p_1\dots p_r)_{r_i}(d,q)_{r_i}=
\big(\frac{p_1\dots p_r}{r_i}\big)\big(\frac{q}{r_i}\big)=-1\;.$$
Assume at last that $t=r_i=2$ for some $i=1,\dots, s$. Since $r_i$ is ramified in $\QQ(\sqrt{d})$, we have either $d\equiv 2\;[4]$ or $d\equiv 3\;[4]$. If $d\equiv 2\;[4]$, then $t$ divides $d$ which is equal to $2d'$ with $d'$ odd. But $t$ does not divide $\Delta$ which is odd and, by the first assumption on $q$, we have $\Delta=
5(2\Delta'+1)^2+8\Delta''=5+8\Delta'''$ for some $\Delta', \Delta'',
\Delta'''\in\NN$. Hence by the first claim of Equation , we have as wanted $$(d,\Delta)_t=(-1)^{\frac{d'-1}{2}\frac{\Delta-1}{2}+ (\Delta^2-1)/8}=
(-1)^{\frac{d'-1}{2}(2+4\Delta''') + 3+2\Delta'''+8{\Delta'''}^2}=-1\;.$$ If $d\equiv 3\;[4]$, then $d$ and $\Delta$ are odd and, by the first assumption on $q$, we have $\Delta= 3(2\Delta'+1)^2 +8\Delta''\equiv
3\;[4]$. Hence by the first claim of Equation , we have as wanted $$(d,\Delta)_t=(-1)^{\frac{d-1}{2}\frac{\Delta-1}{2}}=-1\;.$$
[^1]: [**Keywords:**]{} Picard group, ball quotient, arithmetic Fuchsian groups, Heisenberg group, quaternion algebra, complex hyperbolic geometry, $\RR$-circle, hypersphere. [**AMS codes:** ]{} 11F06, 11R52, 20H10, 20G20, 53C17, 53C55
[^2]: See for instance [@Holzapfel98 Chap. 5] and subsequent works of Falbel, Parker, Francsics, Lax, Xie, Wang, Jiang, Zhao and many others, for information on these groups, using different Hermitian forms of signature (2,1) defined over $K$.
[^3]: See for instance [@Samuel67].
[^4]: for any Riemannian distance on the smooth manifold $\partial_\infty\HH^2_\CC$
[^5]: which are closed subsets of $\HH^2_\CC$
[^6]: or equivalently to the stabiliser in $\Ga_K$ of the $\RR$-circle $C_\Delta$
[^7]: the determinant of the associated matrix
[^8]: see for instance [@Katok92]
[^9]: See for instance [@Samuel67 page 91].
[^10]: See for instance [@Vigneras80], in particular pages 32 and 37, and [@Serre70 Chap. III].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Sigmoids are one of the most important precursor structures for solar eruptions. In this Letter, we study a sigmoid eruption on 2010 August 1 with EUV data obtained by the Atmospheric Imaging Assembly (AIA) on board the Solar Dynamic Observatory ([**]{}). In AIA 94 Å (; 6 MK), topological reconfiguration due to tether-cutting reconnection is unambiguously observed for the first time, i.e., two opposite J-shaped loops reconnect to form a continuous S-shaped loop, whose central portion is dipped and aligned along the magnetic polarity inversion line (PIL), and a compact loop crossing the PIL. A causal relationship between photospheric flows and coronal tether-cutting reconnections is evidenced by the detection of persistent converging flows toward the PIL using line-of-sight magnetograms obtained by the Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (HMI) on board [**]{}. The S-shaped loop remains in quasi-equilibrium in the lower corona for about 50 minutes, with the central dipped portion rising slowly at [$\sim\,$10 km s${}^{-1}$]{}. The speed then increases to [$\sim\,$60 km s${}^{-1}$]{} about 10 minutes prior to the onset of a [**]{}-class C3.2 flare, as the S-shaped loop speeds up its transformation into an arch-shaped loop, which eventually leads to a loop-like coronal mass ejection (CME). The AIA observations combined with H$\alpha$ filtergrams as well as hard X-ray (HXR) imaging and spectroscopy are consistent with most flare loops being formed by reconnection of the stretched legs of less-sheared J-shaped loops that envelopes the rising flux rope, in agreement with the standard tether-cutting scenario.'
author:
- 'Rui Liu, Chang Liu, Shuo Wang, Na Deng, and Haimin Wang'
title: 'Sigmoid-to-Flux-Rope Transition Leading to A Loop-Like Coronal Mass Ejection'
---
Introduction
============
CMEs and flares are responsible for the most energetic space weather phenomena, yet our knowledge of the driving mechanisms and the actual conditions leading to the eruption is limited. To achieve better understanding, we must identify the key aspects of eruptive structures that can provide diagnostic information for comparison with and incorporation into the models.
A distinctive set of structures that have been under special scrutiny are sigmoids [@rk96], which are forward or inverse S-shaped coronal loops seen often in soft X-ray (SXR) and sometimes in EUV [e.g., @liu07] emission. They are often composed of two opposite J-like bundles of loops which collectively make an S-shape appearance [@canfield07; @mc08]. Sigmoidal regions are significantly more likely to be eruptive than non-sigmoidal regions [@hudson98; @chm99; @glover00]. The eruption is usually followed by the formation of unsheared arcades or cusped loops, a process termed “sigmoid-to-arcade” evolution [e.g. @sterling00; @moore01; @pevtsov02; @gibson02]. In close spatial association with sigmoids are filaments [@pevtsov02], with which the central portion of the sigmoid is approximately aligned. The filament channel is known as a tracer of sheared field [@martin98], and the dense filament material is suggested to be supported either by a helically coiled field [@gf06 and references therein], or by a sheared arcade [e.g., @ak91], against the solar gravity.
It is appealing to associate sigmoids with kinked flux ropes [@rk94; @rk96], whereas it remains controversial whether the observed sigmoids carry sufficient magnetic twist for the onset of the kink instability [@leamon03; @lfb05]. @td99 suggested that the transient sigmoidal brightening outlines magnetic structures with enhanced current density. This has been demonstrated in several MHD simulations, in which, for example, the sigmoid is identified either with separatrix surface associated with a bald-patch topology [@fg04], or with J-shaped field lines that pass through the vertical current sheet below a rising kink-unstable loop [@ktt04].
Based on morphological changes of flaring structures, a physical picture for sigmoid eruption was proposed by @ml80 and further elaborated by @moore01, in which the magnetic explosion is unleashed by the so-called tether-cutting reconnection, occurring between the inner legs of the two elbows of the sigmoid where they shear past each other under the filament. This reconnection produces a shorter low-lying loop across the PIL and a longer twisted loop connecting the far ends of the sigmoid. The eruption begins when the twisted loop becomes unstable and distends the envelope field that overarches the sigmoid. The legs of the stretched envelope field subsequently reconnect back to form an arcade structure and the ejecting plasmoid escapes as a CME. Evidence for the tether-cutting model can also be found in recent observational studies [e.g., @wang06; @yurchyshyn06; @liu07]. @liu08 studied an EUV sigmoid, which is discontinuous at where it crosses the filament prior to the eruption, but becomes a single continuous structure lying above the filament at the eruption onset. This particular feature is at variance with @moore01, in which the tether-cutting reconnection occurs below the filament.
The aforementioned observational studies, however, are often compromised by instrumental constraints, due to which some important aspects of the tether-cutting model remain ambiguous: (1) Is the eruption initiated by tether cutting which leads to the rising of a flux rope or by the loss of equilibrium of the flux rope which later induces tether cutting below it? (2) Is the flux rope pre-existent or formed by tether cutting? (3) Is the filament supported by the sheared legs of the sigmoid or by an embedded flux rope? (4) Does the sigmoid itself, or the overlying arcade, or a pre-existent flux rope, erupt as the CME?
With the launch of [**]{}, we are now in a better position to address the above issues. Here we investigate a sigmoid eruption observed by [**]{}, in which a twisted flux rope formed via tether cutting, and subsequently transformed into an arch-shaped loop distending the overlying field and resulting in a [**]{}-class C3.2 flare and a loop-like CME. In the rest of the Letter, observations and data analysis are presented in Section 2; important conclusions and remaining issues are summarized in Section 3.
Observations & Data Analysis
============================
Instruments & Data Sets
-----------------------
The sigmoid studied here erupted at about 08:00 UT on 2010 August 1, and was fully covered by AIA and HMI aboard [**]{} ([Figure \[cme\]]{}(c) and (d)), as well as by the H$\alpha$ telescope at the Kanzelhöhe Solar Observatory (KSO; [Figure \[cme\]]{}(e)–(h)) starting from 06:52 UT. The subsequent CME was detected by the COR1 coronagraph aboard both the “Ahead” and “Behind” satellites of the Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory ([**]{}; [Figure \[cme\]]{}(a) and (b)), which were separated by about 150 deg. The flare associated with the CME was detected by the Reuven Ramaty High-Energy Solar Spectroscopic Imager .
AIA takes multi-wavelength images at $1''.2$ resolution and 12-second cadence. To study flaring plasma, we focus on the 94 [Å]{} filter (; $\log T=6.8$), as well as the 131 [Å]{} filter which covers ($\log T=5.6$), ($\log T=7.1$) and ($\log
T=7.2$). To enhance signal-to-noise ratio, we add every five 94 Å images to yield new images at effectively 1-min cadence. Other filters in 171 Å (; $\log T=5.8$), 193 Å(; $\log T=6.1$), 211 Å (; $\log T=6.3$), and 335 Å (; $\log T=6.4$) provide a multi-thermal perspective. The 193 Å band is also sensitive to 20 MK plasma (). HMI observes the Sun at 6173 Å at $1''$ resolution, and has begun to publish line-of-sight magnetograms at 45-second cadence with a precision of 10 G.
The Formation of the Flux Rope
------------------------------
The sigmoid eruption conforms to the classical “sigmoid-to-arcade” transformation. [Figure \[cme\]]{}(c) show the sigmoid structure observed 8 hours before the eruption, which consisted of two bundles of J-shaped loops. The arcade structure after the eruption is shown in [Figure \[cme\]]{}(d). The detailed transformation is presented in [Figure \[diff\]]{} as the running difference of AIA 94 Å images. At 06:35 UT ([Figure \[diff\]]{}(a)), a brightening structure appeared in the center of the active region, which seems to be a low-lying, compact loop (hereafter c-loop) across the PIL. About five minutes later, an inverse S-shaped loop (hereafter S-loop) started to glow, whose central portion was apparently dipped, aligned along the PIL, and crossed the c-loop ([Figure \[diff\]]{}(b)). The S-loop axis is apparently twisted by about half a turn (referred to also as flux rope hereafter), but the individual field line could be twisted more than that.
The c-loop was soon darkened in the running difference image ([Figure \[diff\]]{}(d)) and became visible by 06:55 UT in cooler AIA filters, such as 335 Å and 211[Å]{}. The S-loop can only be clearly seen in AIA 94 [Å]{} throughout its lifetime. Its temperature is therefore well constrained, i.e., about 6 MK. Since both the S-loop and c-loop were newly formed, and of high temperature, we suggest that they were the product of the reconnection between two J-shaped loops (hereafter J-loops) as illustrated in [Figure \[diff\]]{}(a) (labeled “J1” and “J2”), same as the tether-cutting reconnection envisaged by @moore01. However, the cooling of the c-loop and the concurrent detachment of the S-loop with it suggests the halt of the reconnection by then. The fact that the c-loop brightened before the S-loop formed excludes the possibility that the reconnection was induced by the flux rope. Despite the heating observed in AIA, the amount of the energy released by tether cutting is below the detection threshold of both [**]{} and [**]{}, since the only flare detected at that time was above the southeast limb ([**]{}-class B3.3; see the inset of [Figure \[lc\]]{}(c)). This concurs with MHD simulations [e.g., @aulanier10].
To investigate the role of photospheric flows in the formation of the flux rope, we use a series of HMI magnetograms at 12-min cadence from 00:00 UT to 12:00 UT. The average flow field calculated by the differential affine velocity estimator [DAVE; @schuck05] is shown in [Figure \[flow\]]{}. The most visible flow pattern is the radial outflows in the sunspot penumbra (left panel), known as moat flows. Apart from that, one can see persistent converging motions toward, and less significant shear motions along, the PIL (right panel). Magnetic elements of positive polarity (white patches and red contours) show stronger converging motions than those of negative polarity (black patches and blue contours). The overall flow pattern is independently confirmed by local correlation tracking [LCT; @ns88]. Flux cancellation can be seen in the animation of magnetograms, when the white patches move into black ones. From the left panel of [Figure \[flow\]]{}, one can also see that the c-loop is clearly associated with the converging flows, which supports the conjecture of @moore01. Formation and eruption of flux ropes driven by converging flows have also been found in 3D MHD simulations [e.g., @amari03; @aulanier10].
The Eruption
------------
In [Figure \[lc\]]{}(a) we present the chronological observation of the S-loop through a slit across its dipped portion ([Figure \[diff\]]{}(f)). This slit “image” is composed of strips cut from the AIA 94 [Å]{} base-difference images (subtracted by the image at 06:00 UT). The projected speed of the rising flux rope can then be estimated from the brightening patterns. [Figure \[diff\]]{} and [Figure \[lc\]]{}(a) together show that after its formation, the S-loop began to rise slowly at [$\sim\,$10 km s${}^{-1}$]{}, driven presumably by the upward-pointing magnetic tension force at the dip. The rising speed then increased to [$\sim\,$60 km s${}^{-1}$]{} at about 07:30 UT ([Figure \[lc\]]{}(a)), ten minutes prior to the C3.2 flare ([Figure \[lc\]]{}(b)). At the flare onset (about 07:42 UT; [Figure \[lc\]]{}(b)), the twisted flux rope had transformed into an arch-shaped loop ([Figure \[diff\]]{}(h), marked by an arrow). Snapshots of the rising flux rope may have been captured previously [@moore01; @mc08]. This rising and inflating loop became too diffused to be seen after 07:50 UT, but only minutes later a CME with a similar loop morphology and loop orientation ([Figure \[cme\]]{}(a) and (b)) was observed first by the [**]{} “Ahead” Satellite from 07:55 UT onward, and then by the “Behind” satellite from 08:11 UT onward. No high-density filament material (bright core) can be seen inside the CME and the filament lying along the PIL (see [Figure \[cme\]]{}(e)–(h); labeled ‘F’ in [Figure \[cme\]]{}(e)) remained largely intact throughout the eruptive process. Hence the tether-cutting reconnection must have taken place above the filament [see also @pevtsov02; @liu07; @liu08].
With the onset of the C3.2 flare, flaring loops which were less sheared than the c-loop became visible in the central region ([Figure \[diff\]]{}(h) and (i)). We suggest that the flaring is due to reconnection driven by the rising flux rope which stretched the loops overlying the central region and resulted in the formation of a current sheet underneath, similar to the schematic diagram in @moore01 [their Figure 1]. In [Figure \[diff\]]{}(a), such an overlying loop is illustrated in yellow (labeled “O1”). Note, however, that O1 was not visible in any AIA filter prior to the flare. In fact, coronal loops arched over the rising flux rope were similar in magnetic connectivity to J1 and J2 in [Figure \[diff\]]{}(a), except that they were located higher and less sheared. Such an overlying loop is illustrated in yellow in [Figure \[diff\]]{}(a) (labeled “O2”). One can see that a group of loops similar to O2 were pushed upward by the rising flux rope, exhibiting a bright outer rim and a dark inner rim in the running difference image ([Figure \[diff\]]{}(h)). At 08:03 UT, a brightening ribbon in H$\alpha$ became visible near the sunspot, co-spatial with a brightening front moving westward in AIA 94 [Å]{} ([Figure \[diff\]]{}(i), marked by an arrow). We suggest that from that time onward, the reconnection was due to the stretch of O2.
This interpretation is supported by H$\alpha$ observations, in which three flare ribbons are identified and referred to as Ribbons P, N1, and N2 hereafter ([Figure \[lc\]]{}(f)), with P for positive and N for negative polarity. In [Figure \[lc\]]{}(f) color-coded contours display the time evolution of H$\alpha$ ribbons, overlaid on an HMI magnetogram to which H$\alpha$ images are co-aligned. Obviously Ribbons P and N1 are connected by loops like O1, while P and N2 by loops like O2. We calculated the reconnection rate and the reconnected flux following @qy05. The reconnection rate is defined as the change rate of the magnetic flux passing through the newly brightened flare area and its time integration gives the reconnected flux. The results are shown in [Figure \[lc\]]{}(b)–(e). One can see that the reconnected flux at Ribbon N1 became flattened after about 08:05 UT, when the reconnection flux at Ribbon N2 started to pick up. Accordingly, the reconnection rate at Ribbon N2 dominated over that at Ribbon N1 after 08:05 UT ([Figure \[lc\]]{}(b)–(e)). Moreover, before 08:05 UT, Ribbon P was better correlated with Ribbon N1 in terms of the reconnection rate, while after 08:05 UT, it was better correlated with Ribbon N2 ([Figure \[lc\]]{}(d)–(e)). About two hours later, post-flare loops began to appear in H$\alpha$ as absorption features ([Figure \[cme\]]{}(h)). Like in EUV ([Figure \[cme\]]{}(d)), the H$\alpha$ post-flare loops were oriented in a northeast-southwest direction, rather than the east-west direction crossing the filament, which also indicates that the majority of the flare loops connected Ribbons P to N2, rather than Ribbons P to N1.
[**]{} provides additional diagnostic information on the flare loops. An HXR spectrum integrated from 08:17 UT to 08:18 UT is shown in [Figure \[flare\]]{}(i) as an example. It can be well fitted with an isothermal component of 12 MK (orange color) plus a power-law component with $\gamma\simeq5$ above 11 keV up to 25 keV (green). A Gaussian line (purple) is adopted to fit the iron-line complex peaking at $\sim\,$6.7 keV. The HXR sources reconstructed with the CLEAN algorithm are shown as contours in [Figure \[flare\]]{}(e). One can see that the thermal source (3–9 keV; orange contours) is co-spatial with the brightening in hot AIA filters, 94 Å ([Figure \[flare\]]{}(g)) and 131 Å ([Figure \[flare\]]{}(h)). The nonthermal component (12–25 keV; green contours) exhibits two strong sources: one is apparently associated with Ribbon P (Source 1) and the other, which is also registered with positive polarity when projected onto the magnetogram (see also [Figure \[cme\]]{}(g)), is co-spatial with the thermal source (Source 2). Hence we conclude that Source 1 is a footpoint source and Source 2 is a looptop source. There is an additional weak source (Source 3) co-spatial with Ribbon N2 ([Figure \[cme\]]{}(g)), which appears to the be the footpoint conjugate to Source 1. Before 08:05 UT, only Source 1 was visible (not shown). We suspect that its conjugate footpoint at Ribbon N1 is too weak to be detected with [**]{}’s limited dynamic range ($\sim\,$1:10).
In addition, significant dimmings can be seen in cold AIA filters ([Figure \[flare\]]{}(b)–(d)), but not in hot filters ([Figure \[flare\]]{}(f)–(h)). This implies that coronal dimming is not only an effect of density depletion with the cold envelope filed being opened up, but also a temperature effect with plasmas in the core region being heated to high temperatures.
Discussion & Conclusion
=======================
The sigmoid eruption on 2010 August 1 evolved clearly in a sequential manner, which provides us an opportunity to address several controversial issues in solar physics.
First of all, the observation verifies, for the first time, that the topological reconfiguration due to tether-cutting reconnection does exist in the solar corona, i.e., two opposite J-shaped loops reconnect to form a continuous S-shaped loop and a compact low-lying loop ([Figure \[diff\]]{}). A causal relationship between photospheric flows and coronal tether-cutting reconnections is also evidenced by the detection of persistent converging flows toward the PIL ([Figure \[flow\]]{}). On the other hand, the observation that the filament was left intact during the sigmoid eruption ([Figure \[cme\]]{}), which is at variance with what the tether-cutting model predicts, calls for further investigation on how filaments are embedded in sigmoids.
Second, the observation that the S-shaped loop continuously transformed into an arch-shaped loop ([Figure \[diff\]]{}) and then erupted as a loop-like CME ([Figure \[cme\]]{}) shed light on the origin of interplanetary magnetic clouds, which possess rotating magnetic fields [@burlaga81]. It also makes it difficult for one to argue that the observed S-shaped brightening is due to current density enhancement below a dynamic flux rope.
Third, the observations that the tether-cutting reconnection was not detected as a flare and that the newly formed flux rope remained in quasi-equilibrium in the lower corona for about 50 minutes ([Figure \[diff\]]{} and [Figure \[lc\]]{}) argue strongly for the existence of flux ropes prior to solar eruptions [see also @tripathi09; @gk09]. We suggest that there may exist a continuum distribution of the lifetime of “quiescent” flux-ropes in the corona from minutes to hours, or even to days, depending on the amount of magnetic twist possessed by the flux rope and the strength of magnetic confinement imposed by the surroundings.
Finally, we infer from the observations that most flare loops were formed by reconnection of the stretched legs of less-sheared J-shaped loops that enveloped the rising flux rope ([Figure \[diff\]]{}, [Figure \[lc\]]{} and [Figure \[flare\]]{}). The reconnection apparently began in the sheared field above the filament so that some of the sigmoidal field was trapped under the flare arcade, consistent with the active region remaining sigmoidal during and after the eruption [e.g., @pevtsov02; @mc08].
SDO is a mission for NASA’s Living With a Star (LWS) Program. KSO H$\alpha$ data are provided through the Global H-alpha Network operated by NJIT. The authors thank P. Schuck for providing the DAVE code. R.L., C.L., S.W. and H.W were supported by NASA grants NNX08-AJ23G and NNX08-AQ90G, and by NSF grants ATM-0849453 and ATM-0819662. N.D. was supported by NASA grant NNX08AQ32G.
[33]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
, T., [Luciani]{}, J. F., [Aly]{}, J. J., [Mikic]{}, Z., & [Linker]{}, J. 2003, , 585, 1073
, S. K. & [Klimchuk]{}, J. A. 1991, , 378, 372
, G., [T[ö]{}r[ö]{}k]{}, T., [D[é]{}moulin]{}, P., & [DeLuca]{}, E. E. 2010, , 708, 314
, L., [Sittler]{}, E., [Mariani]{}, F., & [Schwenn]{}, R. 1981, , 86, 6673
, R. C., [Hudson]{}, H. S., & [McKenzie]{}, D. E. 1999, , 26, 627
, R. C., [Kazachenko]{}, M. D., [Acton]{}, L. W., [Mackay]{}, D. H., [Son]{}, J., & [Freeman]{}, T. L. 2007, , 671, L81
, Y. & [Gibson]{}, S. E. 2004, , 609, 1123
, S. E. & [Fan]{}, Y. 2006, , 111, A12103
, S. E., [Fletcher]{}, L., [Del Zanna]{}, G., [et al.]{} 2002, , 574, 1021
, A., [Ranns]{}, N. D. R., [Harra]{}, L. K., & [Culhane]{}, J. L. 2000, , 27, 2161
, L. M. & [Kliem]{}, B. 2009, , 700, L83
, H. S., [Lemen]{}, J. R., [St. Cyr]{}, O. C., [Sterling]{}, A. C., & [Webb]{}, D. F. 1998, , 25, 2481
, B., [Titov]{}, V. S., & [T[ö]{}r[ö]{}k]{}, T. 2004, , 413, L23
, R. J., [Canfield]{}, R. C., [Blehm]{}, Z., & [Pevtsov]{}, A. A. 2003, , 596, L255
, K. D., [Fan]{}, Y., & [Barnes]{}, G. 2005, , 626, 1091
, R. P., [Dennis]{}, B. R., [Hurford]{}, G. J., [et al.]{} 2002, , 210, 3
, C., [Lee]{}, J., [Yurchyshyn]{}, V., [Deng]{}, N., [Cho]{}, K., [Karlick[ý]{}]{}, M., & [Wang]{}, H. 2007, , 669, 1372
, R., [Gilbert]{}, H. R., [Alexander]{}, D., & [Su]{}, Y. 2008, , 680, 1508
, S. F. 1998, , 182, 107
, D. E. & [Canfield]{}, R. C. 2008, , 481, L65
, R. L. & [Labonte]{}, B. J. 1980, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 91, Solar and Interplanetary Dynamics, ed. [M. Dryer & E. Tandberg-Hanssen]{}, 207–210
, R. L., [Sterling]{}, A. C., [Hudson]{}, H. S., & [Lemen]{}, J. R. 2001, , 552, 833
, L. J. & [Simon]{}, G. W. 1988, , 333, 427
, A. A. 2002, , 207, 111
, J. & [Yurchyshyn]{}, V. B. 2005, , 634, L121
, D. M. & [Kumar]{}, A. 1994, , 155, 69
—. 1996, , 464, L199
, P. W. 2005, , 632, L53
, A. C., [Hudson]{}, H. S., [Thompson]{}, B. J., & [Zarro]{}, D. M. 2000, , 532, 628
, V. S. & [D[é]{}moulin]{}, P. 1999, , 351, 707
, D., [Kliem]{}, B., [Mason]{}, H. E., [Young]{}, P. R., & [Green]{}, L. M. 2009, , 698, L27
, H. 2006, , 649, 490
, V., [Liu]{}, C., [Abramenko]{}, V., & [Krall]{}, J. 2006, , 239, 317
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The zero temperature properties of interacting 2 dimensional lattice bosons are investigated. We present Monte Carlo data for soft-core bosons that demonstrate the existence of a phase in which crystalline long-range order and off-diagonal long-range order (superfluidity) coexist. We comment on the difference between hard and soft-core bosons and compare our data to mean-field results that predict a larger coexistence region. Furthermore, we determine the critical exponents for the various phase transitions.'
address: 'Institut für Theoretische Festkörperphysik, Universität Karlsruhe, 76128 Karlsruhe, FRG'
author:
- 'Anne van Otterlo and Karl-Heinz Wagenblast'
title: 'On the coexistence of diagonal and off-diagonal long-range order, a Monte Carlo study'
---
The possibility of a phase in dense Bose systems in which diagonal and off-diagonal long-range order (LRO) coexist has been the subject of discussion over the past 25 years [@kn:m]. Normally bosons at zero temperature are either superfluid (with off-diagonal LRO) or solid (with diagonal LRO). However, for a finite range of the interactions between the bosons a coexistence phase was predicted within a mean-field approximation [@kn:mt; @kn:lf; @kn:bfs; @kn:rs]. Experiments have been performed on $^{4}He$, but no positive identification of this coexistence phase (often called supersolid) has yet been made. There are, however, strong hints towards such a phase [@kn:lg]. On the theoretical side the discussion was restricted to the mean-field level. We are not aware of any more rigorous studies that identified a supersolid phase. In this letter we report on Monte Carlo simulations of soft-core lattice bosons in 2 dimensions that clearly demonstrate the existence of the supersolid phase beyond the mean-field approximation.
Our lattice boson approach applies especially to artificially fabricated Josephson junction arrays (JJA) in which the bosons are Cooper pairs that tunnel between superconducting islands. In these arrays hopping, Coulomb interactions and the chemical potential may be tuned independently and therefore they constitute an ideal system for investigating a supersolid phase. Moreover, the Cooper pairs in JJA’s are soft-core bosons that have a larger coexistence region than hard-core bosons as was demonstrated on the mean-field level by Roddick and Stroud [@kn:rs].
The specific model we investigate is defined by the Hamiltonian for a JJA in the presence of an offset charge $q_{0}$ that corresponds to a chemical potential for Cooper pairs [@kn:bfs] $$H= \frac{1}{2}\sum_{ij}(q_{i}-q_{0})U_{ij}(q_{j}-q_{0})-
E_{J}\sum_{<ij>}\cos(\phi_{i}-\phi_{j}) .
\label{eq:h}$$ The number of excess Cooper pairs and the phase of the superconducting order parameter on island $i$ are denoted by $q_{i}$ and $\phi_{i}$. Number and phase are conjugate variables that satisfy the commutation relation $[q_{i},\phi_{j}]=i\delta_{ij}$. The average density of bosons may be varied by applying a gate voltage $V_{0}$, which enters in the chemical potential $q_{0}=C_{0}V_{0}/2e$ through the capacitance $C_{0}$ between the islands and the ground [@kn:owfs]. The Coulomb interaction $U_{ij}$ between Cooper pairs is determined by the inverse of the matrix that describes the distribution of capacitances between the islands. We take $U_{ij}$ to be short range, i.e. on-site and nearest neighbor interactions, $U_{0}$ and $U_{1}$, only. A natural stability condition is that the number of nearest neighbors times $U_{1}$ has to be smaller than $U_{0}$. For Cooper pairs $U_{0}$ is related to the charging energy $E_{C}$ by $U_{0}=8E_{C}=4e^{2}/C_{0}$. If the Josephson coupling energy $E_{J}$ dominates over the Coulomb interaction $U_{ij}$ the array will be superconducting at low temperatures. If on the other hand the Coulomb interaction dominates a Mott-insulator will be formed [@kn:fwgf; @kn:owfs]. The model defined by eq.(\[eq:h\]) may be mapped onto a Bose-Hubbard model if the Josephson coupling term is identified with the hopping-term [@kn:fwgf].
To gain understanding of the zero temperature properties of the model described by the Hamiltonian (\[eq:h\]), we first discuss the mean-field phase diagram following Roddick and Stroud [@kn:rs]. The phase diagram is shown in figure 1 a) and b) for $U_{1}/U_{0}$=0.125 and 0.2 respectively. It is periodic in $q_{0}$ with period 1 and symmetric around $q_{0}=\frac{1}{2}$. We discern four different phases: the superconducting phase (I), two incompressible Mott-insulating phases (II and III) and a compressible supersolid phase (IV). Phases I and IV have a nonzero superfluid density $\rho_{s}$. Phases III and IV have nontrivial charge order (’checkerboard’, see the inset to figure 1) and therefore a nonzero ($\pi$,$\pi$)-component of the static structure factor $S_{\pi}$. Thus, in the supersolid phase LRO ($S_{\pi}\neq 0$) and off-diagonal LRO ($\rho_{s}\neq 0$) coexist.
The phase diagram for hard-core bosons was investigated in Refs.[@kn:mt; @kn:lf; @kn:bfs]. In that limit a supersolid phase is possible only in the presence of [*next*]{} nearest neighbor interactions. The difference with soft-core bosons is the lack of multiple occupation. Indeed, the expectation value for 2 soft-core bosons to be at the same site is nonzero in phase IV in figure 1 [@kn:khw]. We conclude that the possibility for bosons to hop over or past each other enhances the supersolid phase.
The points marked $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ in figure 1 have particle-hole symmetry. This means that the cost in electrostatic energy is the same for adding or removing a boson. Point $\alpha$ and the phase boundary between phases I and II were investigated in refs.[@kn:fwgf; @kn:owfs]. Point $\alpha$ and the line separating phases I and II have a different dynamical critical exponent z. This exponent determines the space-time asymmetry. The correlation length in the time direction diverges like $\xi_{\tau}\sim \xi^{z}$, if $\xi$ is the correlation length in the space directions. Due to particle-hole symmetry the superconductor-insulator transition at point $\alpha$ has a dynamical critical exponent z=1. The transition is in the 3D XY universality class. For $q_{0}\neq$0 the transition has z=2 and mean-field exponents apply. The same holds for point $\beta$ and the line separating phases III and IV [@kn:owfs]. Motivated by these observations we expect also point $\gamma$ to have z=1, whereas for the transition at $q_{0}\neq\frac{1}{2}$ from phase I to IV we expect z=2. Below we show that this is consistent with our Monte Carlo data. The points marked $\delta$ in figure 1 have a first order transition, as the density jumps from 0 in phase II to $\frac{1}{2}$ in phase III.
Since fluctuations around the mean-field solution are likely to be important in 2 dimensions one might wonder if the supersolid phase survives in an exact treatment. To investigate this question we performed Monte Carlo simulations of the model described by the Hamiltonian (\[eq:h\]). We follow closely the method used by Sørensen et al. [@kn:swgy]. Thus, we map our 2 dimensional quantum model onto a 3 dimensional classical model of divergence-free current loops (we use the Villain form [@kn:v] for the cosine in eq.(\[eq:h\]), see Refs. [@kn:fl; @kn:fs] for a derivation). The relevant quantity is then the partition function $$Z=\sum_{\{ J^{\mu}=0,\pm 1, \pm 2, ..\}}
\exp\left[-\sqrt{\frac{2}{K}} \sum_{ij\tau}J^{\tau}_{i,\tau}
\left(\delta_{ij}+\frac{U_{1}}{U_{0}}
\delta_{<ij>}\right)J^{\tau}_{j,\tau}-
\sqrt{\frac{2}{K}}\sum_{i\tau,a=x,y}
\left(J^{a}_{i,\tau}\right)^{2} \right] ,
\label{eq:z}$$ where the sum is over divergence-free discrete current configurations that satisfy $\nabla_{\mu}J^{\mu}=0$ ($\mu$=x,y,$\tau$) and $\delta_{<ij>}$ equals 1 for nearest neighbors and is zero otherwise. The time-components of the currents correspond directly to the particle numbers, $J^{\tau}_{i}=q_{i}$. The coupling constant $K=8f E_{J}/U_{0}=f E_{J}/E_{C}$, where $f$ depends on the time-lattice spacing. Here $f$ is smaller than, but of the order of unity [@kn:khw; @kn:v].
Using the standard Metropolis algorithm we generate configurations of currents in a system of size $L\times L\times L_{\tau}$ with periodic boundary conditions. The generation of configurations may be done canonical as well as grand-canonical. Here we work in the grand-canonical ensemble at fixed $q_{0}$ in order to make contact to the phase diagrams in figure 1. As we are interested in a possible supersolid phase, the relevant quantities to measure are the superfluid density for off-diagonal LRO and the structure factor for diagonal LRO.
In terms of the currents $J^{\mu}$ the superfluid density is $$\rho_{s}=\frac{1}{L^{2}L_{\tau}}\Big|\sum_{i,\tau}
J^{x}_{i,\tau} \Big|^{2},
\label{eq:r}$$ It satisfies the finite size scaling relation [@kn:cfgwy] $ \rho_{s}=L^{2-d-z}\tilde{\rho}(bL^{1/\nu}\delta, L_{\tau}/L^{z})$ with $\tilde{\rho}$ a universal scaling function, $b$ a nonuniversal scale factor, $\nu$ the coherence-length critical exponent and $\delta=(K-K^{\ast})/K^{\ast}$ the distance to the transition. At the critical point $K=K^{\ast}$, $\delta=0$ and $L^{z}\rho_{s}$ is a function of $L_{\tau}/L^{z}$ only. Thus, plots of $L^{z}\rho_{s}$ vs. $K$ will intersect at the transition if $L_{\tau}/L^{z}$ is kept constant. Furthermore, the data for $L^{z}\rho_{s}$ plotted as a function of $L^{1/\nu}\delta$ for different system sizes should collapse onto one single curve. This allows the exponent $\nu$ to be determined.
A similar scaling relation holds for the structure factor [@kn:nfsb] $$S_{\pi}=\frac{1}{L^{4}L_{\tau}}\sum_{ij,\tau}
(-1)^{i+j} J^{\tau}_{i,\tau}J^{\tau}_{j,\tau} ,
\label{eq:s}$$ i.e. $S_{\pi}=L^{-2\beta/\nu}\tilde{S}(b'L^{1/\nu}\delta, L_{\tau}/L^{z})$, with the order parameter exponent $\beta$.
In the simulations we took $U_{1}/U_{0}$=0.2 in order to have a large coexistence phase. We performed simulations for constant $q_{0}$= 0.5, 0.4 and 0 and varied the coupling $K$. In the phase diagrams in figure 1 this corresponds to moving on horizontal lines through the phase transition(s). For $q_{0}$= 0.5 and 0 we simulated $L \times L \times L$ systems, where $L$= 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, as suggested by particle-hole symmetry and z=1. Typically 100,000 sweeps through the lattice were needed for equilibration and the same amount for measurement. For $q_{0}$= 0.4 we have z=2. In order to keep the ratio $L_{\tau}/L^{z}$ constant, we simulated $L \times L \times L^{2}/4$ systems, where $L$= 6, 8, 10. For the largest system with $L_{\tau}$= 25 we made up to 400,000 sweeps through the lattice for equilibration and the double for measurement. The results are summarized in figures 2-5 and table I.
First we discuss our data for $q_{0}$=0.5. Figure 2 shows that there are two separate transitions for diagonal and off-diagonal LRO with a coexistence region in between where [*both*]{} the superfluid density [*and*]{} the structure factor scale to a finite value in the thermodynamic limit. [*This demonstrates the coexistence of diagonal LRO and off-diagonal LRO for soft-core bosons with nearest neighbor interaction in 2 dimensions.*]{} Fluctuations reduced considerably the thickness of the supersolid phase compared to the mean-field result in figure 1 b. In figures 3 a) and b) we plot again the same data around the critical points. In the neighborhood of the critical points the data fall onto a single curve when plotted as a function of $L^{1/\nu}\delta$. Table I shows that the exponent $\nu$ is different for the two transitions. For the transition related to superfluidity (point $\beta$ in figure 1) we find a value for $\nu$ that is consistent with the 3D XY universality class which has $\nu\approx$0.67. For the transition related to crystalline order (point $\gamma$) we find $\nu\approx$0.55 and $\beta\approx$0.21.
Also at $q_{0}$=0.4 we find two separate transitions that are the boundaries for the supersolid phase in between, see figure 4 and table I. As compared to $q_{0}$=0.5 both transitions are shifted to smaller values of the coupling constant $K$. This is consistent with the mean-field phase diagram. Again the two transitions have different critical exponents. The transition related to superfluidity (the line separating phases III and IV in figure 1) has $\nu\approx$0.5 which is consistent with a mean-field transition in d+z=4 effective dimensions. The transition related to crystalline order (between phases I and IV) has an order-parameter exponent $\beta\approx$0.25. This rules out a mean-field transition for diagonal LRO, although the transition is effectively 4-dimensional. In the neighborhood of this transition, fluctuations of the x,y-components of the currents $J$ induce long-range interactions in the time direction for the $\tau$-components of the currents $J$ [@kn:khw]. It is likely that these long-range interactions are a relevant perturbation and suppress the exponent $\beta$.
Finally the data for $q_{0}$=0 are shown in figure 5. Here there is only one phase transition, as the Mott-insulating lobes (phase II in figure 1) do not have any non-trivial crystalline order. Our data are consistent with a transition in the 3D XY universality class.
In conclusion we have performed Monte Carlo simulations on soft-core lattice bosons in two dimensions that establish the existence of a supersolid phase in which diagonal and off-diagonal long-range order coexist. We estimated critical exponents as listed in table I. The mean-field phase diagram of ref.[@kn:rs] is qualitatively confirmed. However, our simulations indicate that the supersolid phase is smaller than one would deduce from mean-field theory. We suggest that the coexistence phase may be observed in two-dimensional systems such as Josephson junction arrays or thin $^{4}He$-films on suitable substrates. In these systems the possibility to vary the coupling constants as well as the chemical potential should make it possible to tune through the supersolid phase and see two sequential phase transitions.
We acknowledge the help and suggestions of R. Fazio, C. Bruder, G. Schön and G.T. Zimanyi. This work is part of “Sonderforschungsbereich 195” which is supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.
M.W. Meisel, Physica [**178**]{}, 121 (1992) and references therein H. Matsuda and T. Tsuneto, Suppl. Prog. Theor. Phys [**46**]{}, 411 (1970) K. Liu and M. Fisher, J. Low. Temp. Phys. [**10**]{}, 655 (1973) C. Bruder, R. Fazio and G. Schön, Phys. Rev. B [**47**]{}, 342 (1993) E. Roddick and D.H. Stroud, unpublished G.A. Lengua and J.M. Goodkind, J. Low. Temp. Phys. [**79**]{}, 251 (1990) A. van Otterlo, K-H. Wagenblast, R. Fazio and G. Schön, Phys. Rev. B [**48**]{}, 3316 (1993); C. Bruder, R. Fazio, A.P. Kampf, A. van Otterlo and G. Schön, Physica Scripta T [**42**]{}, 159 (1992) M.P.A. Fisher, P.B. Weichman, G. Grinstein and D.S. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B [**40**]{}, 546 (1989) K-H. Wagenblast, Diplomarbeit Universität Karlsruhe 1993 (unpublished) E.S. Sørensen, M. Wallin, S.M. Girvin and A.P. Young, Phys. Rev. Lett [**69**]{} 828 (1992); M. Wallin, E.S. Sørensen, S.M. Girvin and A.P. Young, unpublished J. Villain, J. Physique [**36**]{}, 581 (1975) M.P.A. Fisher and D-H. Lee, Phys. Rev. B [**39**]{}, 2756 (1989) R. Fazio and G. Schön, Phys. Rev. B [**43**]{}, 5307 (1991) M-C. Cha, M.P.A. Fisher, S.M. Girvin, M. Wallin and A.P. Young, Phys. Rev. B [**44**]{}, 6883 (1991); M.P.A. Fisher, G. Grinstein and S.M. Girvin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**64**]{}, 587 (1990) P. Niyaz, C.Y. Fong, R.T. Scalettar and G.G. Batrouni, unpublished
$$\begin{array}{|c|c|c|}
\hline\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{} &\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\mbox{the
transition for}} \\ \cline{2-3}
\hspace{25pt}q_{0}\hspace{25pt} &\hspace{40pt}
\mbox{off-diagonal LRO} \hspace{40pt}
& \hspace{50pt}\mbox{diagonal LRO}
\hspace{50pt} \\ \hline \hline
0.5 & K^{\ast}=0.775\pm 0.005
& K^{\ast}=0.837\pm 0.005\\ \cline{2-3}
(z=1) & \nu=0.65\pm 0.08
& \nu=0.55\pm 0.05, \beta=0.21\pm 0.04 \\ \hline \hline
0.4 & K^{\ast}=0.645\pm 0.008
& K^{\ast}=0.749\pm 0.006 \\ \cline{2-3}
(z=2) & \nu=0.44\pm 0.08
& \nu=0.5\pm 0.1, \beta=0.25\pm 0.10 \\ \hline \hline
0.0 & K^{\ast}=0.843\pm 0.005
& \mbox{-----------} \\ \cline{2-3}
(z=1) & \nu=0.61\pm 0.08
& \mbox{-----------} \\ \hline\hline
\end{array}$$
Figure Captions :
Fig. 1 : Phase diagrams for soft-core bosons with on-site and nearest neighbor interaction. a) $U_{1}/U_{0}$=0.125. b) $U_{1}/U_{0}$=0.2. There are 4 different phases, I: superconductor, II: Mott-insulating, III: Mott-insulating with checkerboard charge-order and IV: supersolid. The points marked $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ have particle-hole symmetry. The points marked $\delta$ have a first order transition. The inset to a) shows the checkerboard charge order.
Fig. 2 : Data for $L\rho_{s}$ and $L^{\frac{2\beta}{\nu}}S_{\pi}$ with $\frac{2\beta}{\nu}$=0.78 vs. $K$ at $q_{0}$=0.5. The curves cross at $K^{\ast}$=0.775 and 0.837 respectively. The region in between is the supersolid phase.
Fig. 3 : Data for $\rho_{s}$ and $S_{\pi}$ at $q_{0}$=0.5 in the neighborhood of the two critical points, scaled as to collapse onto a single curve. The drawn lines are a low order polynomial fit to the data. a) $L\rho_{s}$ vs. $\delta L^{1/\nu}$ with $\nu$=0.65. b) $L^{0.78}S_{\pi}$ vs. $\delta L^{1/\nu}$ with $\nu$=0.55.
Fig. 4 : Data for $\rho_{s}$ and $S_{\pi}$ at $q_{0}$=0.4. The drawn lines are a low order polynomial fit to the data. a) $L^{2}\rho_{s}$ vs. $K$. The curves cross at $K^{\ast}$=0.645. b) $L^{\frac{2\beta}{\nu}}S_{\pi}$ vs. $K$ with $\frac{2\beta}{\nu}$=1.0. The curves cross at $K^{\ast}$=0.749.
Fig. 5 : Data for $\rho_{s}$ at $q_{0}$=0. The drawn lines are a low order polynomial fit to the data. $L\rho_{s}$ vs. $K$. The curves cross at $K^{\ast}$=0.843.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Channel coding aims to minimize errors that occur during the transmission of digital information from one place to another. Low–density parity–check (LDPC) codes can detect and correct transmission errors if one encodes the original information by adding redundant bits. In practice, heuristic iterative decoding algorithms are used to decode the received vector. However, these algorithms may fail to decode if the received vector contains multiple errors. We consider decoding the received vector with minimum error as an integer programming problem and propose a branch–and–price method for its solution. We improve the performance of our method by introducing heuristic feasible solutions and adding valid cuts to the mathematical formulation. Computational results reveal that our branch–price–and–cut algorithm significantly improves solvability of the problem compared to a commercial solver in high channel error rates. Our proposed algorithm can find higher quality solutions than commonly used iterative decoding heuristics. **Keywords:** Telecommunications, LDPC decoding, integer programming, branch–price–and–cut algorithm.'
author:
- 'Banu Kabakulak[^1]'
- 'Z. Caner Taşkin'
- Ali Emre Pusane
title: 'A Branch–Price–and–Cut Algorithm for Optimal Decoding of LDPC Codes'
---
Introduction and Literature Review {#Introduction and Literature Review}
==================================
Low–density parity–check (LDPC) codes, a category of linear block codes, were first investigated by Gallager [@G62] and rediscovered by MacKay [@M97; @M99]. LDPC codes are now being used in hard disk drive read channels, Wireless (IEEE 802.11n/ IEEE 802.11ac, IEEE 802.16e WiMax), 10-GB, DVB-S2, and more recently in Flash SSD due to their high error detection and correction capabilities [@KOS14]. LDPC codes can be represented as sparse bipartite graphs known as Tanner graphs [@RL09]. Sparsity of Tanner graphs allows implementation of iterative message–passing decoding algorithms easily with low complexity and low decoding latency. Among message–passing algorithms, Gallager A and B algorithms and sum product (also known as belief propagation) algorithm are popular [@G62], [@RU01] – [@T81]. There are algorithms in literature that aim to reduce the complexity of the sum product (SP) algorithm [@FMI99] – [@SLE14].
Maximum likelihood (ML) decoding aims to decode a received vector by explicitly minimizing error probability. The ML decoding problem is NP–hard [@BMT78]. Hence, iterative message–passing algorithms are used in practice, although they are heuristic approaches. They can give close results to ML decoding on sparse Tanner graphs [@L05]. However, these algorithms do not guarantee optimality of the decoded vector, and they may fail to decode correctly when Tanner graph includes cycles.
ML decoding problem can be represented as an integer programming (IP) problem (given as EM formulation in Section \[MathematicalFormulations\]). In [@FWK05], linear relaxation of the IP problem is alternatively formulated (given as LPM formulation in Section \[MathematicalFormulations\]). The authors utilize optimization techniques on a linear programming (LP) formulation and develop LP decoding algorithm for ML decoding problem. In [@VK07], an iterative approach similar to SP is implemented for low complexity LP decoding and the technique is improved in [@B09]. The vertices of LP formulation are known as pseudocodewords. An efficent pseudocodeword search algorithm for LP decoding is introduced in [@CS08]. In [@TS08], an LP decoding algorithm that adds necessary constraints as needed to the LP formulation is developed. The authors also include some valid inequalities introducing redundant check nodes. This LP decoder is further improved by separating pseudocodewords with new cuts in [@ZS12].
EM formulation is reformulated in [@YWF08] with fewer constraints. The authors solve the new formulation with a branch–and–bound algorithm. LPM formulation is addressed in [@TRH+10], where the authors propose a separation algorithm to improve the error correction capability of LP decoder. Lagrangean relaxation techniques are applied to LPM formulation in [@ZS13; @BLD+13]. In this study, we consider LPM formulation and develop a branch–price–and–cut (BPC) algorithm for solving ML decoding problem for practical code lengths (approximately $n = 4000$) efficiently. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: we define the problem formally in the next section. Section \[SolutionMethods\] explains the proposed decoding techniques. In particular, we give the details of our branch–and–price (BP) algorithm in Section \[BranchAndPriceAlgorithm\] and improvements to BP algorithm towards BPC in Section \[Improvements\]. We present the corresponding computational results in Section \[ComputationalResults\]. Some concluding remarks and comments on future work appear in Section \[Conclusions\].
Problem Definition {#ProblemDefinition}
==================
In a digital communication system, information is sent from a source to a sink over a noisy communication channel as shown in Figure \[fig:diagram\]. We can represent original information as $k-$bits long sequence $\mathbf{u} = (u_{1}\ u_{2} \ ... \ u_{k})$ $(u_{i} \in \{0, 1\})$. Since there is noise in the communication channel, some bits of $\mathbf{u}$ can change. Information $\mathbf{u}$ is encoded with a $k \times n$ generator matrix $\mathbf{G}$ through the operation $\mathbf{v} = \mathbf{uG}$ (mod 2) to have more reliable communication. That is, $(n-k)$ redundant parity–check bits are added to $\mathbf{u}$ and $n$–bits long $(n \geq k)$ codeword $\mathbf{v} = (v_{1} \ v_{2} \ ... \ v_{n})$ $(v_{i} \in \{0, 1\})$ is obtained.
![Digital communication system diagram[]{data-label="fig:diagram"}](DigitalSchema.pdf){width="0.5\columnwidth"}
The codeword $\mathbf{v}$ is transmitted over a noisy communication channel to the receiver. In this paper we focus on Binary Symmetric Channel (BSC). In BSC, a bit $v_i$ is received correctly with probability $1-p$ or an error occurs with probability $p$ [@M03; @HS14]. The value of $v_i$ flips in the case of an error, i.e., if $v_i = 0$, it becomes 1 and vice versa. Decoder tests the correctness of $n$–bits long received vector $\mathbf{r}$ with a $(n-k) \times n$ parity–check matrix $\mathbf{H}$. The received vector $\mathbf{r}$ is detected to be erroneous if $\mathbf{rH}^\textrm{T} \neq \mathbf{0}$ (mod 2). In such a case, the decoder runs decoding algorithms to fix the errors and estimate the original information as $\hat{\mathbf{u}}$ [@M05]. One can obtain a generator matrix $\mathbf{G}$, which is not necessarily unique, from parity–check matrix $\mathbf{H}$ by carrying out binary arithmetic [@M03]. A vector $\mathbf{v}$ is a codeword if $\mathbf{v}\mathbf{H}^\textrm{T}=\mathbf{0}$ (mod 2). For any ($\mathbf{G, H}$) pair $\mathbf{GH}^\textrm{T} = \mathbf{0}$ (mod 2) holds, meaning that each row of $\mathbf{G}$ is a codeword. Moreover, the codewords are in the null space of $\mathbf{H}$ matrix and $\mathbf{G}$ is a basis for the null space.
$$\mathbf{H}=\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{I}_s^{1} & \mathbf{I}_s^{2} & \mathbf{I}_s^{3} & \mathbf{I}_s^{4} & \mathbf{I}_s^{5} & \mathbf{I}_s^{6} \\
\mathbf{I}_s^{7} & \mathbf{I}_s^{8} & \mathbf{I}_s^{9} & \mathbf{I}_s ^{10} & \mathbf{I}_s^{11} & \mathbf{I}_s^{12} \\
\mathbf{I}_s^{13} & \mathbf{I}_s^{14} & \mathbf{I}_s^{15} & \mathbf{I}_s^{16} & \mathbf{I}_s^{17} & \mathbf{I}_s^{18} \\
\end{bmatrix} \ \ \
\mathbf{H}=\begin{bmatrix}
1 \ 0 \ 0 \ 1 \ 0 \ 1 \ 1 \ 0 \ 0 \ 1 \ 1 \ 0 \\
0 \ 1 \ 1 \ 0 \ 1 \ 0 \ 0 \ 1 \ 1 \ 0 \ 0 \ 1 \\
0 \ 1 \ 1 \ 0 \ 0 \ 1 \ 1 \ 0 \ 0 \ 1 \ 0 \ 1 \\
1 \ 0 \ 0 \ 1 \ 1 \ 0 \ 0 \ 1 \ 1 \ 0 \ 1 \ 0 \\
0 \ 1 \ 0 \ 1 \ 1 \ 0 \ 0 \ 1 \ 1 \ 0 \ 0 \ 1 \\
1 \ 0 \ 1 \ 0 \ 0 \ 1 \ 1 \ 0 \ 0 \ 1 \ 1 \ 0 \\
\end{bmatrix}$$
\(a) (b)
$(J, K)-$regular LDPC codes are members of linear block codes that can be represented by a parity–check matrix $\mathbf{H}$ having $J-$many ones at each column and $K-$many ones at each row. One can generate a $(J, K)-$regular $\mathbf{H}$ matrix of dimension $(J s, K s)$ by randomly permuting the columns of an $s \times s$ identity matrix $ \mathbf{I}_s$. Regularity of the matrix is provided through augmenting identity matrices $K$ times at each row and $J$ times at each column. The generic structure of a $(3, 6)-$regular $\mathbf{H}$ matrix is given in Figure \[fig:HMatrix\]a where $ \mathbf{I}_s^{i}$ represents the $i$th randomly permuted identity matrix. We give an example of a $(3, 6)-$regular $\mathbf{H}$ matrix with $s = 2$ in Figure \[fig:HMatrix\]b.
![Tanner graph representation of $\mathbf{H}$ matrix in Figure \[fig:HMatrix\]b[]{data-label="fig:TannerGraph"}](TannerGraph.pdf){width="0.80\columnwidth"}
An LDPC code can alternatively be represented as a Tanner graph, which is a sparse bipartite graph, corresponding to $\mathbf{H}$ matrix [@T81]. On one part of Tanner graph there is a variable node $i$ ($v_{i}$), $i \in \{1, ..., n\}$, for each bit of received vector. Each row of $\mathbf{H}$ matrix represents a parity–check equation and corresponds to a check node $j$ ($c_{j}), j \in \{1, ..., n-k\}$, in the other part of Tanner graph. A check node is said to be satisfied if its parity–check equation is equal to zero in (mod 2). The set of adjacent check (variable) nodes to a variable node $i$ (check node $j$) is represented by $N(v_i) (N(c_j))$. The *degree* of $v_{i}$ ($c_{j}$) is the number of adjacent check nodes (variable nodes) on Tanner graph. That is, degree of $v_i$ is $d_i = |N(v_i)|$ and $c_j$ is $d_j = |N(c_j)|$. Hence, $\mathbf{H}$ matrix is the bi–adjacency matrix of Tanner graph. Figure \[fig:TannerGraph\] shows Tanner graph representation of the $\mathbf{H}$ matrix defined in Figure \[fig:HMatrix\]b.
In practical applications, iterative mesage–passing algorithms (such as Gallager A and SP) decode received vector $\mathbf{r}$ on Tanner graph efficiently due to its sparsity property [@L05]. However, these algorithms are heuristic approaches and they cannot guarantee that the solution is near optimal. As we show with computational experiments in Table \[tab:GallagerA\] of Section \[ComputationalResults\] for Gallager A, their error correction capability decreases significantly as the error probability increases. Besides, they may fail to decode if the received vector includes multiple errors.
In this study, we focus on developing ML decoding algorithms using optimization techniques. In particular, we make use of a mathematical formulation by Feldman *et al.* [@FWK05] for our BP algorithm. Then, we propose improvements to our BP algorithm to evolve our final BPC algorithm.
Solution Methods {#SolutionMethods}
================
We propose a BP algorithm (explained in Section \[BranchAndPriceAlgorithm\]) for LDPC decoding problem. We improve the performance of BP method by providing feasible solutions via random sum heuristic (branch–and–price–random–sum (BPRS) method explained in Section \[RandomSum\]) and tightening node relaxations with valid cuts (BPC method explained in Section \[ValidInequalities\]). The terminology used in this paper is summarized in Table \[tab:lop\].
\[tab:lop\]
[l l l l]{}\
$C$ & set of check nodes & $k$ & length of the original information\
$c_j$ & check node $j$ & $n$ & length of the encoded information, $|V|$\
$V$ & set of variable nodes & & number of columns in $\mathbf{H}$\
$v_i$ & variable node $i$ & $m$ & $n-k$, $|C|$, number of rows in $\mathbf{H}$\
$d_j (d_i)$ & degree of $c_j (v_i)$ in Tanner graph & $p$ & error probability in BSC\
$N(c_j) (N(v_i))$ & set of variable (check) nodes adjacent to $c_j (v_i)$ & $\mathbf{u}$ & original information\
$\mathbf{G}$ & generator matrix & $\mathbf{v}$ & encoded information\
$\mathbf{H}$ & parity–check matrix & $\mathbf{r}$ & received vector\
$\varepsilon_j$ & set of feasible local codewords for $c_j$ & $t_{max}$ & number of trials in RS heuristic\
$\gamma_i$ & log–likelihood ratio for bit $i$\
\
$f_i$ & $i$th bit of the decoded vector & $\mu_j$ & dual variable for constraints (\[cons3\])\
$w_{jS}$ & 1 if local codeword $S$ of $c_j$ is selected, & &\
& 0 otherwise\
$l_j$ & an auxiliary integer variable & $\zeta_j$ & optimum objective function value\
$x_i $ & 1 if $i \in S$ of $c_j$, 0 otherwise & & of Subproblem$(j)$\
Mathematical Formulations {#MathematicalFormulations}
-------------------------
The decoding problem can be represented with Exact Model (EM), which is given in [@KD10]. Columns and rows of a $(n-k) \times n$ parity–check matrix $\mathbf{H}$ of a binary linear code can be represented with index sets $V = \{1, ..., n\}$ and $C = \{1, ..., n-k\}$, respectively. In EM, $H_{ji}$ is the $(j, i)-$entry of parity–check matrix $\mathbf{H}$, $f_i$ is a binary variable denoting the value of the $i$th code bit and $l_j$ is an integer variable. Here, $\mathbf{r}$ represents the received vector.\
**Exact Model (EM):** $$\begin{aligned}
& \hspace{-3pt} \min\hspace{5pt} \sum_{i: r_i=1}(1- f_i) + \sum_{i: r_i=0} f_i \label{Hamming}\\
&\hspace{25pt}\mbox{s.t.} \nonumber \\
&\hspace{25pt}\sum_{i \in V}H_{ji}f_i = 2l_j, \hspace{9mm} \forall j \in C \label{sumtoeven}\\
&\hspace{25pt} f_i \in \{0, 1\}, \hspace{18mm} \forall i \in V, \label{f_vars}\\
&\hspace{25pt} l_j \geq 0, \ l_j \in \mathbb{Z}, \hspace{13mm} \forall j \in C. \label{k_vars}\end{aligned}$$
Constraints (\[sumtoeven\]) guarantee that the decoded vector $\mathbf{f}$ satisfies the equality $\mathbf{f} \mathbf{H}^\textrm{T}=\mathbf{0} \ \text{(mod 2)}$. The objective (\[Hamming\]) minimizes the Hamming distance between the decoded vector $\mathbf{f}$ and the received vector $\mathbf{r}$. Hamming distance counts the number of different entries among two vectors. That is, the aim is to find the nearest codeword to the received vector. Constraints (\[f\_vars\]) and (\[k\_vars\]) set the binary and integrality restrictions on decision variables $\mathbf{f}$ and $\mathbf{k}$, respectively.
An alternative objective function is log–likelihood objective, which can be given as
$$\min\hspace{5pt} \sum_{i \in V} \gamma_{i}f_i \label{log_like_obj}.$$
Here, $\gamma_{i}$, as given in equation (\[log\_like\_value\]), is a term that represents the log–likelihood ratio for received bit $i$. In this equation, $r_{i}$ represents the received value of bit $i$ and $f_{i}$ is the decoded value of the bit $i$.
$$\gamma_{i}=log ( \tfrac{Pr(r_{i}\mid f_{i}=0)}{Pr(r_{i}\mid f_{i}=1)}) \label{log_like_value}$$
As given in [@FWK05], $\gamma_i = \log[p/(1-p)]$ if received bit $r_i = 1$ and $\gamma_i = \log[(1-p)/p]$ if $r_i = 0$ where $p$ is the error probability for BSC.
\[prop5\] Hamming distance (equation (\[Hamming\])) and Log–likelihood (equation (\[log\_like\_obj\])) objectives are equivalent when $p < 0.5$. That is, both objectives give the same optimum solution set for the decoded codeword $\mathbf{f}$.
*Proof.* First consider the log–likelihood objective. The objective can be written as
$$\begin{aligned}
&\hspace{25pt} \min -\sum_{i: r_i=1} a f_i+ \sum_{i: r_i=0} a f_i \label{log_like}\end{aligned}$$
where $a = \log[(1-p)/p]$. Note that $a \geq 0$ for $0 < p < 0.5$. On the other hand, Hamming distance objective can be written as
$$\begin{aligned}
&\hspace{25pt} \min -\sum_{i: r_i=1} f_i + \sum_{i: r_i=0} f_i + c_1 \end{aligned}$$
where $c_1 = \sum_{i: r_i=1} 1$.
One can observe that Hamming distance objective is a scaled version of log–likelihood objective by choosing $a = 1$ and adding a constant term $c_1$. Hence, both objectives have the same optimum solution set. $\square$\
The linear relaxation of EM (LEM) can be obtained by replacing the constraints (\[f\_vars\]) and (\[k\_vars\]) with the following:
$$\begin{aligned}
&\hspace{25pt} 0 \leq f_i \leq 1, \ l_j \geq 0, \hspace{10mm} \forall i \in V, \ j \in C.\end{aligned}$$
The same decoding problem is formulated as Integer Programming Master (IPM) in [@FWK05], which is a maximum likelihood decoder utilizing Tanner graph representation of $\mathbf{H}$ matrix. A *local codeword* can be formed by assigning a value in {0, 1} to each variable node $i \in N(c_j)$ that is adjacent to $c_j$. A local codeword is *feasible* if sum of the values of variable nodes $i \in N(c_j)$ is zero in (mod 2). For a check node $c_j$, the set of feasible local codewords can be given as $\varepsilon_{j} := \{S \subseteq N(c_j) : |S| \ even\}$. We can satisfy $c_j$ if we set each bit in $S$ to 1, and all other bits in $N(c_j)$ to 0. One can observe that $S = \emptyset$ trivially satisfies a check node, so $\emptyset \in \varepsilon_{j}$ for all $c_j$.
In Figure \[fig:LocalCodeword\], we give the neighbors of check node $c_3$ in Figure \[fig:TannerGraph\] as an example. Parity–check equation for $c_3$ can be given as $c_3 = v_2 + v_3 + v_6 + v_7 + v_{10} + v_{12}$ (mod 2). We can see $c_3 = 0$ if we pick even number of neighboring variable nodes with value 1 and the remaining is 0. That is, $S = \{ 2, 6 ,7, 12\}$ is a feasible local codeword since $c_3 = 1 + 0 + 1 + 1 + 0 + 1 = 0$ (mod 2). A *codeword* is {0, 1} assignment of $v_i$ values for $i \in V$ that gives $c_j = 0$ for all $j \in C$. One can obtain a codeword by choosing a feasible local codeword for each $c_j$ that conforms with the feasible local codewords of other check nodes. For example, $(0 \ 1 \ 0 \ 0 \ 0 \ 1 \ 1 \ 1 \ 1 \ 0 \ 0 \ 1)$ is a codeword for Tanner graph in Figure 3.
![Neighbors of check node $c_3$ in Figure \[fig:TannerGraph\], $N(c_3)$[]{data-label="fig:LocalCodeword"}](LocalCodeword.pdf){width="0.50\columnwidth"}
**Integer Programming Master (IPM):** $$\begin{aligned}
&\hspace{-3pt}\min\hspace{5pt} \sum_{i \in V} \gamma_{i}f_i \\ &\hspace{25pt}\mbox{s.t.} \nonumber \\
&\hspace{25pt}\sum_{S \in \varepsilon_{j}}w_{jS} = 1, \hspace{35mm} \forall j \in C \label{cons3}\\
&\hspace{25pt}f_i - \sum_{S \in \varepsilon_{j} : i \in S}w_{jS} = 0, \hspace{23mm} \forall \ \text{edge} \ (i, j) \label{cons4}\\
&\hspace{25pt} f_i \geq 0, \ \forall i \in V, \ \ w_{jS} \in \{0, 1\}, \hspace{10mm} \forall j \in C, \forall S \in \varepsilon_{j} \label{integer}.\end{aligned}$$
In IPM model, binary decision variable $w_{jS}$ takes value 1 if feasible local codeword $S \in \varepsilon_{j}$ of check node $c_j$ is selected and zero otherwise. Hence, decision variables $\mathbf{w}$ represent a feasible solution of parity–check equations and $f_{i}$ variable represents the decoded value of bit $i$. We can obtain a trivial solution (an upper bound) of IPM with $w_{j\emptyset} = 1$ for all $j \in C$ and $f_i = 0$ for all $i \in V$. We obtain Linear Programming Master (LPM) model by relaxing the constraints (\[integer\]) as
$$\begin{aligned}
&\hspace{25pt} f_i \geq 0, \ \forall i \in V, \ \ w_{jS} \geq 0, \hspace{10mm} \forall j \in C, \forall S \in \varepsilon_{j} \label{linear}.\end{aligned}$$
### On the Strength of LP Relaxations
Let $z_{EM}(\mathbf{f})$ be the objective function value of EM for vector $\mathbf{f}$, and $z_{EM} = \min_{\mathbf{f}}z_{EM}(\mathbf{f})$ is the optimum objective function value. We observe that since EM objective is Hamming distance, $z_{EM} \geq 0$ for all $\mathbf{H}$ instances. We have $z_{EM}(\mathbf{f}) = 0$ if $\mathbf{f = r}$, and for any feasible solution $\mathbf{f \neq r}$ the objective function value $z_{EM}(\mathbf{f}) > 0$.
\[prop8\] The optimum objective function value of LEM is 0 for all $\mathbf{H}$ instances, i.e., $z_{LEM} = 0$.
*Proof.* Let $\mathbf{f = r}$ and $l_j = \frac{\sum_{i \in V}H_{ij}f_i}{2}$ for all $j$. Then $(\mathbf{f}, \mathbf{k})$ is feasible for LEM since $0 \leq f_i \leq 1 \ \forall i$ and $l_j \geq 0$ for all $j$. Then, the optimum objective function value $z_{LEM} = 0$ for all $\mathbf{H}$ instances. $\square$
\[prop9\] LPM problem with Hamming distance objective (\[Hamming\]) has strictly positive optimum objective value, i.e., $z_{LPM} > 0$, unless received codeword $\mathbf{r}$ is a feasible codeword.
*Proof.* If received vector $\mathbf{r}$ is a feasible codeword, then $\mathbf{f = r}$ be a feasible solution for LPM and it will be optimal. Assume that $\mathbf{r}$ is not a feasible codeword. Then, LPM problem has a fractional or integral feasible solution $\mathbf{f \neq r}$. This means that the Hamming distance objective is strictly positive for this optimal solution. Hence, $z_{LPM} > 0$, if received codeword $\mathbf{r}$ is not a feasible codeword. $\square$
To summarize, linear relaxation of EM formulation gives $z_{LEM} = 0$ for all $\mathbf{H}$ instances. The linear relaxation of IPM problem gives $z_{LPM} = 0$ if the received codeword $\mathbf{r}$ is a feasible codeword, otherwise $z_{LPM} > 0$. This means that LPM gives a better lower bound for IPM objective than LEM.
Note that EM and IPM are integer programming formulations, and it is not practical to obtain an optimal decoding using a commercial solver for real–sized LDPC codes. Hence, we develop a branch–price–and–cut algorithm for IPM as explained in the following sections.
Branch–and–Price Algorithm {#BranchAndPriceAlgorithm}
--------------------------
In this section, we introduce a branch–and–price algorithm for IPM formulation given in [@FWK05] in order to find the nearest codeword to the received vector $\mathbf{r}$. We first define dual variables $\mu_j$ for constraints (\[cons3\]) and $\tau_{ij}$ for constraints (\[cons4\]) in LPM, and obtain Dual LPM (DLPM) model.
**Dual LPM (DLPM):** $$\begin{aligned}
&\hspace{-3pt}\max\hspace{5pt} \sum_{j \in C} \mu_j\\
&\hspace{25pt}\mbox{s.t.} \nonumber \\
&\hspace{25pt}\sum_{i \in S}\tau_{ij} \geq \mu_j, \hspace{29mm} \forall j \in C, \ S \in \varepsilon_{j} \label{cons1}\\
&\hspace{25pt}\sum_{j \in N(v_i)}\tau_{ij} \leq \gamma_i, \hspace{25mm} \forall i \in V \label{cons1.2}\\
&\hspace{25pt} \mu_j \ \text{free}, \ \forall j \in C, \ \tau_{ij}\ \text{free}, \hspace{10mm} \forall \ \text{edges} \ (i,j).\end{aligned}$$
We consider a Restricted LPM (RLPM) that has a limited number of columns corresponding to $w_{jS}$ variables. At each iteration of our column generation algorithm, we search for columns corresponding to variables $w_{jS}$ having positive reduced cost, i.e., $\mu_j - \sum_{i \in S}\tau_{ij} > 0$, and add them to RLPM. Such $w_{jS}$ columns are equivalent to the violated constraints from constraints (\[cons1\]) in DLPM. If $\zeta_j = \max\{\mu_j - \sum_{i \in S}\tau_{ij} : S \in \varepsilon_j \} > 0$ for some $j$, then we add the column $\biggl[\begin{smallmatrix}
0\\ e_j \\ A_l
\end{smallmatrix} \biggr]$ for variable $w_{jS}$. Here, ${e_j}$ is a $m-$column vector, that has a 1 at $j$th row and 0 otherwise, and $A_l$ is a $(\sum_{i=1}^n d_i)-$column vector which has $-1$ at $l$th row if $l$th edge is the edge $(i,j)$ with $i \in S$. Thus, at each iteration of column generation algorithm, we seek a local codeword $S$ for check node $c_j$ by solving the following subproblem for each $j$:
$\mathbf{Subproblem(j):}$ $$\begin{aligned}
&\hspace{-3pt}\min\hspace{5pt}\sum_{i \in N(c_j)}\tau_{ij}x_i - \mu_j\\
&\hspace{25pt}\mbox{s.t.} \nonumber \\
&\hspace{25pt} \sum_{i \in N(c_j)}x_i = 2l, \label{cons6}\\
&\hspace{25pt} x_i \in \{0,1\}, l \in \mathbb{Z}^+.\end{aligned}$$
Decision variable $x_i = 1$ if $i \in S$ and 0 otherwise. We can solve the $j$th subproblem to optimality with Algorithm 1, which runs in $\mathcal{O}(n \log n)$ time due to sorting step.
$
\begin{tabular}{ll}
\textbf{Algorithm 1:} (Solve Subproblem($j$)) \\
\hline
\textbf{Input} $\_[ij]{}$ values \\
\hline
1. Sort the $\_[ij]{}$ values in nondecreasing order.\\
\hspace{10pt} Let $\_[ij]{}\^t$ be the $t$th smallest $\_[ij]{}$ value. \\
2. Set $x\_i = 0 i N(c\_j)$, set $t = 1$. \\
3. \textbf{If} $\_[i\_1,j]{}\^t + \_[i\_2,j]{}\^[t+1]{} < 0$, \textbf{Then} set $x\_[i\_1]{}=x\_[i\_2]{}=1$, \textbf{Else} STOP. \\
4. $t t+2$, go to Step 3. \\
\hline
\textbf{Output} Subproblem($j$) is solved.\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
$
As mentioned before, $w_{j\emptyset} = 1$ for all $j \in C$ is a feasible solution for LPM. Hence, for all $j \in C$ we can take $(j, \emptyset)$ columns for the starting RLPM problem. We can solve LPM to optimality by introducing columns to RLPM until we have $\zeta_j = 0$ for all $j$. Since our ultimate goal is to solve IPM, we need to branch on decision variables if optimum solution of LPM is fractional. In the next section we discuss some alternative branching strategies.
### Branching in BP Algorithm
If we have a fractional optimal solution of LPM, then we have either $w_{jS}$ or $f_i$ variables fractional. Before determining a branching strategy, we will first prove the following proposition.
\[prop1\] In LPM problem, $f_i$ values are integral for all $i$ if and only if $w_{jS}$ values are integral for all $(j,S)$.
*Proof.* ($\Leftarrow$) Assume that $w_{jS}$ values are integral $\forall (j,S)$. Constraints (\[cons4\]) imply that $f_i$ values are integral $\forall i$, since each $f_i$ is the sum of integer numbers. Besides, we observe that $w_{jS}$ values can be either 0 or 1, so do the $f_i$ values.
($\Rightarrow$) Assume for contradiction $f_i$ integral but $\exists (j, S)$ such that $w_{jS}$ is not integral. By constraints (\[cons3\]), we know $\sum_{S \in \varepsilon_{j}}w_{jS} = 1$. Hence, for at least two $w_{jS}$ variables, say $w_{j,S_1} = \alpha$ and $w_{j,S_2} = \beta$ with $\alpha, \beta > 0$ and $\alpha + \beta \leq 1$, we have fractional values. Since $S_1 \neq S_2$, there exists $l \in S_2 \setminus S_1$ without loss of generality. For variable node $l$ and check node $j$, we have the constraint $f_l = \sum_{S \in \varepsilon_{j} : l \in S}w_{jS}$ for edge $(l, j)$. Edge $(l, j)$ exists, since $l \in S_2 \in \varepsilon_{j}$ which implies that $l \in N(c_j)$. We know that $l \not \in S_1$, meaning that $w_{j,S_1} = \alpha$ will not be in the sum. This means $f_l = \sum_{S \in \varepsilon_{j} : l \in S}w_{j,S} \leq 1- w_{j,S_1} = 1-\alpha < 1$. Moreover, $w_{j,S_2}$ will be in the sum, since $l \in S_2$. This gives $f_l \geq w_{j,S_2} = \beta > 0$. As a result, $0 < f_l < 1$, i.e., $f_l$ is a fractional value. This contradicts with our assumption that $f_i$ values are all integral. Hence, we conclude that if $f_i$ integral $\forall i$, then $w_{jS}$ values are also integral $\forall (j,S)$. Combining two results, we see that $f_i$ values are integral $\forall i$ if and only if $w_{jS}$ values are integral $\forall (j,S)$. $\square$
As a result of this proposition, in order to have an integral solution to the LPM problem, it is sufficient to either branch on $w_{j,S}$ variables to have integral $w_{jS}$ values or branch on $f_i$ variables to have integral $f_i$ values. Having integral $w_{jS}$ values (or integral $f_i$ values) will guarantee that all decision variables are integral.
#### Branching on $f_i$ variables:
Assume that we solve the RLPM and find that for some $v_i$, $f_i$ is fractional. Then, we consider to branch the problem by assigning $f_i = 0$ in one branch and $f_i = 1$ in the other branch. We continue to branch on the $\textbf{f}$ variables until we have an integral solution for LPM problem, which is a feasible solution of IPM.
In a branch, we can say that $f_{i}= 0$ for $i \in N_0$ and $f_{i} = 1$ for $i \in N_1$, where $N_0 \cup N_1 \subseteq V$ and $N_0 \cap N_1 = \emptyset$. In this branch, we have the following subproblem $j$:
$\mathbf{Subproblem(j) \ on \ a \ branch:}$ $$\begin{aligned}
&\hspace{-3pt}\min\hspace{5pt}\sum_{i \in N(c_j)}\tau_{ij}x_i - \mu_j \nonumber\\
&\hspace{25pt}\mbox{s.t.} \nonumber \\
&\hspace{25pt} \sum_{i \in N(c_j)}x_i = 2l, \nonumber\\
&\hspace{25pt} x_{i} = 0, \hspace{10mm} \text{if} \ i \in N(c_j) \cap N_0, \nonumber\\
&\hspace{25pt} x_{i} = 1, \hspace{10mm} \text{if} \ i \in N(c_j) \cap N_1, \nonumber\\
&\hspace{25pt} x_i \in \{0,1\}, l \in \mathbb{Z}^+.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
In order to solve Subproblem$(j)$, we eliminate the $x_{i}$ variables for $ i \in N(c_j) \cap N_0$ and we plug in $x_{i} = 1$ values for $ i \in N(c_j) \cap N_1$ to obtain an additional constant term from the corresponding $\tau_{ij}$ values. We can solve the remaining problem by applying Algorithm 2, modified Algorithm 1, given below. Algorithm 2 also runs in $\mathcal{O}(n \log n)$ time.
$
\begin{tabular}{ll}
\textbf{Algorithm 2:} (Solve Subproblem($j$) on a branch) \\
\hline
\vspace{0.5mm}
\textbf{Input:} Sets $N\_0$ and $N\_1$, where $f\_[i]{}= 0$ for $i N\_0$ and $f\_[i]{} = 1$ for $i N\_1$.\\
\hline
0. Set $x\_[i]{} = 0$, if $i N(c\_j) N\_0$, and $x\_[i]{} = 1$, if $i N(c\_j) N\_1$.\\
\hspace{10pt} Let $\_j = N(c\_j) (N\_0 N\_1)$.\\
1. Sort the $\_[ij]{}$ values in nondecreasing order for $i \_j $.\\
\hspace{10pt} Let $\_[ij]{}\^t$ be the $t$th smallest $\_[ij]{}$ value. \\
2. Set $x\_i = 0 i \_j$, set $t = 1$. \\
3. \textbf{If} $| N(c\_j) N\_1|$ is even \\
4. \hspace{6pt} \textbf{Then} set $x\_[i\_1]{} = x\_[i\_2]{} = 1$ if $\_[i\_1,j]{}\^t + \_[i\_2,j]{}\^[t+1]{} < 0$, otherwise STOP.\\
5. \hspace{6pt} $t t+2$, go to Step 4. \\
6. \textbf{Else} set $x\_[i]{} = 1$ for $\_[ij]{}\^t$ \\
7. \hspace{6pt} \textbf{If} $\_[ij]{}\^t < 0$, \textbf{Then} $t t+1$ and go to Step 4, \textbf{Else} STOP.\\
8. \textbf{End If} \\
\hline
\textbf{Output:} A local codeword $S$ with objective value \\
\hspace{40pt} $\_j = \_[i \_j]{}\_[ij]{}x\_i + \_[i N(c\_j) N\_1]{}\_[ij]{} - \_j$. \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
$
From the above analysis, we observe that branching on $f_i$ variables does not change the structure of the subproblems. On the other hand, branching on $w_{jS}$ variables affects the subproblem structure. As a result, we branch on $f_i$ variables since we can find an optimal solution of the subproblems in polynomial time.
### Repairing Infeasibility in Node Relaxations
In the application of BP algorithm, we observe that a branch can be pruned although there exists a feasible solution on that branch. This may happen if the currently generated columns are not sufficient to construct a feasible solution on the branch. As an example, consider we are at the $f_2 = 1$ and $f_4 = 1$ branch of Tanner graph in Figure \[fig:ExampleTanner\].
![An example Tanner graph[]{data-label="fig:ExampleTanner"}](dual_example.pdf){width="0.35\columnwidth"}
The set of all feasible local codewords for check node $c_1$ is $\varepsilon_1 = \{\emptyset, \{1, 2\},$ $\{1, 4\}, \{2, 4\}\}$ and for check node $c_2$ is $\varepsilon_2 = \{\emptyset, \{2, 3\}, \{2, 4\}, \{3, 4\}\}$. On the $f_2 = 1$ and $f_4 = 1$ branch, one can see that $(0 \ 1 \ 0 \ 1)$ is a feasible codeword if we can choose local codeword $\{2, 4\}$ of $c_1$ and $\{2, 4\}$ of $c_2$. However, we cannot find this feasible solution on the branch if we have only generated the local codewords $\emptyset, \{1, 2\}$ and $\{1, 4\}$ for $c_1$ and the local codeword $\emptyset$ for $c_2$. Moreover, we cannot find any other feasible solution on this branch with these limited number of local codewords.
In such a case, the $f_2 = 1$ and $f_4 = 1$ branch is pruned by infeasibility although there is a feasible solution for LPM on the branch. In order to overcome this situation, we developed a column generation method based on the dual formulation. Let $P$ be the primal problem representing the RLPM and $D$ is the dual of RLPM. We first prove the following proposition:
\[prop1.2\] $P$ is infeasible if and only if $D$ is unbounded.
*Proof.* From the duality theory, we know that infeasible $P$ implies $D$ is unbounded or infeasible. We know that LPM is bounded since the variables $f_i$ and $w_{jS} \in [0, 1]$ and it is feasible since $\mathbf{0}-$codeword is a trivial solution. Then the dual of LPM is also feasible.
$D$ being the dual of a restricted LPM, will be feasible since it contains the feasible region defined by LPM dual. This means that $D$ cannot be infeasible in any case. From here, we get $P$ is infeasible $\implies$ $D$ is unbounded. Moreover, unbounded $D$ implies $P$ is infeasible from duality theory. As a result, we conclude that $P$ is infeasible $\iff$ $D$ is unbounded. $\square$\
At an infeasible branch, either the current $P$ is really infeasible or it occurs to be infeasible since we could not generate the columns that are necessary to construct a feasible solution. Farkas’ Lemma states either $\big[ \mathbf{f} \ \ \mathbf{w} \big] \mathbf{A=c} \text{ and } \mathbf{f \geq 0}, \mathbf{w \geq 0}$ is feasible or there is a ray $\mathbf{d}$ with $\mathbf{Ad} \leq \mathbf{0}\text{ and } \mathbf{cd} > 0$, where $\mathbf{A}$ is the coefficient matrix for constraints and $\mathbf{c}= \big[ \mathbf{1} \ \ \mathbf{0} \big]$ is the right–hand–side vector of $P$. In case $P$ is infeasible, we would like to add a variable to $\mathbf{A}$ with coefficient column $\mathbf{a}^T$ with $\mathbf{ad} > 0$ to fulfill feasibility. LP solver provides such a dual ray $\mathbf{d}$ when $P$ is infeasible. Then, we search for coefficents $\mathbf{a}$ which gives largest $\mathbf{ad} > 0$ value. Adding columns to $P$ using dual ray obtained by solving dual Farkas system is known as Farkas pricing in the literature [@LD05; @L10].
Since not all constraints (\[cons1\]) are in $D$, $\mathbf{a}$ vector that we search is the coefficient of a dual constraint $ \mu_j - \sum_{i \in S} \tau_{ij} \leq 0$ for some $j \in C$ and $S \in \varepsilon_j$. Hence, $\mathbf{a}$ has $(m + e)-$many entries where $m$ is the number of check nodes and $e$ is the total number of edges in Tanner graph. The first $m$ entries of $\mathbf{a}$ vector are the coeffiecients for $\boldsymbol{\mu}$ variables. Then, we have zeros except a 1 for the $j$th entry. The following $e$ entries are the coefficients for $\boldsymbol{\tau}$ variables and all zero except for the –1 entries for the $j$th check node and the elements $i$ in the local codeword $S$. Let $\mathbf{d} = \big[\begin{smallmatrix} \mathbf{d^{\boldsymbol{\mu} }} \\ \mathbf{d}^{\boldsymbol{\tau}} \end{smallmatrix} \big]$, where $\mathbf{d^{\boldsymbol{\mu} }}$ and $\mathbf{d}^{\boldsymbol{\tau}}$ are the entries of $\mathbf{d}$ corresponding to the indices of the variables $\boldsymbol{\mu}$ and $\boldsymbol{\tau}$, respectively. Then $\mathbf{ad} = \mathbf{d^{\boldsymbol{\mu}}} - \sum_{i \in S}\mathbf{d}^{\boldsymbol{\tau}}$ and maximizing $\mathbf{ad}$ is equivalent to maximizing $d_j^{\boldsymbol{\mu}} - \sum_{i \in S}d_{ij}^{\boldsymbol{\tau}}$ for each check node $c_j$.
Hence, we have to solve the following direction subproblem for each $c_j$:
$\mathbf{Direction \ Subproblem(j):}$ $$\begin{aligned}
&\hspace{-3pt}\min\hspace{5pt}\sum_{i \in N(c_j)}d_{ij}^{\boldsymbol{\tau}}x_i - d_j^{\boldsymbol{\mu}}\\
&\hspace{25pt}\mbox{s.t.} \nonumber \\
&\hspace{25pt} \sum_{i \in N(c_j)}x_i = 2l, \\
&\hspace{25pt} x_i \in \{0,1\}, l \in \mathbb{Z}^+.\end{aligned}$$
We observe that the direction subproblem is actually in the same format with the column generation subproblem. Hence, on a branch we can solve the direction subproblem in $\mathcal{O}(n \log n)$ time with Algorithm 2 after replacing $\tau_{ij}$ and $\mu_j$ with $d_{ij}^{\boldsymbol{\tau}}$ and $d_j^{\boldsymbol{\mu}}$, respectively. As a result, we can summarize our method for generating dual constraints, i.e., primal columns, with Algorithm 3.
$
\begin{tabular}{ll}
\textbf{Algorithm 3:} (Dual constraint generation) \\
\hline
\textbf{Input:} An infeasible restricted primal problem, $P$\\
\hline
0. $isFeasible true$ \\
1. Solve the dual Farkas system and obtain a dual ray $$ \\
\hspace{10pt} that $D$ is unbounded.\\
2. Solve Direction Subproblem$(j)$ for each check node $j$.\\
\hspace{10pt} Add generated local codewords, i.e., columns, to $P$. \\
3. \textbf{If} no columns generated, \textbf{Then} conclude $P$ is infeasible.\\
\hspace{25pt} $isFeasible false$ and STOP. \\ 4. Solve problem $P$. \\
5. \textbf{If} $P$ is feasible, \textbf{Then} STOP. \\
6. \textbf{Else} go to Step 1.\\
7. \textbf{End If} \\
\hline
\textbf{Output:} $isFeasible$ \\$P$\\
$P$ by infeasibility.\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
$
Improvements to BP Algorithm {#Improvements}
----------------------------
The general BP algorithm for IPM problem is given in Algorithm 4. BP algorithm does not implement steps $(RS)$ and $(C)$. We can improve the performance of BP algorithm in terms of solution quality and time by utilizing a new pruning rule as in Section \[Pruning\]. BPRS method, which uses initial feasible solution generated with Random Sum (RS) heuristic given in Algorithm 5 (see Section \[RandomSum\]), implements $(RS)$ step. In BPC method, we implement $(RS)$ step and add valid cuts (\[validCut\]) (see Section \[ValidInequalities\]) to RLPM in step $(C)$.
$
\begin{tabular}{ll}
\textbf{Algorithm 4:} (Solve $IPM$) \\
\hline
\vspace{-2mm}\\
\textbf{Input:} A set of feasible local codewords that constitutes $ RLPM$ \\
\hspace{35pt} ($\_j, j$).\\
\hline
\vspace{-2mm}\\
0. Set $LIST = {RLPM}$, let $|[z]{} = $ and $ = -$.\\
\emph{(RS). Apply Algorithm 5 to generate an initial feasible solution.} \\
1. \textbf{While} $LIST $ \textbf{Do}\\
2. \hspace{20pt} Select the last problem in $LIST$, say problem $P$.\\
3. \hspace{20pt} Solve $P$ and obtain optimal primal $()$ \\
\hspace{34pt} and dual $(\^\*, \^\*)$ solutions with value $\^i$.\\
\hspace{20pt} \textit{Pruning /* delete $P$ from the $LIST$*/}\\
4. \hspace{20pt} \textbf{If} $P$ is infeasible, \textbf{Then} prune by infeasibility \textbf{if} Algorithm 3 returns $false$. \\
5. \hspace{20pt} Go to Step 1. \\
6. \hspace{20pt} \textbf{End If} \\
7. \hspace{20pt} \textbf{If} $\^i |[z]{}$, \textbf{Then} prune by bound and go to Step 1. \\
8. \hspace{20pt} \textbf{If} $P$ has an integer optimal solution, \textbf{Then} $|[z]{} = \^i$,\\
\hspace{50pt} solve the subproblems with Algorithm 2. \\
9. \hspace{40pt} \textbf{If} $\_j = 0$ for all $j$, \textbf{Then} prune by optimality, go to Step 1. \\
10. \hspace{35pt} \textbf{Else} add the columns with $\_j > 0$ to $P$, go to Step 1. \\
11. \hspace{35pt} \textbf{End If} \\
12. \hspace{15pt} \textbf{End If}\\
\hspace{20pt} \textit{Branching /* add $P$ to the $LIST$*/}\\
13. \hspace{15pt} \textbf{If} $P$ has a fractional optimal solution, \\
\hspace{33pt} \textbf{Then} choose a fractional $f\_i$ \\
\hspace{40pt} \textit{Left Branch}\\
14. \hspace{35pt} Let $RLPM\_0$ = $P {(): f\_i =0}$, add $x\_i = 0$ to subproblem $j$, if $i N(c\_j)$.\\
$x\_i = 0$ to subproblem $j$, if $i N(c\_j)$.\\
$\_j > 0$ to $RLPM\_0$.\\
15. \hspace{35pt} Add $RLPM\_0$ to $LIST$, and go to Step 1.\\
\hspace{40pt} \textit{Right Branch}\\
16. \hspace{35pt} Let $RLPM\_1$ = $P {(): f\_i =1}$, add $x\_i = 1$ to subproblem $j$, if $i N(c\_j)$.\\
$x\_i = 1$ to subproblem $j$, if $i N(c\_j)$\\
$\_j > 0$ to $RLPM\_1$.\\
17. \hspace{35pt} Add $RLPM\_1$ to $LIST$, and go to Step 1.\\
\emph{(C). \hspace{18pt} Apply Algorithm 6 for adding cuts (\ref{validCut}) to $RLPM$.} \\
18. \hspace{15pt} \textbf{End If}\\
19. \textbf{End While}\\
\hline
\textbf{Output:} An integral solution $()$ to LPM with objective value $|[z]{}$.\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
$
### A Pruning Strategy {#Pruning}
In a BP algorithm, we apply three pruning rules, namely prune by optimality, by infeasibility and by value dominance. We will consider an additional pruning rule that is based on the difference between the objective function values of two feasible integral solutions.
\[prop1.6\] Let $\mathbf{f}$ be a feasible integral solution of LPM with objective function value $z$. Then, there is no feasible integral solution of LPM with objective function value in the range $(z - a, z)$ with log–likelihood objective (\[log\_like\]) where $a = \log[(1-p)/p]$.
*Proof.* From log–likelihood objective (\[log\_like\]), we can see that $z$ is an integral multiple of $a$ since $\mathbf{f}$ is integral, i.e., $z = l \cdot a$ where $l \in \mathbb{Z}$. Let $\mathbf{f'}$ be another integral feasible solution of LPM. Then, its objective value $z'$ is also an integral multiple of $a$, say $z' = l' \cdot a$ and where $l' \in \mathbb{Z}$. The difference among the objectives is $z - z' = (l - l') \cdot a$. From here, we can conclude that the nearest objective function value to $z$ can be either $z' = z + a$ or $z' = z - a$. Hence, there is no feasible integral solution of LPM with objective function value in the range $(z - a, z)$. $\square$
In other words, the minimum difference between two feasible integral solutions is $a$ with log–likelihood objective and 1 with Hamming distance.
\[prop7\] Let $z$ be the optimum value of a RLPM at a branch. The branch can be pruned if $z > z_{UB} - a$, where $z_{UB}$ is the best upper bound on the IPM and $a$ is the minimum difference between two feasible integral solutions.
*Proof.* A branch can be pruned by value dominance if $z > z_{UB}$. Besides, as shown in Proposition \[prop1.6\], there cannot be an integral feasible solution in the range $( z_{UB} - a , z_{UB})$. Hence, we can prune the branch if $z > z_{UB} - a$. $\square$
### Random Sum Heuristic {#RandomSum}
As explained in Section \[ProblemDefinition\], each row of $\mathbf{G}$ is a codeword (feasible solution). We can rewrite a parity–check $\mathbf{H}$ matrix as $\mathbf{H = [A | I_{n-k}]}$ by carrying out elementary row operations under binary arithmetic. Here, $\mathbf{A}$ is a $(n-k) \times k$ binary matrix, and $\mathbf{I_{n-k}}$ is the $(n-k) \times (n-k)$ identity matrix. Then a $k \times n$ generator matrix $\mathbf{G = [I_{k} | A^T]}$ can be obtained using this $\mathbf{A}$ matrix. Since one can obtain different $\mathbf{A}$ matrices, generator matrix $\mathbf{G}$ is not unique.
Since $\mathbf{G}$ is a basis for the solution space of EM, any feasible solution can be written as a binary combination $\mathbf{u'}$ of the rows of $\mathbf{G}$. There are $2^k$ different $\mathbf{u'}$ combinations, where $k$ is the number of rows of $\mathbf{G}$. We try $ t_{max}$ random $\mathbf{u'}$ combinations and update upper bound with the best solution found as given in Random Sum (RS) heuristic in Algorithm 5.
$
\begin{tabular}{ll}
\textbf{Algorithm 5:} (Random Sum) \\
\hline
\textbf{Input:} A generator matrix $$\\ $$
\hline
0. Initialize $ = , , t\_[max]{}$. \\
1. \textbf{While} $t < t\_[max]{}$ \\
2. \hspace{20pt} Randomly set $u’\_i$ from \{0, 1\} for $i = 1, ..., k$.\\
3. \hspace{20pt} Obtain a feasible solution by $ = $. \\
4. \hspace{20pt} Calculate the objective function value $$ of solution $$. \\
5. \hspace{20pt} \textbf{If} $ < $, \textbf{Then} \\
6. \hspace{30pt} $ = $, $ = $ \\
7. \hspace{20pt} \textbf{End If} \\
8. \hspace{20pt} t = t+1 \\
9. \textbf{End While} \\
\hline
\textbf{Output:} A feasible codeword $$ with objective value $$. \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
$
BPRS method implements this heuristic in $(RS)$ step of Algorithm 4 in order to have tighter upper bound. Moreover, we add the columns corresponding to the best known solution to RLPM.
### Valid Cuts for Fractional Solutions {#ValidInequalities}
As given in [@FWK05], for a check node $c_j$ and all $S \subseteq N(c_j)$ with $|S|$ odd, the following inequalities are valid for IPM:
$$\sum_{i \in N(c_j) \backslash S} f_i + \sum_{i \in S} (1 - f_i) \geq 1. \label{validCut}$$
When we find a fractional solution in BP algorithm for RLPM, we can trim this solution if it violates inequality (\[validCut\]) for some check node $c_j$ and odd cardinality $S \subseteq N(c_j)$. In Algorithm 6, we search for valid cuts for a given fractional solution. Adding these cuts to LPM does not affect the structure of the subproblems that are used for column generation since these cuts do not include decision variables $w_{jS}$. Algorithm 6 generates all valid cuts (\[validCut\]) that separate a given fractional solution. The separation algorithm runs in $\mathcal{O}(n \log n)$ time due to sorting step.
$
\begin{tabular}{ll}
\textbf{Algorithm 6:} (Valid Cuts) \\
\hline
\textbf{Input:} A fractional solution $$ of $RLPM$\\
\hline
1. Sort $$ values in nonincreasing order. Let $\_s$ be sorted indices. \\
2. \textbf{For Each} check node $c\_j$ and odd cardinality $|S|$ \\
3. \hspace{20pt} Construct $S N(c\_j)$ using first $|S|$ neighbors of $c\_j$ in $\_s$. \\$|S|$ odd \\
4. \hspace{20pt} \textbf{If} inequality (\ref{validCut}) is violated by $$ with $S$,\\
5. \hspace{20pt} \textbf{Then} add cut (\ref{validCut}) to $RLPM$.\\
6. \hspace{20pt} \textbf{End If} \\
7. \textbf{End For Each} \\
\hline
\textbf{Output:} Cuts added to $RLPM$. \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
$
We implement these cuts in BP algorithm in $(C)$ step of Algorithm 4. BP algorithm with $(RS)$ and $(C)$ steps gives rise to our BPC method.
Computational Results {#ComputationalResults}
=====================
The computations have been carried out on a computer with 2.6 GHz Intel Core i5-3230M processor and 4 GB of RAM working under Windows 10 Professional. We compare the performances of methods that we summarize in Table \[tab:som\]. We implemented all methods in C\# programming language. In BP method, we apply branch–and–price algorithm in Section \[BranchAndPriceAlgorithm\] to solve IPM formulation. BPRS method is the extension of BP method with RS heuristic. That is, we implement $(RS)$ step in Algorithm 4 in BPRS method. BPC method is our branch–price–and–cut algorithm that uses $(RS)$ step and also add valid cuts to RLPM with $(C)$ step in Algorithm 4. We also have Exact Model Decoder (EMD) that solves EM formulation with CPLEX 12.7.1.
\[tab:som\]
Method Model $(RS)$ $(C)$
-------- ------- --------- ---------
BP IPM — —
BPRS IPM $\surd$ —
BPC IPM $\surd$ $\surd$
EMD EM — —
A summary of the parameters used in the computational experiments are given in Table \[tab:locp\]. We try eight different code lengths from $n = 300$ to $n = 8400$ for three error probability $p$ levels. We randomly construct (5, 10)–regular $\mathbf{H}$ permutation code for each $n$ (see Section \[ProblemDefinition\]). We test the quality of upper bounds obtained by RS heuristic with two different $t_{max}$ values. In order to speed up the row sums and objective function calculation, we utilize $BitArray$ data structure for RS in Algorithm 5. We set a time limit of 600 seconds for all methods in Table \[tab:som\].
\[tab:locp\]
[l l]{}\
$n$ & 300, 600, 1200, 1800, 2400, 3000, 6000, 8400\
$p$ & 0.05, 0.07, 0.10\
$t_{max}$ & 1000, 10000\
Time Limit & 600 secs\
Bit Error Rate (BER) is a metric in telecommunications literature to evaluate the performance of decoding algorithms. In Figure \[fig:diagram\], $\mathbf{v}$ is original codeword, which is received as vector $\mathbf{r}$ by digital sink. Decoder runs decoding algorithms on received vector $\mathbf{r}$ to obtain $n-$bit long decoded vector $\mathbf{y}$. BER, as given in equation (\[BER\]), is the rate of the bits decoded different from the original codeword $\mathbf{v}$ [@M03]. Note that BER = 0, if $\mathbf{v} = \mathbf{y}$. $$\label{BER}
BER = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n}\mid v_{i} - y_{i}\mid}{n} $$
In our first experiment, we try $t_{max} = 1000$ and 10000 to observe the quality of the upper bound obtained by RS heuristic (see Section \[RandomSum\]). In Table \[tab:RS\], we report the average results for 30 trials for each $n$. We generate an original codeword by randomly combining the rows of $\mathbf{G}$. According to results, although it is not necessarily always the case, we can generate original codeword (BER = 0) when $t_{max} = 10000$ for all trials. Hence, we prefer to take $t_{max} = 10000$ in our BPRS and BPC methods.
Even though we observe that RS can provide the original codeword in our experiments, we cannot calculate BER in practical applications since original codeword is unknown. That is, we cannot evaluate the solution quality of the decoded codeword of RS. On the other hand, our exact decoding methods, i.e., BP, BPRS and BPC, calculate a gap between the received vector and the decoded codeword, which is independent from the original codeword.
\[tab:RS\]
----------- -------- ------------------------ ------------ -- ------- ------------------------ ------------
$t_{max}$
$n$ $z$ BER ($\times 10^{-2}$) CPU (secs) $z$ BER ($\times 10^{-2}$) CPU (secs)
300 118.5 41.4 0.03 21.3 0 0.26
600 251.7 43.4 0.07 42.4 0 0.63
1200 524.2 44.5 0.19 84.6 0 1.83
1800 805.3 45.6 0.37 128.3 0 3.59
2400 1093.4 46.4 0.62 171.6 0 5.97
3000 1374.3 46.4 0.93 215.4 0 8.45
6000 2816.9 47.4 3.13 440.6 0 28.08
8400 4001.8 48.1 5.40 619.7 0 53.45
----------- -------- ------------------------ ------------ -- ------- ------------------------ ------------
In Table \[tab:EMDvsBP\], we compare the performances of EMD and BP decoders. For each code length $n$, we experiment 10 random received vectors (in total 240 instances for three $p$ levels) and report the average values. We give the best lower bound found by the method in column “$z_l$," objective value of the best known solution is in column “$z$." Although the objective functions of EM and IPM are equivalent (see Proposition \[prop5\]), their values are different. Hence, we report the Hamming distance objective value for the solutions found by BP, BPRS, and BPC. We report the percentage difference among $z_l$ and $z$ in “Gap." The number of instances that are solved to optimality (i.e., $z_l = z$) given in column “\#Opt" and number of nodes evaluated in branch–and–bound tree is reported in “\#Nodes." BP decoder can use trivial solution of $f_i = 0$ for all $i \in V$ as an initial upper bound (see Section \[MathematicalFormulations\]). We observe that BP method uses fewer nodes than EMD. As the code length $n$ increases, the number of nodes that both methods can evaluate decreases due to time limitation.
When $p = 0.05$, BP is worse than EMD in terms of gap, BER and CPU. For all $p$ values, BP cannot complete the evaluation of root node for $n = 6000$ and 8400 within time limit to provide a lower bound (i.e., $z_l = 0$). As $p$ becomes 0.07 and 0.10, BP decoder provides better gap and BER figures within time limit compared to EMD. EMD solves 88 instances to optimality whereas BP finds optimum solution 61 times among 240 instances.
\[tab:EMDvsBP\]
------ ------ ------- -------- ------ -------------------- -------- ----- ---------- -- ------- -------- ------ -------------------- -------- ----- --------
Gap BER CPU Gap BER CPU
$p$ $n$ $z_l$ $z$ (%) ($\times 10^{-2}$) (secs) Opt Nodes $z_l$ $z$ (%) ($\times 10^{-2}$) (secs) Opt Nodes
0.05 300 14.0 14.0 0 0 0.95 10 325.7 14.0 14.0 0 0 5.33 10 0
600 28.5 54.9 8.9 4.9 66.13 9 16036.9 28.1 28.7 1.6 0 82.79 8 20.7
1200 57.3 57.3 0 0 8.03 10 1232.5 57.1 57.3 0.3 0 246.39 9 1
1800 87.0 87.0 0 0 0.93 10 0 77.9 166.6 10.0 4.9 506.15 9 0
2400 117.7 117.7 0 0 1.94 10 0 105.5 224.9 10.0 4.9 527.88 9 0
3000 147.3 147.3 0 0 3.02 10 0 103.5 542.7 30.0 14.6 553.43 7 0
6000 300.9 565.3 8.9 5.0 84.74 9 83.2 0 2963.9 100 49.4 $time$ 0 0
8400 425.9 425.9 0 0 92.02 10 0 0 4199.5 100 49.9 $time$ 0 0
0.07 300 18.1 80.0 42.9 24.5 301.33 5 182763.2 17.2 62.0 30.1 0 303.05 5 1816.1
600 36.6 164.7 43.6 24.5 383.30 5 95563.4 34.8 233.7 70.7 9.4 505.86 1 254.2
1200 71.6 577.8 87.6 47.8 $time$ 0 52037.7 70.2 452.4 63.8 4.8 $time$ 0 27.6
1800 107.6 891.0 87.9 50.0 $time$ 0 33363.3 107.2 277.2 26.1 5.1 $time$ 0 4.4
2400 143.9 1188.6 87.9 49.8 $time$ 0 25086.2 169.2 369.2 23.3 9.9 $time$ 0 0
3000 180.1 1489.1 87.9 49.8 $time$ 0 15061.8 140.0 584.9 31.4 14.8 579.78 3 0
6000 360.9 2945.1 87.7 49.1 $time$ 0 307.2 0 2990.7 100 49.9 $time$ 0 0
8400 505.4 4179.8 87.9 49.9 $time$ 0 9.6 0 4168.0 100 49.5 $time$ 0 0
0.10 300 21.5 143.0 84.9 49.1 $time$ 0 430245.8 19.6 156.4 87.5 47.3 $time$ 0 5201.0
600 40.5 291.9 86.1 49.0 $time$ 0 161875.3 38.9 297.3 86.9 50.0 $time$ 0 235.4
1200 78.6 586.6 86.6 49.7 $time$ 0 60389.7 77.4 537.8 81.5 14.6 $time$ 0 24.6
1800 118.2 882.2 86.6 49.6 $time$ 0 32469.2 118.2 744.2 76.0 14.8 $time$ 0 4.0
2400 156.9 1189.2 86.8 49.9 $time$ 0 24190.8 190.1 801.8 61.3 14.6 $time$ 0 0
3000 196.1 1470.5 86.7 49.1 $time$ 0 12114.8 144.3 774.5 50.7 20.2 $time$ 0 0
6000 391.7 2964.7 86.8 49.2 $time$ 0 244.9 0 2972.9 100 50.0 $time$ 0 0
8400 548.0 4167.2 86.8 49.6 $time$ 0 0.3 0 4179.2 100 49.6 $time$ 0 0
------ ------ ------- -------- ------ -------------------- -------- ----- ---------- -- ------- -------- ------ -------------------- -------- ----- --------
Table \[tab:BPRSvsBPC\] summarizes the results for BPRS and BPC methods. In both methods, we provide an inital solution with RS heuristic. We report the number of valid cuts (\[validCut\]) used by BPC method in column “\#Cuts." BPRS and BPC can find original codeword (i.e., BER = 0) for all instances either with RS heuristic or improving the solution of RS with BP algorithm. The number of cases out of 240 instances solved to optimality for BPRS and BPC are 142 and 161, respectively. As we improve BP algorithm to BPRS and BPC, we observe better gap, BER, \#Opt values and fewer nodes. Moreover, BPC gives better figures for these performance metrics compared with EMD.
Table \[tab:BPRSvsBPC\] shows that our algorithms can solve more instances to optimality as code length $n$ increases for $p = 0.07$ and $0.10$ which is somewhat counter intuitive. For example, we can solve 10 instances to optimality when $n \geq 6000$ for these $p$ values. This is due to $\mathbf{H}$ codes and properties of LPM formulation. Randomly constructed permutation codes have fewer cycles in their Tanner graph representations as the dimension of the code gets larger [@LMT+17]. When Tanner graph is cycle–free, any optimum solution of LPM is integral as noted in Feldman *et al.* [@FWK05]. Hence, as code length $n$ increases, we have Tanner graph with fewer cycles, which results in a better LP lower bound at the root node. This is not apparent for BP, since we cannot complete root node evaluation due to time limit for $n \geq 6000$. We succeeded for BPRS and BPC methods with the help of RS heuristic.
\[tab:BPRSvsBPC\]
[6cm]{}[cccccccccccccccccc]{} & & & &\
& & & & Gap & BER & CPU & & & & & Gap & BER & CPU &\
$p$ & $n$ & $z_l$ & $z$& (%) & ($\times 10^{-2}$) & (secs) & Opt & Nodes & & $z_l$ & $z$ & (%) & ($\times 10^{-2}$) & (secs) & Opt & Nodes & Cuts\
0.05 & 300 & 14.0 & 14.0 & 0 & 0 & 5.61 & 10 & 0 & & 14.0 & 14.0 & 0 & 0 & 124.05 & 10 & 0 & 47.1\
& 600 & 28.1 & 28.7 & 1.6 & 0 & 87.93 & 8 & 18.8 & & 28.6 & 28.7 & 0.4 & 0 & 146.01 & 9 & 0 & 83.2\
& 1200 & 57.1 & 57.3 & 0.3 & 0 & 272.99 & 9 & 1.2 & & 57.3 & 57.3 & 0 & 0 & 342.86 & 10 & 0 & 97.0\
& 1800 & 87.0 & 87.0 & 0 & 0 & 405.58 & 10 & 0 & & 87.0 & 87.0 & 0 & 0 & 413.26 & 10 & 0 & 0\
& 2400 & 117.7 & 117.7 & 0 & 0 & 520.88 & 10 & 0 & & 117.7 & 117.7 & 0 & 0 & 534.42 & 10 & 0 & 0\
& 3000 & 147.3 & 147.3 & 0 & 0 & 560.27 & 10 & 0 & & 147.3 & 147.3 & 0 & 0 & 551.42 & 10 & 0 & 0\
& 6000 & 301.7 & 301.7 & 0 & 0 & 550.75 & 10 & 0 & & 301.7 & 301.7 & 0 & 0 & 535.01 & 10 & 0 & 0\
& 8400 & 425.9 & 425.9 & 0 & 0 & 529.42 & 10 & 0 & & 425.9 & 425.9 & 0 & 0 & 521.18 & 10 & 0 & 0\
0.07 & 300 & 17.6 & 19.4 & 7.7 & 0 & 242.21 & 6 & 307.8 & & 18.8 & 19.4 & 2.5 & 0 & 421.27 & 6 & 0 & 153.4\
& 600 & 35.2 & 39.3 & 9.6 & 0 & 360.41 & 3 & 119.5 & & 38.5 & 39.3 & 1.9 & 0 & 543.37 & 5 & 0 & 299.8\
& 1200 & 70.3 & 79.0 &10.8 & 0 & $time$ & 0 & 27.7 & & 77.3 & 79.0 & 2.1 & 0 & 598.01 & 3 & 0 & 752.4\
& 1800 & 107.2 & 120.8 & 11.0 & 0 & 587.65 & 1 & 3.9 & & 119.1 & 120.8 & 1.4 & 0 & 580.13 & 4 & 0 & 1113.3\
& 2400 & 151.7 & 162.2 &6.3 & 0 & 539.93 & 3 & 0 & & 159.7 & 162.2 & 1.5 & 0 & 550.47 & 4 & 0 & 806.1\
& 3000 & 203.0 & 204.1 & 0.5 & 0 & 576.46 & 8 & 0 & & 203.6 & 204.1 & 0.2 & 0 & 546.35 & 9 & 0 & 120.2\
& 6000 & 420.1 & 420.1 & 0 & 0 & 535.16 & 10 & 0 & & 420.1 & 420.1 & 0 & 0 & 551.19 & 10 & 0 & 0\
& 8400 & 591.2 & 591.2 & 0 & 0 & 544.68 & 10 & 0 & & 591.2 & 591.2 & 0 & 0 & 563.28 & 10 & 0 & 0\
0.10 & 300 & 19.6 & 30.6 & 34.4 & 0 & $time$ & 0 & 754.6 & & 28.7 & 30.6 & 5.7 & 0 & 593.01 & 4 & 0 & 68.8\
& 600 & 38.9 & 59.3 & 33.9 & 0 & $time$ & 0 & 206.7 & & 57.0 & 59.3 & 3.9 & 0 & 588.14 & 3 & 0 & 140.4\
& 1200 & 77.4 & 117.6 & 34.1 & 0 & $time$ & 0 & 25.8 & & 110.3 & 117.6 & 6.1 & 0 & $time$ & 0 & 0 & 359.3\
& 1800 & 117.4 & 177.2 & 33.6 & 0 & $time$ & 0 & 3.4 & & 171.1 & 177.2 & 3.4 & 0 & 592.98 & 1 & 0 & 422.3\
& 2400 & 171.6 & 234.8 & 26.9 & 0 & $time$ & 0 & 0 & & 225.0 & 234.8 & 4.2 & 0 & $time$ & 0 & 0 & 608.0\
& 3000 & 268.4 & 294.9 & 8.9 & 0 & 565.83 & 4 & 0 & & 285.2 & 294.9 & 3.3 & 0 & 521.89 & 3 & 0 & 459.0\
& 6000 & 599.9 & 599.9 & 0 & 0 & 543.84 & 10 & 0 & & 599.9 & 599.9 & 0 & 0 & 545.63 & 10 & 0 & 0\
& 8400 & 842.0 & 842.0 & 0 & 0 & 558.98 & 10 & 0 & & 842.0 & 842.0 & 0 & 0 & 531.61 & 10 & 0 & 0\
In practical applications, decoding of a received vector is done with iterative algorithms, such as Gallager A given in Algorithm 7, with low complexity [@L05]. In Gallager A, $v_i$ is incident to $d_i$ many check nodes on Tanner graph and $u_i$ many of them are unsatisfied. A bit $i$ is candidate to be flipped, if $u_i > d_i / 2$. At each iteration, Gallager A flips only a candidate bit $i$ with largest $u_i$ value.
$
\begin{tabular}{ll}
\textbf{Algorithm 7:} (Gallager A) \\
\hline
\vspace{-4mm}\\
\textbf{Input:} Received vector, $$\\
\hline
\vspace{-4mm}\\
1. Calculate all parity--check equations \\
2. \textbf{If} all check nodes are satisfied, \textbf{Then} STOP.\\
3. \textbf{Else} Calculate the number of all unsatisfied parity--check \\
\hspace{40pt} equations for each received bit, $u\_i$ for bit $i$. \\
4. \hspace{20pt} Let $l = \_i{u\_i}$. \textbf{If} $u\_l > d\_l / 2$, \textbf{Then} flip bit $l$.\\
5. \textbf{End If} \\
6. \textbf{If} stopping condition is satisfied, \textbf{Then} STOP.\\
7. \textbf{Else} Go to Step 1.\\
8. \textbf{End If} \\
\hline
\vspace{-4mm}\\
\textbf{Output:} A feasible decoded codeword, or no solution\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
$
In our final experiment, we compare our proposed decoding algorithms with Gallager A algorithm. Iterative algorithms may get stuck and terminate with no conclusion when there is a cycle in Tanner graph [@SPT14]. To avoid such a situation, we take the stopping criterion in Algorithm 7 as 500 iterations. Note that this may result in ending with an infeasible solution when Gallager A terminates.
\[tab:GallagerA\]
$p$ $n$ $z$ BER ($\times 10^{-2}$) CPU (secs) \#Feas
------ ------ ------- ------------------------ ------------ --------
0.05 300 14.0 4.5 0.63 4
600 26.7 4.2 2.52 0
1200 52.6 3.8 12.50 2
1800 84.6 3.4 31.77 3
2400 116.1 4.1 54.26 0
3000 142.5 3.8 84.53 2
6000 283.7 4.5 367.67 0
8400 405.3 4.9 882.95 0
0.07 300 18.3 8.6 0.63 1
600 36.1 8.7 2.65 0
1200 71.0 9.2 12.52 0
1800 113.7 9.5 30.08 0
2400 147.2 9.6 54.50 0
3000 189.1 9.7 84.18 0
6000 377.5 10.2 363.77 0
8400 486.0 9.7 697.95 0
0.10 300 20.1 14.1 0.62 0
600 43.6 14.6 2.56 0
1200 84.9 14.4 12.15 0
1800 127.0 13.9 29.86 0
2400 172.0 14.3 54.22 0
3000 216.7 14.3 84.50 0
6000 434.4 14.7 364.64 0
8400 492.2 13.6 723.52 0
In Table \[tab:GallagerA\], we summarize the results of Gallager A algorithm. Gallager A finds a feasible solution for “\#Feas" instances among 10 instances. One can observe that $z$ values in Table \[tab:GallagerA\] are smaller than $z_l$ values of BPC in Table \[tab:BPRSvsBPC\] due to infeasible solutions found by Gallager A. BPC method can find original codeword (i.e., BER = 0) for all instances, whereas Gallager A finds infeasible vectors that are far away from the original codeword (i.e., BER $>$ 0) in most cases. Gallager A can decode to original codeword only for 12 among 240 instances.
Computation times reported in the “CPU (secs)" columns of Tables \[tab:BPRSvsBPC\] and \[tab:GallagerA\] indicate that Gallager A is faster than our BPC method. On the other hand, BPC method can find higher quality solutions in the expense of decoding duration. The applications such as TV broadcasting and video streaming, in which the decoding latency is the key issue, implement fast decoding algorithms as Gallager A. However, there are cases such as deep space communications, that we cannot reobtain the information from the digital source. For such applications, high quality decoding is important instead of decoding speed. Our BPC method is a candidate decoder thanks to its high deoding quality for such communication systems.
Conclusions {#Conclusions}
===========
In this study, we focus on decoding algorithms that correct the errors in received vector using LDPC codes for digital communication systems. We consider a mathematical formulation from the literature and propose a branch–and–price (BP) algorithm for its solution. We improve the error correction capability of our BP algorithm by providing tight upper bounds with random sum (RS) heuristic and introducing valid cuts to mathematical formulation. These enhancements give rise to our branch–and–price–random–sum (BPRS) and branch–price–and–cut (BPC) methods.
Our computational experiments show that our BPC method outperforms exact model decoder (EMD), which makes use of commercial solver CPLEX 12.7.1, in terms of gap, BER and number of instances solved to optimality. Moreover, BPC method can find near optimum feasible solutions, whereas practically used iterative decoder Gallager A algorithm terminate with infeasible solutions far from the original codeword in most of the cases having high error rates.
Our BPC decoder can contribute to the construction of reliable digital communication systems with its high error correction capability. In particular, BPC can be used for the critical applications, such as NASA’s Mission Cassini, in which we receive the information only once. In such settings, solution quality is crucial instead of decoding latency. Considering decoding is an online problem, faster decoders are desired. Hence, improving the solution time of BPC method can be a future research.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This research has been supported by the Turkish Scientific and Technological Research Council with grant no 113M499.
[10]{}
Gallager, R. G., “Low-density parity-check codes,” *IRE Trans. on Information Theory*, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 21–28, January 1962.
MacKay, D. J. C., “Near Shannon limit performance of low density parity check codes," *Electron. Lett.*, vol. 33, pp. 457–458, March 1997.
MacKay, D. J. C., “Good error-correcting codes based on very sparse matrices," *IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory*, vol. 46, pp. 399–431, March 1999.
Karger, D. R., S., Oh, and D., Shah, “Budget-optimal task allocation for reliable crowdsourcing systems," *Operations Research*, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 1–24, 2014.
Ryan, W., and S., Lin, *Channel codes: classical and modern*. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2009.
Richardson, T., and R., Urbanke, “The capacity of low-density parity check codes under message passing decoding," *IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory*, vol 47, pp. 599–618, February 2001.
Kschischang, F. R., B. J., Frey, and H. A., Loeliger, “Factor graphs and the sum–product algorithm,” *IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory*, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 498–519, February 2001.
Gamarnik, D., D., Shah, and Y., Wei, “Belief propagation for min-cost network flow: convergence and correctness,” *Operations Research*, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 410–428, 2012.
Tanner, R. M., “A recursive approach to low complexity codes,” *IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory*, vol IT-27, no. 5, pp. 533–547, September 1981.
Fossorier, M. P. C., M., Mihaljevic, and H., Imai, “Reduced complexity iterative decoding of low–density parity check codes based on belief propagation," *IEEE Transactions on Communications*, vol 47, 673–680, May 1999.
Hu, X. H., E., Eleftheriou, D. M., Arnold, and A., Dholakia, “Efficient implementations of the sum–product algorithm for decoding LDPC codes," *Proc. 2001 IEEE Global Telecommunications Conf.*, pp. 1036–1036E.
Sarajlic, M., L., Liu, and O., Edfors, “Reducing the complexity of LDPC decoding algorithms: an optimization–oriented approach," *Proc. 2014 IEEE Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC)*, pp. 861–866.
Berlekamp, E. R., R. J., McEliece, and H. C. A., van Tilborg, “On the inherent intractability of certain coding problems," *IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory*, vol 24, pp. 384–386, May 1978.
Leiner, B. M. J., “LDPC codes - a brief tutorial,” *Wien Technical University*, 2005.
Feldman, J., M. J., Wainwright, and D. R., Karger, “Using linear programming to decode binary linear codes,” *IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory*, vol 51, no. 3, pp. 954–972, March 2005.
Vontobel, P. O., and R., Koetter, “On low-complexity linear-programming decoding of LDPC codes," *Eur. Trans. Telecomm.*, vol 18, pp. 509–517, 2007.
Burshtein, B., “Iterative approximate linear programming decoding of LDPC codes with linear complexity," *IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory*, vol 55, no. 11, November 2009.
Chertkov, M, and M. G., Stepanov, “An efficent pseudocodeword search algorithm for linear programming decoding of LDPC codes," *IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory*, vol 54, no. 4, April 2008.
Taghavi, M. H. N., and P. H., Siegel, “Adaptive methods for linear programming decoding," *IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory*, vol 54, no. 12, December 2008.
Zhang, X., and P. H., Siegel, “Adaptive cut generation algorithm for improved linear programming decoding of binary linear codes," *IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory*, vol 58, no. 10, October 2012.
Yang, K., X., Wang, and J., Feldman, “A new linear programming approach to decoding linear block codes," *IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory*, vol 54, no. 3, March 2008.
Tanatmis, A., S., Ruzika, H. W., Hamacher, M., Punekar, F., Kienle, and N., Wehn, “A separation algorithm for improved LP–decoding of linear block codes," *IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory*, vol 56, no. 7, July 2010.
Zhang, X., and P. H., Siegel, “Efficient iterative LP decoding of LDPC codes with alternating direction method of multipliers," *Proc. 2013 IEEE Int. Symposium on Inf. Theory*, pp. 1501–1505.
Barman, S., X., Liu, S. C., Draper, and B., Recht, “Decomposition methods for large scale LP decoding," *IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory*, vol 59, no. 12, December 2013.
MacKay, D. J. C., *Information theory, inference, and learning algorithms*. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003.
Hernández, P., and B., von Stengel, “Nash codes for noisy channels," *Operations Research*, vol. 62, no. 6, November 2014.
Moon, T. K., *Error correction coding: mathematical methods and algorithms*. New Jersey: Wiley, 2005.
Keha, A. B., and T. M., Duman, “Minimum distance computation of LDPC codes using branch and cut algorithm,” *IEEE Transactions on Communications*, vol 58, no. 4, pp. 1072–1079, 2010.
L" ubbecke, M. E., and J., Desrosiers, “Selected topics in column generation," *Operations Research*, vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 1007–1023, 2005.
L" ubbecke, M. E., “Column generation," *Wiley Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science*, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2010.
Lau, F. C. M., F., Mo, W. M., Tam, and C. W., Sham, “Random–permutation–matrix–based cyclically–coupled LDPC codes," *Proc. 2017 IEEE Int. Conf. on Advanced Commun. Technol.*, pp. 497–500.
Sariduman, A., A. E., Pusane, and Z. C., Taşkin, “An integer programming-based search technique for error-prone structures of LDPC codes," *AEU - Int. J. of Electron. and Commun.*, vol. 68, no. 11, pp. 1097-1105, November 2014.
[^1]: Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 2123596771; fax: +90 2122651800.\
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (B. Kabakulak), [email protected] (Z. C. Taşkin), [email protected] (A. E. Pusane).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We prove that if $f:I\subset \Bbb R\to \Bbb R$ is of bounded variation, then the uncentered maximal function $Mf$ is absolutely continuous, and its derivative satisfies the sharp inequality $\|DMf\|_{L^1(I)}\le |Df|(I)$. This allows us obtain, under less regularity, versions of classical inequalities involving derivatives.'
address:
- 'Departamento de Matemáticas y Computación, Universidad de La Rioja, 26004 Logroño, La Rioja, Spain.'
- 'Departamento de Matemáticas e Informática, Universidad Pública de Navarra, 31006 Pamplona, Navarra, Spain.'
author:
- 'J. M. Aldaz and J. Pérez Lázaro'
title: 'Functions of bounded variation, the derivative of the one dimensional maximal function, and applications to inequalities'
---
[^1]
[^2]
Introduction.
=============
The study of the regularity properties of the Hardy-Littlewood maximal function was initiated by Juha Kinnunen in [@Ki], where it was shown that the centered maximal operator is bounded on the Sobolev spaces $W^{1,p}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$ for $1<p\le\infty$. This result was used to give a new proof of a weak-type inequality for the Sobolev capacity, and to obtain the $p$-quasicontinuity of the maximal function of an element of $W\sp{1,p}(\mathbb{R}\sp{d})$, $1<p<\infty$. Since then, a good deal of work has been done within this line of research. In [@KiLi] a local version of the original boundedness result, valid on $W^{1,p}(\Omega )$, $\Omega\subset\Bbb R^{d}$ open, was given. Generalizations were presented in [@HaOn], extending both the global and local theorems to the spherical maximal function for the range $d>1, d/(d-1)< p$. The regularity of the fractional maximal operator was studied in [@KiSa]. Hannes Luiro proved in [@Lu] the continuity of the Hardy-Littlewood maximal operator on $W^{1,p}(\Bbb R^{d})$ (continuity is not immediate from boundedness because of the lack of linearity), finding an explicit representation for the derivative of the maximal function. Among other articles dealing with related topics we mention [@Bu], [@Ko1], and [@Ko2].
As usual, the case $p=1$ is significantly different from the case $p>1$, not only because $L^1(\Bbb R^d)$ is not reflexive (so weak compactness arguments used when $1<p<\infty$ are not available for $p=1$), but more specifically to this problem, because $Mf\notin L^1(\Bbb R^d)$ whenever $f$ is nontrivial, while the maximal operator acts boundedly on $L^p$ for $ p>1$. Nevertheless, in dimension $d=1$, Hitoshi Tanaka proved (cf. [@Ta]) that if $f\in W^{1,1}(\Bbb R)$, then the noncentered maximal function $Mf$ is differentiable a.e. and $\| DMf\|_1 \le 2\| Df\|_1$. We shall be concerned (mostly) with the case $d= 1$ and $p=1$. What had not previously been noticed, and we show here, is that the maximal operator can actually improve the regularity of a function $f$, rather than simply preserving it, and without increasing the variation. This leads to the possibility of obtaining, under less smoothness, versions of classical inequalities involving a function and its derivatives.
Recall that if $f\in W^{1,1}(\Bbb R)$, then $f$ is absolutely continuous and of bounded variation. We refine Tanaka’s arguments, obtaining the best possible bound and generalizing it to the class of functions of bounded variation. Let $I$ be an interval, let $f: I\to\Bbb R$ be of bounded variation, and let $Df$ be its distributional derivative. Denoting by $Mf$ the noncentered maximal function of $f$, we prove (cf. Theorem \[main\]) that $Mf$ is absolutely continuous. Hence, $Mf$ is differentiable a.e. and its pointwise derivative coincides with its distributional derivative $DMf$; thus, the latter is a function and not just a Radon measure. Furthermore, the variation of $Mf$ is no larger than that of $f$, in the sense that $\| DMf\|_{L^1(I)} \le
|Df|( I)$. This inequality is easily seen to be sharp. Also, without some assumption of bounded variation type the result fails: There are bounded, compactly supported (hence integrable) functions such that $Mf$ is not differentiable on a set of positive measure (see Example \[cantor\]). We mention that for bounded intervals $I$, the fact that $\| DMf\|_{L^1(I)} \le |Df|(I)$ tells us that $Mf: BV(I) \to
W^{1,1}(I)$ boundedly.
Finally, we note that from the viewpoint of regularity the noncentered maximal operator is better behaved than the centered one: The latter yields a discontinuous function when applied, for instance, to the characteristic function of $[0,1]$. And the same can be said about the one directional maximal operators. In higher dimensions and for $p > 1$, we mention that even though Kinnunen stated his boundedness result from [@Ki] only for the centered operator, it also holds for the uncentered one by a simple modification of his arguments, as noted by Tanaka in [@Ta]. Alternatively, boundedness of the uncentered operator can be deduced from Theorem 1 of [@HaOn].
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 contains the basic definitions, the main result, and corollaries. Section 3, the lemmas used in the proof. In Section 4 examples are presented illustrating the basic issues involved and showing that the main theorem is in some sense optimal. As an application, in Section 5 we give a variant of Landau’s inequality under less regularity. Save for the issue of best constants, the inequality we present is stronger than Landau’s. Of course, this kind of argument can be applied to other inequalities also. As a second, simple instance, we present a trivial variant of the Poincaré-Wirtinger inequality.
Definitions, main theorem and corollaries.
==========================================
By an interval $I$ we mean a nondegenerate interval, so examples such as $[a,a]$ or $(a,b)$ with $b\le a$ are excluded. But we do include the cases $a=-\infty$ and $b=\infty$, so $I$ may have infinite length or even be the whole real line. Let $\lambda$ denote Lebesgue measure and $\lambda^*$ Lebesgue outer measure. When $a$ and $b$ are distinct real numbers, not necessarily in increasing order, we let $I(a,b)$ stand for a (nonempty) interval whose extremes are $a$ and $b$, while if the interval $I$ is given, we use $\ell (I)$ and $r(I)$ to denote its left and right endpoints. Since functions of bounded variation always have lateral limits, we can go from $(a,b)$ to $[a,b]$ by extension, and viceversa by restriction. Thus, in what follows it does not really matter whether $I$ is open, closed or neither. Nevertheless, if at some stage of an argument it is useful to assume that $I(a,b)$ is of a certain type, we shall explicitly say so.
Given $P=\{x_1,\dots ,x_L\}\subset I$ with $x_1 <\dots <x_L$, the variation of $f:I\to \Bbb R$ associated to the partition $P$ is defined as $$V(f, P):= \sum_{j=2}^{L} |f(x_j) - f(x_{j-1})|,$$ and the variation of $f$ on $I$, as $$V(f):=\sup_P V(f,P),$$ where the supremum is taken over all partitions $P$ of $I$. We say that $f$ is of [*bounded variation*]{} if $V(f) <\infty$.
We use $Df$ to denote the distributional derivative of $f$, and $I, J$ to denote intervals. Of course, if $f:I\to \Bbb R$ is absolutely continuous then $Df$ is a function, which coincides with the pointwise derivative $f^\prime$ of $f$. In this case we also denote the latter by $Df$.
The canonical representative of $f$ is the function $$\overline{f}(x) := \limsup_{\lambda (I)\to 0, x\in I}\frac{1}{\lambda (I)}\int_I f(y)dy.$$
The Lebesgue differentiation theorem tells us that $\overline{f}=f$ a.e., so $\overline{f}$ does represent the equivalence class of $f$. Of course, taking the $\liminf$ would yield a representative as “canonical" as the one above; we just selected the one best suited to our purposes.
It is well known (cf. Lemma \[equivalence\] in the next section) that if $f$ is of bounded variation, then $Df$ is a Radon measure with $|Df|(I) = V(\overline{f}) <\infty$, where $|Df|$ denotes the total variation of $Df$.
Given a locally integrable function $f:I\to \Bbb R$, the noncentered Hardy-Littlewood maximal function $Mf$ is defined by $$Mf(x) := \sup_{ x\in J\subset I}\frac{1}{\lambda (J)}\int_J
|f(y)|dy.$$ If $R > 0$, the definition of the [*local*]{} maximal function $M_Rf$ is the same as above, save that the intervals $J$ are also required to satisfy $\lambda J \le R$.
The terms [*restricted*]{} and [*truncated*]{} have been used in the literature to designate $M_Rf$. However, in both cases the meaning differs from the usual notions of restriction and truncation of a function, so we prefer [*local*]{}. $M_Rf$ is genuinely local in that its value at $x$ depends only on how $f$ behaves in an $R$-neighborhood of $x$.
For some purposes the relevant maximal operator is $M_R$ rather than $M$ (cf., for instance, [@Ha]). Thus, it seems worthwhile to point out that the results we prove on regularity and size of the derivative hold both for $M$ and $M_R$, essentially for the same reasons. So in the statements of the theorems $M$ and $M_R$ will appear, but the proofs will only mention $M$, unless some modification is needed to cover the case of $M_R$. With respect to the possibility of deriving the results for $M_R$ from those of $M$, or viceversa, it is not clear to us whether this can be done, in view of the fact that neither $DMf$ nor $ DM_Rf$ pointwise dominates the other.
The local maximal function will be used at the end of this paper to prove an inequality of Poincaré-Wirtinger type. There $M_R$ cannot be replaced by $M$.
\[main\] If $f:I\to \Bbb R$ is of bounded variation then $Mf$ is absolutely continuous. Furthermore, $ V(Mf) \le V(\overline{f}), $ or equivalently, $ \|DMf\|_{L^1(I)}
\le |Df|(I).$ The same holds for $M_Rf$.
We assume that $0\le f =\overline{f}$. Since $f$ is upper semicontinuous (Lemma \[semicont\]), and $f\le Mf$, the maximal function is continuous (Lemma \[Mcont\] and Remark \[local\]), and of bounded variation with $V(Mf)\le V(f)$ (Lemma \[vardec\]). Also, the image under $Mf$ of a measure zero set has measure zero (Lemma \[nullimage\]), so by the Banach Zarecki Theorem (Lemma \[BVAC\]) $Mf$ is absolutely continuous, whence $|DMf|(I)=
\|DMf\|_{L^1(I)}$. Finally, by Lemma \[equivalence\], $|DMf|(I) = V(Mf)$ and $|Df|(I) = V(f)$, so $\| DMf\|_{L^1(I)} \le |Df|(I)$.
Actually, the proof of Lemma \[vardec\] yields a slightly stronger result: Given $f$ and $Mf$ on $I$, and any subinterval $J\subset I$ such that the endpoints of $J$ belong to $\{Mf=f\}$, we have $V(Mf|_J)\le V(f|_J)$. That is, the variation fails to grow not only when considered over the whole interval, but also over a wide class of subintervals. The key to this reduction of the variation is the rather simple behaviour of $Mf$ on the components of the open set $\{Mf
> f\}$: If $(\alpha, \beta)$ is any such component, then either $Mf$ is monotone there, or there exists a $c$ in $(\alpha, \beta)$ such that $Mf$ is decreasing on $(\alpha, c)$ and increasing on $(c, \beta)$.
We recall the definitions of the space $BV(I)$ of integrable functions of bounded variation and of the Sobolev space $W^{1,1}(I)$.
Given the interval $I$, $$BV(I) := \{f:I\to \Bbb R| f\in L^1(I) \mbox{ and } |Df|(I) <\infty\},$$ and $$W^{1,1}(I) := \{f:I\to \Bbb R| f\in L^1(I), Df \mbox{ is a function, and } Df\in L^1(I)\}.$$
It is obvious that $W^{1,1}(I) \subset BV(I)$ and that the inclusion is proper. The Banach space $BV(I)$ is endowed with the norm $\|f\|_{BV(I)}:= \|f\|_{L^1(I)} + |Df|(I)$, and $ W^{1,1}(I),$ with the restriction of the $BV$ norm, i.e., $\|f\|_{W^{1,1}(I)}:=
\|f\|_{L^1(I)} + \|Df\|_{L^1(I)}$.
It is well known that for every $f\in L^1(I)$ and every $c > 0$, $c \lambda (\{Mf>c\}) \le 2 \|f\|_{L^1(I)}$, so by Theorem \[main\], the maximal operator satisfies a “mixed type" inequality on $BV(I)$, weak type for functions and strong type for their derivatives. Hence $M$ maps $BV(I)$ into the subspace of $L^{1,\infty}$ consisting of the functions whose distributional derivative is an integrable function. But if $I$ is bounded, something stronger can be said: $Mf$ maps boundedly $BV(I)$ into $W^{1,1}(I)$.
\[BVtoSob2\] Let $I$ be bounded. Then there exists a constant $c= c(I)$ such that for every $f\in BV(I)$, $Mf\in W^{1,1}(I)$ and $\|Mf\|_{W^{1,1}(I)}\le c \|f\|_{BV(I)}.$
By Sobolev embedding for $BV$ functions (cf. Corollary 3.49 p. 152 of [@AFP]), $\|f\|_\infty\le c(I) \|f\|_{BV(I)}$, so $$\|Mf\|_{L^1(I)}\le \lambda(I) \|f\|_\infty\le \lambda(I) c(I)
\|f\|_{BV(I)}.$$
After this article was completed, the authors were able to show (cf. [@AlPe], Theorem 2.7) that the local maximal operator $M_R$ is bounded from $BV(I)$ into $W^{1,1}(I)$ [*even*]{} if $I$ has infinite length; in addition, the bounds grow with $R$ as $O(\log
R)$.
Lemmas.
=======
Given $f:I\to \Bbb R$, define the upper derivative of $f$ as $$\overline{D}f(x)= \limsup_{h\to 0}\frac{f(x+h) - f(x)}{h}.$$
The next lemma is well known and we include it here for the reader’s convenience.
\[image\] Let $f:I\to \Bbb R$ be a continuous function, and let $E\subset \left\{x\in I: \left|\overline{D}f(x)\right| \le k\right\}$. Then $\lambda^*\left( f\left(E\right)\right) \le k\lambda^* E$.
We may assume that I is open. Fix $\varepsilon > 0$, and let $O\subset I$ be an open set with $E\subset O$ and $\lambda O \le
\lambda^* E +\varepsilon$. For each $x\in E$, pick $y$ so that the closed interval $I(x,y)$ is contained in $O$ and for every $z\in I(x,y)$, $\left|\frac{f(z) - f(x)}{z-x}\right| \le k + \varepsilon $. Then ${\mathcal V} :=\{I(x, z): x\in E, z\in I(x,y) \subset O\}$ is a covering of $E$ with $\lambda ( \cup{\mathcal V})\le \lambda O
\le \lambda^* E +\varepsilon$. By continuity of $f$, for every pair $\{x,z\}$ the set $f(I(x,z))$ is connected, hence an interval or a point. Let $C :=\{c\in {\Bbb R}: \mbox{ for some } I(x,z)\in {\mathcal V}, f(I(x,z))= c\}$. Suppose $c_1, c_2\in C$ and $c_1\ne c_2$. Then $f^{-1} (\{c_1\})$ and $f^{-1} (\{c_2\})$ are disjoint sets and each contains an interval, from which it follows that $C$ is at most countable. Now if $z\to x$ then $f(z)\to f(x)$, so the collection $f({\mathcal V^\prime}) :=\{f(I(x, z)):
I(x,z) \in{\mathcal V} \mbox{ and } f \mbox{ is not constant on } I(x,z)\}$ is a Vitali covering of $f(E) \setminus C$. Hence there is a disjoint subcollection $\{I_n\}$ of $f({\mathcal V^\prime})$ such that $\lambda^*\left(f( E)\setminus \cup_n I_{n})\right) = 0$. For each $n$, select $I(x_n, z_n)$ such that $f(I(x_n, y_n)) = I_n$. Then $$\lambda^*\left(f( E)\right) \le \sum_n \lambda (I_{n}) \le \sum_n (k+\varepsilon ) \lambda (I(x_{n}, y_n))\le (k +\varepsilon) \lambda O
\le ( k +\varepsilon) (\lambda^*E +\varepsilon) .$$
The following lemma is the direction we need of the Banach Zarecki Theorem (an “if and only if" result). It is an immediate consequence of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus for the Lebesgue integral, the a.e. differentiability of functions of bounded variation, and the preceding lemma.
\[BVAC\] Let $f:I\to \Bbb R$ be a continuous function of bounded variation. If $f$ maps measure zero sets into measure zero sets, then it is absolutely continuous.
Let $f:I\to \Bbb R$ be a function of bounded variation. Then $|f|$ is also of bounded variation, and $\left|D|f|\right|( I ) \le |Df|( I )$. Additionally, when studying the boundedness properties of the maximal function it makes no difference whether we consider $f$ or $|f|$. For notational simplicity we will often assume that $f\ge 0$.
The next two lemmas are likely to be well known, and small variants certainly are. But since we are not aware of any explicit written reference, we include them for completeness.
\[semicont\] The canonical representative $\overline{f}$ of a function of bounded variation $f:I\to \Bbb R$ is upper semicontinuous and of bounded variation. Furthermore, $\overline{f}$ minimizes the variation within the equivalence class of $f$.
Recall that a function $f$ of bounded variation (being the difference of two monotone functions) has left and right limits at every point. To see that $\overline{f}$ is upper semicontinuous, simply note that $\overline{f}(x)=\max \{\lim_{y\uparrow x}\overline{f}(y), \lim_{y\downarrow x}\overline{f}(y)\}$, so for every $x\in I$ and every sequence $\{x_n\}$ in $I$ converging to $x$, $\limsup_n\overline{f}(x_n)\le \overline{f} (x)$. And $V(\overline{f})\le V(f)$ follows immediately from the fact that $\overline{f} (x)$ satisfies the following two conditions: i) If $x$ is a point of continuity of $f$, then $\overline{f} (x) = f(x)$; ii) if $x$ is a point of discontinuity of $f$, then $\overline{f}(x)$ belongs to the closed interval determined by the extremes $\lim_{y\uparrow x}f(y)$ and $\lim_{y\downarrow x}f(y)$. Finally, it is quite obvious (or else, cf. Theorem 3.28, page 136 of [@AFP]) that on the equivalence class of $f$, $V$ achieves its minimum value at $g$ iff $g$ satisfies both conditions i) and ii) above.
Next, we consider balls associated to some norm in $\Bbb R^d$ and the corresponding maximal operator. In the local case $R$ will denote the diameter, in accordance with our one dimensional convention. While in this paper we only need the case $d=1$, we state the next result for arbitrary $d$, as it is likely to be useful in future work.
\[Mcont\] Let $f:\mathbb{R}^d\to [0,\infty]$ be locally integrable. If $f$ is upper semicontinuous at $w\in \mathbb{R}^d$ and $f(w)\le Mf(w)$, then $Mf$ is continuous at $w$. The same holds for $M_Rf$.
Since $Mf$ is lower semicontinuous, it suffices to prove the upper semicontinuity of $Mf$ at $w$. The idea is simply to note that if “large" balls are considered near $w$, increasing their radii a little so as to include $w$ cannot decrease the average by much, while if one is forced to consider arbitrarily small balls, then the fact that $\limsup_n f(x_n) \le f(w)$ whenever $x_n\to w$ leads to the same conclusion for $Mf$. More precisely, we show that given $\varepsilon >0$, there exists a $\delta >0$ such that for all $x \in B(w,\delta)$, $Mf(x) \le Mf(w)+\varepsilon$. Fix $k>>1$ such that $(1+1/k)^d Mf(w) \le Mf(w) +\varepsilon$, and choose $\tau >0$ with $f(y)\le f(w)+\varepsilon$ whenever $|y -w| <3\tau$. Set $\delta = \tau /k$, let $|x - w|<\delta$, and let $B(u,r)$ be a ball containing $x$. If $B(u,r)\subset \{f\le f(w) + \varepsilon\}$, then $$\frac{1}{\lambda (B(u,r))}\int_{B(u,r)} f(y)dy \le f(w)+\varepsilon \le Mf(w)+\varepsilon,$$ while if $B(u,r)\cap \{f\le f(w) + \varepsilon\}^c \ne \emptyset$, then $r>\tau$, and since $w\in B(u,r+\delta )$, we have $$\frac{1}{\lambda (B(u,r))}\int_{B(u,r)} f(y)dy
\le
\frac{\lambda (B(u, r+\delta ))}{\lambda (B(u,r))}
\frac{1}{\lambda (B(u,r+\delta ))}\int_{B(u,r+\delta )} f(y)dy$$ $$\le
\left(1 + \frac{\delta}{r}\right)^d Mf(w)
\le Mf(w) +\varepsilon.$$ In the case of $M_Rf$, if the large balls already have diameter $R$, instead of increasing the radii just translate the balls slightly. The easy details are omitted.
\[local\] Actually, we shall apply the preceding lemma to arbitrary intervals $I\subset \Bbb R$ and not just to $\Bbb R$. Nevertheless, the result is stated for $\Bbb R^d$ since when $d > 1$, there are connected and simply connected open sets $O\subset\Bbb R^d$ for which it fails, as we shall see. The difference stems from the fact that when working on $O$, the maximal function is defined by taking the supremum over balls contained in $O$. If $d = 1$, the proof of the lemma can be easily adapted to intervals. Alternatively, the result for $\Bbb R$ implies the general case as follows: Given $I\subset \Bbb R$, extend $f\ge 0$ to $\Bbb R$ by setting it equal to zero off $I$. This changes neither the upper semicontinuity of $f$ at points in $I$, nor the values of $Mf$ on $I$. Regarding the case $d > 1$, counterexamples already exist when $d = 2$. For convenience we use the $\ell_\infty$ norm $\|(x,y)\|_\infty =
\max\{|x|,|y|\}$ on $\Bbb R^2$, so balls will refer to the metric defined by $\|\cdot\|_\infty$. Let $O\subset
\Bbb R^2$ be the open set $(0,2)^2 \cup (0,3)\times (0,1)$. Define $f:=
\chi_{(0,1]^2}$ on $O$. Then $f$ is upper semicontinuous, $Mf\ge 1/4$ on $(0,2)^2$, $Mf = 0$ on $(2,3)\times (0,1)$ (so $Mf$ is not continuous), and $Mf\ge
f$ everywhere.
\[locmax\] Let $f:I\to [0,\infty)$ be an upper semicontinuous function such that for every $x\in I$, $f(x)\le Mf(x)$. Suppose there exists an interval $[a,b]\subset I$ with $\max \{Mf(x): x\in [a,b]\} >
\max\{Mf(a), Mf(b)\}$. If $c\in [a,b]$ is a point where $Mf$ achieves its maximum value on $[a,b]$, then $Mf(c) = f(c) =
\max_{x\in [a,b]} f(x)$. If either $f\in L^1(I)$ or we consider $M_Rf$ instead of $Mf$, then the same result holds under the following weaker assumption: $Mf$ (respectively $M_Rf$) achieves its maximum value on $[a,b]$ at some interior point, so $\max
\{Mf(x): x\in (a,b)\} \ge \max\{Mf(a), Mf(b)\}$ (respectively $\max
\{M_Rf(x): x\in (a,b)\} \ge \max\{M_Rf(a), M_Rf(b)\}$).
By Lemma \[Mcont\], $Mf$ is continuous. Suppose that $Mf(c) = \max \{Mf(x): x\in [a,b]\} > \max\{Mf(a), Mf(b)\}$. If $f(c) < Mf(c)$, by upper semicontinuity of $f$ there exists an open interval $J:=(c-\delta, c+\delta)$ such that if $x\in J$, then $f(x)<2^{-1}(f(c) +
Mf(c))$. Define $L(t) = \frac{1}{t}\int_{c-t}^c f$ on $[\delta ,c-a]$ and $R(x) = \frac{1}{x}\int_{c}^{c+x} f$ on $[\delta, b-c ]$. By continuity, there exist $t_0$ and $x_0$ maximizing $L$ and $R$ respectively. Since $Mf(c) > \max\{Mf(a), Mf(b)\}$, in order to evaluate $Mf(c)$ we only need to consider intervals properly contained in $[a,b]$, so $Mf(c) = \max\{L(t_0), R(x_0)\}$. Suppose without loss of generality that $L(t_0)\le R(x_0)$. Then $$Mf(c) = \frac{1}{x_0}\int_{c}^{c+x_0} f \le
\frac{1}{x_0}\left(\int_{c}^{c+\delta}2^{-1}(f(c) + Mf(c)) +\int_{c+ \delta}^{c+x_0} Mf(c)\right) < Mf(c),$$ a contradiction.
Suppose next that $M_Tf$ achieves its maximum value on $[a,b]$ at some interior point, so $\max \{M_Tf(x): x\in (a,b)\} \ge \max\{M_Tf(a),
M_Tf(b)\}$. Define $L$ on $[0,\min\{T, c-\ell (I)\}]$ and $R$ on $[0, \min\{T, c+r (I)\}]$ as above, and conclude that there exist $t_0$ and $x_0$ maximizing $L$ and $R$ respectively. Then argue as before. If $f\in L^1(I)$ we reason in the same way. Suppose for instance that $I=\Bbb R$. Then $\lim_{t\to \infty}L(t) =\lim_{x\to \infty}R(x) = 0$, so again there are points $t_0$ and $x_0$ maximizing $L$ and $R$. The case of bounded or semi-infinite intervals is easily handled, assuming, for instance, that finite extremes belong to $I$, and concluding as before that $t_0$ and $x_0$ exist.
\[equivalence\] Let $f:I\to [0,\infty)$ be of bounded variation. Then $V(\overline{f}) = |Df|(I)$.
This is well known, and it follows from [@AFP], Proposition 3.6 p. 120 together with Theorem 3.27 p.135 (making the obvious adjustments in the definitions, to take into account that we do not assume $f\in L^1(I)$).
In what follows we will distinguish between the points where one needs to consider arbitrarily small intervals to obtain the value of the maximal function, and those where the supremum is achieved by looking at intervals of length bounded below. Since at this stage we are not assuming that $f$ is integrable, it might happen that for some increasing sequence of intervals $I_n$ containing $x$, and for instance, with $I_n\uparrow I = [a,\infty)$, $Mf(x) > \frac{1}{\lambda (I_n)}\int_{I_n} f$ but $Mf(x) = \sup_n \frac{1}{\lambda (I_n)}\int_{I_n} f$. As a shorthand to describe this situation, we write $Mf(x) = \frac{1}{\lambda (I)}\int_{I} f$, and similarly for other intervals of infinite length. Now set $$E:= \left\{x\in \Bbb R:\mbox{ there exists an interval } I \mbox{ containing } x
\mbox{ such that } Mf (x)= \frac{1}{\lambda (I)}\int_I f\right\}.$$ In the remaining of this section we assume once and for all that $f = \overline{f}$ whenever $f$ is of bounded variation. Then the Lebesgue theorem on differentiation of integrals together with $0\le f = \overline{f}$, entail that $E^c\subset \{Mf = f\}$. Next, write $$E_n:= \left\{x\in \Bbb R: \mbox{ there exists an } I
\mbox{ such that } x\in I, Mf (x)= \frac{1}{\lambda (I)}\int_I f, \mbox{ and }
\lambda (I)\ge\frac{1}{n}\right\}.$$
If we are dealing with $M_Rf$, the sets $E$ and $E_n$ are defined as before save for the fact that we add the extra condition $\lambda (I) \le R$ (so for instance, if $R=1/2$, $E_1=\emptyset$). As usual, Lip$(g)$ denotes the Lipschitz constant of a Lipschitz function $g$.
\[Lip\] Let $f\in L^\infty (I)$. Then the restriction of $Mf$ to $E_n$ is Lipschitz, with [Lip]{}$(Mf) \le n \|f\|_\infty$. The same holds for $M_Rf$.
Fix $x, y\in E_n$. By symmetry, we may assume that $Mf(x) \ge Mf(y)$. By hypothesis, there exists a $J$ containing $x$ such that $\lambda (J)\ge\frac{1}{n}$ and $Mf (x)= \frac{1}{\lambda (J)}\int_J f$. Our notational convention allows $J$ to have infinite length, so we suppose first that $\lambda (J)<\infty$. Then $$\frac{Mf(x) - Mf(y)}{|x-y|}\le \frac{\frac{1}{\lambda (J)}\int_J f -
\frac{1}{\lambda (J) + |x-y|}\int_J f}{|x-y|}
= \frac{\frac{1}{\lambda (J)}\int_J f}{\lambda (J) + |x-y|}
\le \frac{\|f\|_\infty}{\lambda (J) +|x-y|}< n \|f\|_\infty.$$ The case $\lambda (J)=\infty$ is obtained by an easy approximation argument.
With respect to $M_R$, the reasoning is similar. Suppose that $x, y\in E_n$, with $x<y$. If $y -x \ge 1/n$, then $$\frac{|M_Rf(x) - M_Rf(y)|}{|x-y|}
\le \frac{\|f\|_\infty-0}{y-x}\le n \|f\|_\infty.$$ So assume that $y -x < 1/n$ and $M_Rf(x) > M_Rf(y)$ (the case $M_Rf(x) < M_Rf(y)$ is handled in the same way). By hypothesis there exists an interval $[a,b]$ containing $x$ such that $1/n \le b-a \le R$ and $$M_Rf (x)= \frac{1}{b-a}\int_a^b f.$$ Now if $y - a \le R$ we can repeat the argument given for $Mf$, so suppose $y - a >R$. Writing $c := R - b +a$, we have $$\frac{M_Rf(x) - M_Rf(y)}{y-x}\le \frac{\frac{1}{b-a}\int_a^b f -
\frac{1}{R}\int_{y-R}^y f}{y-x}
\le \frac{(b-a)\int_a^b f - (b-a)\int_{y-R}^b f + c \int_a^b f}{(y-x)(b-a) R}$$ $$\le \frac{(y-R-a)\|f\|_\infty + c \|f\|_\infty}{(y-x) R}
= \frac{y-b}{y-x}\frac{\|f\|_\infty}{R}\le n \|f\|_\infty.$$
\[vardec\] Let $f:I\to [0,\infty)$ be an upper semicontinuous function such that for every $x\in I$, $f(x)\le Mf(x)$. Then $V(Mf)\le V(f)$. In particular, $Mf$ is of bounded variation whenever $f$ is. The same results hold for $M_Rf$.
We show that $Mf$ varies no more than $f$ on $\{Mf>f\}$, and of course the same happens on $\{Mf>f\}^c = \{Mf=f\}$. Note that $\{Mf>f\}$ is open in $I$, since $Mf - f$ is lower semicontinuous, being the difference between a continuous and an upper semicontinuous function. Let $(\alpha,\beta )$ be any component of $\{Mf>f\}$ (here we can either assume directly that $I$ is open, or else consider as possible components intervals of the form $[\alpha,\beta )$ and $(\alpha,\beta ]$, which can be handled in the same way as we do below). We will see next that on $(\alpha,\beta)$, $Mf$ can only behave in one of two ways: Either $Mf$ is monotone, or there exists a $c \in (\alpha,\beta)$ such that $Mf$ decreases on $(\alpha,c)$ and increases on $(c,\beta)$. Suppose towards a contradiction that for some points $c_1, c_2, c_3$ with $\alpha < c_1< c_2< c_3 < \beta$ we have $Mf(c_1)< Mf(c_2)$ and $Mf(c_{3})< Mf(c_2)$. By changing $c_2$ if needed, and relabeling, we may assume that $Mf(c_2) =\max\{Mf(x): x\in [c_{1},c_3]\}.$ Then $c_2\in \{Mf>f\}$, and $
Mf(c_2) = f(c_2)
$ by Lemma \[locmax\]. The result for $M_Rf$ also follows from Lemma \[locmax\].
To show that $V(Mf)\le V(f)$, given an arbitrary partition $\{x_1,\dots ,x_L\}$ of $I$ we produce a refinement $\{y_1,\dots ,y_K\}$ such that $\sum_2^K |Mf(y_i) - Mf(y_{i-1})|
\le \sum_2^K |f(y_i) - f(y_{i-1})|$. We always assume that partitions are labeled in increasing order. Of course, if $\{x_1,\dots ,x_L\}\subset \{Mf= f\}$ there is nothing to do. Otherwise, for each $x_i\in \{Mf > f\}$ there is a unique component $(\alpha_i , \beta_i )$ which contains it. Add both endpoints $\alpha_i$ and $\beta_i$ to the partition. If $Mf$ is monotone on $(\alpha_i , \beta_i )$, we do not add any new points inside this interval. If $Mf$ is [*not*]{} monotone on $(\alpha_i , \beta_i )$, then there exists a $c_i \in (\alpha_i,\beta_i)$ such that $Mf$ decreases on $(\alpha_i,c_i)$, increases on $(c_i,\beta_i)$, and $Mf(c_i) < \min \{Mf(\alpha_i) ,Mf(\beta_i)\}$. If $c_i$ does not already belong to the original partition, include it in the refinement. The resulting finite collection $P:=\{y_1,\dots ,y_K\}$ has the desired property, as we shall see. First we study what happens in each $[\alpha_i , \beta_i ]$. For every pair $y_{i} < y_{i+k}$ of points of $P$ that are endpoints of some component $(\alpha_{j_i} , \beta_{j_i} )$ and contain one or more elements of $P$ between them, say $y_{i} < y_{i+1}<\dots < y_{i+k}$, either $Mf$ is monotone on that component, and then $$\sum_{j=i+1}^{i+k} |Mf(y_j) - Mf(y_{j-1})|
= |Mf(y_{i+k}) - Mf(y_{i})|$$ $$= |f(y_{i+k}) - f(y_{i})|
\le \sum_{j=i+1}^{i+k} |f(y_j) - f(y_{j-1})|,$$ or $Mf$ achieves its minimum value on $[y_{i}, y_{i+k}]$ at some intermediate $y_{i_m}$ and $Mf(y_{i_m}) < \min \{Mf(y_{i})
,Mf(y_{i+k})\}$. In this case $$\sum_{j=i+1}^{i+k} |Mf(y_j) - Mf(y_{j-1})|
= |Mf(y_{i+k}) - Mf(y_{i_m})| + |Mf(y_{i_m}) - Mf(y_{i})|$$ $$< |f(y_{i+k}) - f(y_{i_m})| + |f(y_{i_m}) - f(y_{i})|
\le \sum_{j=i+1}^{i+k} |f(y_j) - f(y_{j-1})|.$$ Finally, for each pair $\{y_i, y_{i+1}\}$ not already taken into account, we have $|Mf(y_{i+1}) -Mf(y_i)| = |f(y_{i+1}) -f(y_i)|$, so the conclusion follows.
Before proving the next lemma, we mention that on large parts of its domain $Mf$ is locally Lipschitz. Of course, matters would be considerably simpler if $Mf$ were locally Lipschitz at every point, but unfortunately this need not be the case, as the following example shows: Take $f(x) = (1-\sqrt x )\chi_{[0,1]}
(x)$ and note that $Mf$ fails to be locally Lipschitz at $0$.
\[nullimage\] Let $f:I\to \Bbb R$ be a function of bounded variation, and let $N$ be a set of measure zero. Then $\lambda\left(M f\left(N\right)\right) =0$. The same results hold for $M_Rf$.
Suppose $N$ has measure zero, and let $E_n$ and $E$ be the sets whose definition appears just before Lemma \[Lip\]. Since $E_n\uparrow E$, by Lemmas \[image\] and \[Lip\], for each $n = 1,2,\dots$, $\lambda (Mf(N\cap E_n)) = 0$, so $\lambda (Mf(N\cap E)) = 0$. Thus, we may assume that $N\subset E^c$, whence $N\subset \{Mf = f\}$. We are going to make further reductions on $N$. First, we remove from it all the intervals $I_\alpha$ where $Mf$ is constant; we can do that since $\lambda Mf(\cup_\alpha I_\alpha) =0$ by Lemma \[image\] (note that the difference between considering closed or open intervals is at most a countable set of endpoints, so the exact nature of the $I_\alpha$’s is of no consequence here). And second, we eliminate from $N\setminus \cup_\alpha I_\alpha$ a countable set in such a way that every remaining point is a point of accumulation. This can be done by a well known argument: Pick a countable base ${\mathcal B}$ of intervals, and let $\{I_j\}$ be the collection of all intervals in ${\mathcal B}$ for which $(N\setminus \cup_\alpha I_\alpha)\cap I_j$ is countable. Then $(N\setminus \cup_\alpha I_\alpha)\setminus \cup_jI_j$ has the desired property. For the usual reason of notational simplicity, we use $N$ again to denote this thinner set.
Now we are ready to suppose, towards a contradiction, that $\lambda^* Mf (N) > 0$. Write $8c:= \lambda^* Mf (N)$. We show that for every finite sequence of distinct real numbers $\{x_1,\dots ,x_L\}$ in $I$, labeled in (strictly) increasing order, there is a refinement $\{y_1,\dots ,y_K\}$ in $I$ with $y_1 < y_2 <\dots <\ y_K$ and $\sum_2^L |f(x_i) - f(x_{i-1})| + c < \sum_2^K |f(y_i) - f(y_{i-1})|$. This contradicts the fact that $f$ is of bounded variation.
The final partition will be produced in several stages, so at any step in the argument, we use $P$ to denote the partition already at hand, and $P^\prime$ the immediate refinement obtained in that step. So $P$ will denote different partitions at different stages, and the same happens with $P^\prime$.
By adding more points if needed, and relabeling in increasing order, we may assume that “a large part" of $N$ is contained between the first and the last points of the partition (call them $A$ and $B$ respectively). By this we mean that $7 c< \lambda^* Mf (N\cap [A,B])$. Again we use $N$ to denote the null set $N\cap (A,B)$, and $\{x_1,\dots ,x_L\}$ to denote the points of the new partition.
When we say that an interval $J$ is determined by $P$ we mean that its extremes are consecutive points in $P$. Let $I_1$ be the first (according to the real ordering) of the open intervals determined by $P:=\{x_1,\dots ,x_L\}$ such that $\lambda^* Mf (N\cap I_1) > 0$, and let $x_{i_1} < x_{i_1 + 1}$ be the endpoints of this interval. For each $x\in N\cap I_1$ and $n\in \Bbb N$ pick $y_n\in N\cap I_1$ such that $\lim_n y_n =x$ and $|x-y_n| < 2^{-1} d(x_{i_1+1},I(x, y_n))$ (where $d$ stands for distance, and $I(x, y_n)$ for the [*compact*]{} interval with extremes $x$ and $y_n$). In the case of $M_Rf$ we additionally require that for every $x$ and every $y_n$ in its associated sequence $\{y_n\}_{n=0}^\infty$, $2 |x-y_n| < R$. Since $Mf$ is continuous and nonconstant in all of those intervals, $Mf(I(x, y_n))$ is a nondegenerate compact interval and $\lim_n \lambda
\left(Mf(I(x, y_n))\right) = 0$. Thus the collection ${\mathcal V} :=\{Mf(I(x, y_n)): x\in N, n\in{\mathbb N} \}$ is a Vitali covering of $Mf(N\cap I_1)$. Furthermore, if $J$ is the closed interval with the same left endpoint as $I(x, y_n)$ and twice its length, then $J\subset I_1$. Select a finite, disjoint subcollection $\{S_1,\dots ,S_{R}\}$ from ${\mathcal V}$, such that $$\label{size}
\lambda^*\left(Mf(N\cap I_1)
\setminus (S_{1}\cup\dots \cup S_{R})\right) < 7^{-1}\lambda^* Mf(N\cap I_1).$$ For each $i= 1, \dots , R$ pick $J_i\in \{I(x, y_n): x\in N\cap I_1, n\in{\mathbb N} \}$ with $Mf(J_i) = S_i$.
Without loss of generality, suppose that $f(x_{i_1})\le f(x_{i_1+1})$. Adding a finite number of points between $x_{i_1}$ and $x_{i_1+1}$ to the original partition $P$ does not increase the variation if $f$ is behaving monotonically there. Thus, our strategy consists in selecting new points so that “broken line configurations" are obtained sufficiently often.
We consider two cases. In the first, the increase in the variation is obtained by adding to the original partition the endpoints of suitable intervals, and either one or two points inside each such interval. In the second, we add the endpoints of intervals not considered in case 1, together with either one point [*outside*]{} each such interval (but close to it), or no additional point.
Note that $f$ and $Mf$ take the same values on the endpoints of the intervals $J_i$, since $\ell (J_i), r (J_i)\in N$ for every $i= 1, \dots , R$.
[*Case 1.*]{} Call an interval $J_i$ of type A if $|Mf(r(J_{i})) - Mf(\ell(J_{i}))| >
2^{-1} \lambda S_{i}$ and there exists a $c_i\in J_{i}$ with $f(c_i) < \min\{f(\ell
(J_{i})), f(r (J_{i}))\} - 2^{-1}|f(r (J_{i})) - f(\ell (J_{i}))|$. Note that if we have any partition $P$ with consecutive points $a<b$ and $J_i\subset (a,b)$, then adding $\ell (J_{i}), c_i$ and $r (J_{i})$ to $P$ leads to $V(f,P) +
\frac12 \lambda Mf(J_i) < V(f, P^\prime)$ (where $P^\prime$ is the refinement so obtained), regardless of the values of $f(a)$ and $f(b)$.
We say that $J_i$ is of type B if $|Mf(r(J_{i})) - Mf(\ell(J_{i}))| \le 2^{-1} \lambda S_{i}$. Suppose in this case that $Mf|_{J_{i}}$ achieves its extreme values at $m_1,m_2\in J_{i}$, with $m_1<m_2$. We add the distinct elements in $\{\ell (J_{i}), m_1, m_2,r(J_{i})\}$ to $P$, obtaining $P^\prime$ (it may happen that either $\ell (J_{i})= m_1$ or $m_2= r(J_{i})$, but not both, so $P^\prime$ contains either $3$ or $4$ points more than $P$). Note that $\lambda S_{i}=|Mf(m_{2}) - Mf(m_{1})| \le
|f(m_{2}) - f(m_{1})|$, since where the maximum of $Mf$ occurs, $Mf$ and $f$ take the same value (by Lemma \[locmax\] if the corresponding $m_i$ is an interior point, and by $N\subset \{Mf=f\}$ otherwise) while $f\le Mf$ always. As before, for some pair of consecutive points $a<b$ in $P$ we have $J_i\subset (a,b)$. It is again clear that no matter what the positions of $f(\ell (J_{i})), f(m_1), f(m_2),$ and $f(r(J_{i}))$ are relative to $f(a)$ and $f(b)$, we always have $V(f,P) +
\frac12 \lambda Mf(J_i) \le V(f, P^\prime)$.
Suppose now that the collection of intervals $J_{i_j}$ of type either A or B satisfies $\sum_j \lambda S_{i_j} \ge 3^{-1} \sum_{i=1}^R\lambda S_{i}$. Adding to the initial partition all their endpoints and the interior points corresponding to each case we get $$V(f,P) +
\frac{1}{6}\sum^R_1 \lambda S_i \le
V(f,P^\prime).$$
[*Case 2.*]{} If the case previously considered does not hold, then the set of intervals $J_{i_j}$ such that $|f(r(J_{i_j})) - f(\ell(J_{i_j}))| > 2^{-1} \lambda S_{i_j}$ and for all $z\in J_{i_j}$, $f(z) \ge \min\{f(\ell (J_{i_j})), f(r (J_{i_j}))\} -
2^{-1}|f(r (J_{i_j})) - f(\ell (J_{i_j}))|$, satisfies $\sum_j \lambda S_{i_j} > \frac2{3} \sum_{i=1}^R\lambda S_{i}$. Call $J_{i_j}$ order preserving if $f(\ell(J_{i_j}))< f(r(J_{i_j}))$ and order reversing if $f(\ell(J_{i_j}))> f(r(J_{i_j}))$. We consider two subcases. In the first, the subcollection of order reversing intervals, which we rename as $\{A_{1}, \dots , A_{Q}\}$ is large: $\sum_{j=1}^Q \lambda Mf(A_{j}) >
\frac1{3} \sum_{i=1}^R\lambda S_{i}$. We add the points $\{\ell( A_{1}),r(A_{1}) \dots ,\ell (A_{Q}), r(A_{Q})\}$ to the partition $P$ and note that with this refinement the variation increases by more than $\frac{1}{3}\sum^R_1 \lambda S_i$. In the second subcase, the subcollection of order preserving intervals, which again we denote by $\{A_{1}, \dots , A_{Q}\}$, satisfies $\sum_{j=1}^Q \lambda Mf(A_{j}) >
\frac1{3} \sum_{i=1}^R\lambda S_{i}$. Since for every $w\in A_{1}$, $f(w)
\ge f(\ell (A_{1})) - (f(r (A_{1})) - f(\ell (A_{1})))/2$, there exists a $c_1\in [r(A_{1}), 2r(A_{1}) - \ell (A_{1})]$ such that $f(c_1) < (f(r(A_{1})) + f(\ell (A_{1})))/2$. Otherwise, we would have that $$f(\ell (A_{1})) \le
\frac{1}{2(r (A_{1})-\ell (A_{1}))}
\int_{\ell (A_{1})}^{2 r (A_{1})-\ell (A_{1})} f,$$ contradicting the assumption that $N\subset E^c$. Recall that $2r(A_{1}) - \ell(A_{1}) < x_{i_1 + 1}$, so $c_1\in I_1$. Add $\ell (A_{1}), r (A_{1})$, and $c_1$ to $P$, together with the endpoints of all intervals $\{A_{2},\dots ,A_{{n(1)}}\}\subset \{A_{1}, \dots , A_{Q}\}$ contained in $[r(A_1), c_1]$ (if there is any). Then $$\label{mingle}
V(f,P) + \frac12 \lambda Mf( A_{1}) +
\sum_2^{n(1)}\lambda Mf( A_{s}) < V(f, P^\prime).$$ Go to the next $A_{q}$ not already considered and repeat the process, relabeling the points in increasing order if needed. It may happen that $\ell (A_{q}) < c_1 < r(A_{q})$, so $\ell (A_{q})$ is added to the left of the point $c_1$, already in the partition. But this does not harm any estimate, since the intervals $Mf(A_1)$ and $Mf(A_q)$ are disjoint: If $Mf(A_q)$ lies below $Mf(A_1)$, by considering the points $\ell (A_{1}), r (A_{1})$ and $\ell (A_{q})$ it is easily seen that the summand $\frac12 \lambda Mf( A_{1})$ in (\[mingle\]) can be replaced by $\lambda Mf(
A_{1})$, while if $Mf(A_q)$ lies above $Mf(A_1)$, then it is more advantageous, from the viewpoint of guaranteeing the increase in the variation, to have $\ell
(A_{q}) < c_1$ instead of $c_1<\ell (A_{q})$. After a finite number of steps the list $\{A_{1}, \dots , A_{Q}\}$ is exhausted, and we get $$V(f,P) + \frac16
\sum_1^{R}\lambda S_{j} < V(f,P) + \frac12
\sum_1^{Q}\lambda Mf( A_{j}) < V(f, P^\prime).$$
So regardless of whether we are in case 1 or case 2, by (\[size\]) we always obtain a new partition $P^\prime$ of with $$V(f, P) +
\frac{1}{7}\lambda^* Mf (N\cap I_1) <
V(f, P^\prime).$$
Since all the points in $P^\prime\setminus P$ have been chosen within $I_1$, we can repeat the argument with every other interval $J$ determined by the first partition $\{x_1,\dots ,x_L\}$, for which $\lambda^* Mf (N\cap J) > 0$. In this way, a refinement $\{y_1,\dots ,y_K\}$ of $\{x_1,\dots ,x_L\}$ is produced, such that $$\sum_2^L |f(x_i) - f(x_{i-1})| + c < \sum_2^K |f(y_i) - f(y_{i-1})|.$$
examples.
=========
This section presents several examples in order to illustrate some of the issues involved and why different assumptions in the preceding results are needed.
[*There exists an upper semicontinuous function $f$ (with unbounded variation) such that $Mf$ is not continuous.*]{}
[*Proof:*]{} Let $f$ be the characteristic function of the closed set $\{0\}\cup \bigcup_{n=0}^\infty [3/2^{n+2}, 1/2^n]$. Then $Mf(0)\le 1/2$ while $\limsup_{x\to 0} Mf(x) =1 $, so $Mf$ is discontinuous at $0$.
This example shows that the hypothesis $f(w) \le Mf(w)$ in Lemma \[Mcont\] is necessary. We also mention that the canonical representative of $f$ is not upper semicontinuous even though $f$ is.
In the next example we will follow the convention of identifying a set with its characteristic function, thereby using the same symbol to denote both.
\[cantor\] [*There exists a bounded, upper semicontinuous function $f$ with compact support (and unbounded variation) such that $Mf$ is not differentiable on a set of positive measure. In particular, $Mf$ is not of bounded variation.*]{}
[*Proof:*]{} We shall show that there exists a fat Cantor set $C$ such that $MC$ is not differentiable at any point of $C\cap \{MC
=1\}$. By a Cantor set $C$ we mean an extremely disconnected compact set such that all its points are points of accumulation. Since $C$ is closed, its characteristic function $C$ is upper semicontinuous, and obviously of unbounded variation. Note that $MC(x) =1$ for almost every $x\in C$, so if $MC$ is differentiable at any such $x$, we must have $DMC(x) = 0$. If fact, $C$ will be chosen so that on $C\cap
\{MC =1\}$ the difference quotients diverge in modulus to infinity.
By fat we mean of positive measure. We shall construct $C\subset [0,1]$ so that $\lambda C > 2/3$. The main difference with the usual Cantor set is that instead of removing the “central part" of every interval at each stage, we remove several parts. Let $F_0 = [0,1]$ and let $F_n$ be the finite union of closed subintervals of $[0,1]$ obtained at step $n$ of the construction, to be described below. As usual $C:= \cap _n F_n$. Obviously $MC \le MF_n$; the function $MF_n$ is the one we will actually estimate. At stage $n$ we remove the proportion $2^{-2n}$ of mass from the preceding set, i.e., $\lambda F_n =
(1-2^{-2n}) \lambda F_{n-1}$, so $\lambda F_{1} = 3/4$, $\lambda F_{2}= 45/64$, et cetera. Then $\lambda C = \lim_n \lambda F_{n} =1 - \lim_n \lambda F_{n}^c
> 1 - \sum_{n=1}^\infty 2^{-2n} = 2/3$. Next we ensure that for each $n$ “mass" and “gaps" are sufficiently mixed. Let $I_{n-1}$ be a component of $F_{n-1}$. Subdivide $I_{n-1}$ using the $2^{2n} +
1$ equally spaced points $\ell (I_{n-1}) = x_1, x_2, \dots
,x_{2^{2n}+1}= r(I_{n-1})$, and then remove the $2^{2n} +1$ open intervals $O(n, x_{i})$ of length $2^{-4n}\lambda I_{n-1}$, centered at each $x_i$, noting that the first and last intervals deleted lead only to a decrease in mass of $2^{-4n-1} \lambda I_{n-1}$ each. Do the same with the other components of $F_{n-1}$ to obtain $F_n$. Then all subintervals left have the same length. Clearly, the largest average at the points $x_i$ is obtained by considering intervals as large as possible but without intersecting any other deleted interval $O$, so $$MF_n (x_i) \le \frac{2^{-2n}
\lambda I_{n-1} - 2^{-4n} \lambda I_{n-1}}{(2^{-2n} - 2^{-4n -1}) \lambda
I_{n-1}} < 1-2^{-2n-1}.$$ Fix $z\in C\cap \{MC =1\}$. For each $n$, let $I_{n,z}$ be the component of $F_n$ that contains $z$, and let $w_n$ be midpoint of the nearest interval $O(n)$ deleted at step $n$ (if there are two such midpoints, pick any). Then $|z - w_n|< 2^{-n(n+1)}$, since the number of components of the set $F_n$ is $\prod_{i=1}^n 2^{2i}= 2^{n(n+1)}$. Therefore $$\limsup_{w\to z} \left|\frac{MC(z) - MC(w)}{z-w}\right| \ge
\limsup_{n\to \infty} \frac{1 - MC(w_n)}{|z-w_n|}
\ge \lim_{n\to \infty} \frac{2^{-2n-1}}{2^{-n(n+1)}}
= \infty.$$
At present it is not clear to us how $Mf$ behaves in higher dimensions. This was asked in [@HaOn] for $W^{1,1}(\Bbb R^d)$ (Question 1, p. 169). Note that when $d>1$, a function $f$ of bounded variation need no longer be bounded, it may not have an upper semicontinuous representative, and $Mf$ may fail to be continuous even if $f$ is bounded, of bounded variation, and upper semicontinuous, as the next example shows. Furthermore the equivalence between the pointwise variation $V(g)$ of a function g and the size $|Dg| (\Bbb R^d)$ of its distributional derivative no longer holds; in fact $V(g)$ is essentially a one dimensional object, and there is no corresponding notion for $d>1$. All of this means that even if the results in dimension one continue to hold when $d >1$, no straightforward extension of the arguments presented here is possible.
[*There exists a bounded upper semicontinuous function $f\in
BV(\Bbb R^2)$ such that $Mf$ is not continuous.*]{}
[*Proof:*]{} Let $f$ be the characteristic function of the closed triangle with vertices at $(0,0), (1,2)$, and $(2,1)$. Then it is easy to check that the noncentered maximal function associated to any $\ell_p$ ball has a point of discontinuity at the origin. The same happens if we consider the (noncentered) strong maximal operator (where averages are taken over rectangles with sides parallel to the coordinate axes).
Standard applications of the maximal function in the context of $L^p$ spaces, for $p>1$, use the fact that $Mf$ dominates $|f|$ pointwise, and hence in norm, but the norm of $Mf$ is not much larger than that of $f$. While the latter fact is still true in Sobolev spaces by Kinnunen’s theorem, $Mf$ may fail to control $f$ in norm, as the next example shows. This points out to the fact that applications of $Mf$ in the theory of Sobolev spaces will tend to differ from the usual ones in $L^p$. One such application, explored below, consists in trying to replace $Df$ by $DMf$ in inequalities involving a function and its derivatives. Here having a smaller norm may in fact be advantageous.
[*For $1\le p\le \infty$ there exists an $f\in W^{1,p}((0,1))$ such that $\|Mf\|_{ W^{1,p}((0,1))}<\|f\|_{ W^{1,p}((0,1))}$.*]{}
[*Proof:*]{} Let $N>>1$, set $f(x) = 1$ for $x\in (0, 2^{-1} - N^{-1})\cup (2^{-1} + N^{-1},1)$, $f( 2^{-1})=0$, and extend $f$ piecewise linearly to a continuous function on $(0,1)$. Then $f$ works as advertised, since $Mf$ is “close to being constant" (more precisely, $Mf$ is constant save on the middle interval of length $2 N^{-1}$, where it is Lipschitz: Lip$(Mf) \le \frac{1}{2^{-1} - N^{-1}}$ by Lemma \[Lip\]) and $\|Mf - f\|_p$ is close to zero for $1\le p <\infty$ (making $N$ depend on $p$), while $\|Mf - f\|_\infty < 1$.
The preceding example can easily be modified to obtain the same result in $ W^{1,p}(\Bbb R)$ for $p>1$. Also, by fixing $p$ and letting $N$ go to infinity, one obtains a sequence $\{f_N\}$ with $\|Mf_N\|_{ W^{1,p}}\le c <\infty$ and $\|f_N\|_{
W^{1,p}}\uparrow\infty$. So there is no uniform domination of $f_N$ by $Mf_N$, even up to a constant.
Applications.
=============
While the maximal function is a tool of every day use within the real variable methods in harmonic analysis, its importance in the theory of differential equations and Sobolev spaces has been considerably smaller. This may start to change as the regularity properties of the maximal function are being uncovered. Here we use our main result to prove inequalities involving derivatives under less regularity, a novel kind of application. It is convenient in the context of Landau’s inequality to adopt the convention $\infty
\cdot 0 = \infty$, (otherwise if $u$ is unbounded and $u'$ is constant, the right hand side of the inequality below is undefined). For the real line, the sharp Landau inequality states that given an absolutely continuous function $u^\prime$, $$\|u'\|_\infty^2\le 2\|u\|_\infty\|u''\|_\infty.$$
Nowadays Landau’s inequality (later generalized by Kolmogorov by considering higher order derivatives) can be regarded, save for the issue of best constants, as a special case of the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequalities. Pointwise estimates in Landau’s (and Kolmogorov’s) inequality involving the maximal function or some variant of it are known, cf. [@Ka], [@MaSh1], and [@MaSh2]. Here we present a norm inequality, involving the derivative of the maximal function rather than the maximal function of the derivative. As usual, $f^\prime$ denotes the pointwise derivative of a function $f$, while $f^+:=\max\{f,0\}$ and $f^-:=
\max\{-f,0\}$ stand for its positive and negative part respectively. We shall use $f^\prime$ and $Df$ indistinctly when $f$ is absolutely continuous. Note that $Mf$ may be constant even if $f$ is bounded, nonnegative, and not constant.
\[Land\] Let $I$ be an interval with infinite length, and let $u:I\to \mathbb{R}$ be an absolutely continuous function such that $V(u')< \infty$. Then $$\label{landau}
\|u'\|_\infty^2 \le 48 \|u\|_\infty \left( \|DM(u'^+)\|_\infty +
\|DM(u'^-)\|_\infty\right).$$ If $I =\mathbb{R}$, then $$\label{landaur}
\|u'\|_\infty^2 \le 24 \|u\|_\infty \left( \|DM(u'^+)\|_\infty +
\|DM(u'^-)\|_\infty\right).$$
Suppose $I$ has infinite length, $\|u\|_\infty<\infty$, and $\|u'\|_\infty>0$. We claim that for every $t>0$, $$\label{landauprin}
\|u'\|_\infty \le \max\left\{\frac{8}{t}\|u\|_\infty,
6t\left(\|DM(u'^+)\|_\infty+\|DM(u'^-)\|_\infty\right)\right\}.$$ It follows, by letting $t\to\infty$, that $\|DM(u'^+)\|_\infty+\|DM(u'^-)\|_\infty>0$. Setting $$t=\left(\frac{4\|u\|_\infty}{3(\|DM(u'^+)\|_\infty+\|DM(u'^-)\|_\infty)}\right)^{\frac12},$$ we obtain (\[landau\]).
To prove the claim we distinguish two cases, depending on which term of the right hand side controls the left hand side. We may assume that $I$ is closed (otherwise we just extend $u$ to the closure of $I$ using uniform continuity). Fix $t>0$ and $\alpha\in (5/6,1)$. Select $x_0 \in I$ such that $\max\{M(u'^+)(x_0),M(u'^-)(x_0)\} \ge \alpha \|u'\|_\infty$. Without loss of generality we may assume that $ M(u'^+)(x_0)\ge \alpha \|u'\|_\infty.$
[*Case 1.*]{} Suppose there exists a $y \in [x_0-t,x_0+t]\cap I$ such that $M(u'^+)(y) \le \frac{5}{6} \|u'\|_\infty$. By Theorem \[main\], $M(u'^+)$ is absolutely continuous, so $$|M(u'^+)(x_0)-M(u'^+)(y)| = \left|\int_{I(x_0,y)} DM(u'^+)\right|\le
\|DM(u'^+)\|_\infty|x_0-y|.$$ Hence we have $$\label{landau1}
\|DM(u'^+)\|_\infty \ge \left|
\frac{M(u'^+)(x_0)-M(u'^+)(y)}{x_0-y}\right|\ge
\frac{(\alpha-5/6)\|u'\|_\infty}{t}.$$ [*Case 2.*]{} For all $y \in [x_0-t,x_0+t]\cap I$ we have $M(u'^+)(y)>\frac{5}{6}\|u'\|_\infty$, so there exist $a,b\in\Bbb R$ with $a < y < b$ such that $$\frac{1}{\lambda (I\cap (a,b))}\int_{I\cap (a,b)} u'^+ \ge \frac{5}{6} \|u'\|_\infty.$$ Write $I_y:= I\cap (a,b)$ (of course, $a$ and $b$ depend on $y$). Then $$\lambda(I_y\cap\{ u'^+=0\})\le \frac{1}{6}\lambda(I_y).$$ Now $\{I_y: y\in [x_0-t,x_0+t]\cap I\}$ is (in the subspace topology of $I$) an open cover of the compact interval $[x_0-t,x_0+t]\cap I$, so the latter set has a finite subcover $\{I_1, I_2,\ldots,I_N\}$. By further refining the collection, if needed, we may assume that for every $x \in \cup_1^N I_i$, $$1\le \sum_{i=1}^N \chi_{I_i}(x) \le 2$$ (if a point belongs to three intervals, at least one of them is contained in the union of the other two, so discard it). Then $$\begin{gathered}
\label{landau6}
2\|u\|_\infty \ge \int_{\cup_1^N I_i}
u' = \int_{\cup_1^N I_i} u'^+-\int_{\cup_1^N I_i}u'^-
\ge
\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^N\int_{I_i}u'^+
-\sum_{i=1}^N\int_{I_i}u'^-\\
\ge \sum_{i=1}^N\left(\frac{5}{12}\lambda\left(I_i\right)-
\lambda\left(I_i\cap \{ u'^+=0\}\right)\right)\|u'\|_\infty
\ge \frac{1}{4}\|u'\|_\infty
\sum_{i=1}^N\lambda(I_i)\\
\ge
\frac{1}{4}\|u'\|_\infty
\lambda(\cup_1^N I_i)\ge \|u'\|_\infty
\frac{t}{4}.
\end{gathered}$$ To obtain (\[landauprin\]), put together (\[landau1\]) and (\[landau6\]); then let $\alpha\to 1$.
If $I=\Bbb R$, the same argument yields $ \|u'\|_\infty
\frac{t}{2}$, instead of $\|u'\|_\infty
\frac{t}{4}$, as the rightmost term in (\[landau6\]). It is easy to check that this in turn gives (\[landaur\]).
For completeness, we state the corresponding result when $I$ is bounded. In this case (\[landauprin\]) is replaced by $$\|u'\|_\infty \le \max\left\{\frac{8}{\min\{\lambda(I),t\}}\|u\|_\infty,
6t\left(\|DM(u'^+)\|_\infty+\|DM(u'^-)\|_\infty\right)\right\}$$ for every $t>0$. Hence we obtain the following
Let $I$ be a bounded interval, and let $u:I\to \mathbb{R}$ be an absolutely continuous function such that $V(u')< \infty$. If $$\lambda(I)\ge
\sqrt{\frac{4\|u\|_\infty}{3(\|DM(u'^+)\|_\infty+\|DM(u'^-)\|_\infty)}},$$ we have $$\|u'\|_\infty^2 \le 48 \|u\|_\infty \left( \|DM(u'^+)\|_\infty +
\|DM(u'^-)\|_\infty\right),$$ while if $$\lambda(I) <
\sqrt{\frac{4\|u\|_\infty}{3(\|DM(u'^+)\|_\infty+\|DM(u'^-)\|_\infty)}},$$ we get the estimate $$\|u'\|_\infty \le \frac{8}{\lambda(I)}\|u\|_\infty.$$
Working with $DMf$ rather than with $MDf$ may lead to much better bounds, as it happens in the following example. Let $f: \Bbb
R\to\Bbb R$ be the characteristic function of $[0,1]$. Then $f^\prime = 0$ a.e. and $Df = \delta_0 -\delta_{1}$, so $|Df|(\Bbb
R) = 2$. It is easy to check that $Mf (x) = x^{-1}$ if $x\ge 1$, $Mf
(x) = 1$ if $0\le x\le 1$, and $Mf (x) = (1-x)^{-1}$ if $x\le 0$, so $Mf$ is not just Lipschitz, but even better: $DMf\in BV(\Bbb R)$. As a side remark, we mention that for this $f$ we have $|Df|(\Bbb R) =
\|DM(f)\|_{L^1(\mathbb{R})} $, so the inequality in Theorem \[main\] is sharp for $\mathbb{R}$, and in fact, for every other interval $I$: While equality is only achieved on the real line, the constant $1$ can never be improved, as can be seen by considering the characteristic function of a subinterval $J\subset I$, and then letting $J$ shrink to a point in the interior of $I$.
Now, taking $F(x):= \int_{-\infty}^y f(x) dx$, a classical Landau inequality $(p=\infty)$ for $F$, $F^\prime$ and $F^{\prime\prime}$ would fail, since $\|F^{\prime\prime}\|_\infty =0$. Replacing $F^{\prime\prime}$ by $DF^\prime$ does not help either, as $\|DF^\prime\|_\infty$ makes no sense, and a natural definition using regularizations would lead to $\|DF^\prime\|_\infty=\infty$ (in which case the inequality would be true but not useful).
Trying to extend to the setting of functions of bounded variation, the pointwise, maximal function versions of Landau’s inequality due to Agnieszka Kałamajska, and independently to Vladimir Maz'ya and Tatyana Shaposhnikova, would face a similar difficulty: If the distributional derivative has a singular part, i.e., if the function is of bounded variation but not absolutely continuous, then its maximal function will blow up somewhere. In the example we are considering, it is easy to see that $M |DF^\prime|(x)
\ge \max\{|x|^{-1}, |x-1|^{-1}\}$.
Even ignoring regularity issues and replacing $f$ with mollified versions of it, or piecewise linear continuous variants, the bounds obtained by considering $DMF^\prime$ instead of $M |DF^\prime|$ are distinctly better: Let $f_n=1 $ on $ [0,1]$, $f_n=0$ on $(-\infty, -n^{-1})\cup (1+ n^{-1},\infty)$, and extend $f_n$ linearly in each of the two remaining intervals, so that $f_n$ is continuous. Now $\|f_n\|_\infty =1$ and Theorem \[Land\] does indeed give a bound uniform in $n$. However, the bounds obtained via the classical Landau inequality deteriorate as $n\to \infty$, and the same happens on small neighborhoods of $0$ and $1$ with pointwise inequalities using $Mf_n^\prime$.
While the function $F$ above is bounded, it is not integrable. To obtain a similar example in $L^1\cap L^\infty$, let $g(x):= f(x)-f(x-1)$ and let $G(y):=\int_{-\infty}^y g(x) dx$. For a continuous example, with singular (and continuous, as a measure) distributional derivative, let $f$ be the standard Cantor function on $[0,1]$, defined using the Cantor “middle third" set $C$. We extend it to $\Bbb R$, first by setting $f(x) = 0$ if $x<0$ and $f(x) = 1$ if $1\le x\le 3/2$. Then reflect about the axis $x=3/2$. Now let $g(x) := f(x) - f(x-3)$. Then $G(y):=\int_{-\infty}^y g(x)
dx$ belongs to $L^1\cap L^\infty$, and, applying the notation of Lemma \[Lip\] to $M(g_+)$, it is clear that $\Bbb R\subset E_1$, so $\|DMg_+\|_\infty \le 1$, and the same happens with $M(g_-)$. Thus, $\|DM(g_+)\|_\infty + \|DM(g_-)\|_\infty \le 2$ and once more we obtain a finite bound on the right hand side of inequality (\[landaur\]).
It is natural to enquire whether for some constant $c$ the simpler inequality $$\label{landaufalse}
\|u'\|_\infty\le c\|u\|_\infty\|DM(u')\|_\infty$$ holds. Fix $c > 0$ and select $N\in \mathbb{N}$ such that $1> c/N$. For $k=0,\ldots,N-1$, set $u'=1$ on the intervals $(k/N,(2k+1)/(2N)]$, $u'=-1$ on the intervals $((2k+1)/(2N),(k+1)/N]$, and $u'=0$ off $(0,1]$. Then $\|u'\|_\infty=1$, $\|u\|_\infty=1/2N$, and $|u'|=\chi_{(0,1]}$, so $\|DM(u')\|_\infty=1$. Thus, (\[landaufalse\]) fails.
\[class\] As indicated in the introduction, inequality (\[landau\]) implies Landau’s, though not with the sharp constant (in fact, the constant is not even close; the point of course is that (\[landau\]) can yield nontrivial bounds for some non-Lipschitz, even discontinuous $u'$).
Kinnunen showed that for $f\in W^{1,\infty}({\Bbb R^d})$, $\|DMf\|_\infty \le \|Df\|_\infty$ (cf. [@Ki], pages 120 and 121). The same holds for Lipschitz functions on $I\subset \Bbb R$, as we note in the next theorem. While the argument is basically the same, formally this theorem does not follow from Kinnunen’s result since we are considering also the local case $I\ne \Bbb R$. So we include the proof. Now we have that if $u'$ is absolutely continuous on an unbounded interval $I$ and $\|Du'\|_\infty < \infty$, then $\|DM(u'^+)\|_\infty + \|DM(u'^-)\|_\infty \le
\|D u'^+\|_\infty + \|D u'^-\|_\infty \le
2\|D u'\|_\infty$, so by (\[landau\]), $\|u'\|_\infty\le 96 \|u\|_\infty\|Du'\|_\infty$.
If $f:I\to \Bbb R$ is Lipschitz, then so is $Mf$, and $\operatorname{Lip}(Mf) \le \operatorname{Lip}(f)$, or equivalently $\|DMf\|_\infty \le \|Df\|_\infty$. The same holds for $M_Rf$.
Select $x, y\in I$, and let $f\ge 0$. Suppose $Mf(x) > Mf(y)$ and $x<y$ (in the case $x >y$ the argument is entirely analogous). If $Mf(x) =f(x)$, then $|Mf(x) - Mf(y)|\le |f(x) - f(y)|\le \operatorname{Lip} (f) |x - y|$. Otherwise, $Mf(x) > f(x)$, so $$Mf(x) = \sup_{\{[a,b]\subset I: a<b, a \le x\le b < y\}}
\frac{1}{b-a}\int_a^b f.$$ Now $$\frac{Mf(x) - Mf(y)}{y-x}\le
\frac{\sup_{\{[a,b]\subset I: a<b, a \le x\le b < y\}}\left(
\frac{1}{b-a}\int_a^b f -
\frac{1}{b-a}\int_{a+ y-b}^y f\right)}{y-x}$$ $$= \sup_{\{[a,b]\subset I: a<b, a \le x\le b < y\}}
\frac{1}{(y-x)(b-a)}\int_a^b
\left(f(t) - f(t+y-b)\right) dt$$ $$\le \sup_{\{[a,b]\subset I: a<b, a \le x\le b < y\}}
\frac{1}{(y-x)(b-a)}\int_a^b (y-b)
\operatorname{Lip} (f )dt
\le \operatorname{Lip} (f).$$
In fact, the constant $1$ given in the preceding theorem is not sharp. After this paper was completed, in joint work with Leonardo Colzani the authors have found the best constants: $\operatorname{Lip}
(Mf) \le 2^{-1}\operatorname{Lip} ( f)$ for arbitrary intervals, while on $\mathbb{R}$, $\operatorname{Lip} (Mf) \le (\sqrt{2} - 1)
\operatorname{Lip} (f)$. So when deriving the classical Landau inequality from the generalization presented here, the constant $96$ at the end of Remark \[class\] can be lowered to $48$.
To finish, we present, again under less regularity, a trivial variant of the classical Poincaré-Wirtinger inequality, which states that if $f:[a,b]\to \Bbb R$ is an absolutely continuous function with $f(a)=f(b)=0$, then $$\int_a^b f(x)^2 dx \le c \int_a^b f'(x)^2dx,$$ where $c$ depends only on $b-a$. Using the local maximal operator $M_R$, we prove a variant of the above inequality, for functions of bounded variation with support at positive distance from the boundary.
Let $f:[a,b]\to \Bbb R$ be such that $V(f)<\infty$ and $\operatorname{supp} f \subset
[a+R,b-R]$ for some $R>0$. Then $$\label{MRpowi}
\int_a^b f(x)^2 dx \le c \int_a^b DM_Rf(x)^2 dx.$$
By Theorem \[main\], $M_Rf$ is absolutely continuous since $V(f)
<\infty$, and by hypothesis, $M_R f(a)= M_R f(b) = 0$, so we can apply the classical Poincaré-Wirtinger inequality to $M_Rf$, obtaining $$\label{powi}
\int_a^b f(x)^2 dx \le \int_a^b M_Rf(x)^2 dx \le c \int_a^b (DM_Rf(x))^2dx,$$
[WWW]{}
Aldaz, J.M.; Pérez Lázaro, J. [*Boundedness and unboundedness results for some maximal operators on functions of bounded variation.*]{} Submitted. Available at the Mathematics ArXiv: arXiv:math.CA/0605272.
Ambrosio, Luigi; Fusco, Nicola; Pallara, Diego [*Functions of bounded variation and free discontinuity problems.*]{} Oxford Mathematical Monographs. The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New York, (2000).
Buckley, Stephen M. [*Is the maximal function of a Lipschitz function continuous?*]{} Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math. [**24**]{} (1999), 519–528.
Hajłasz, Piotr [*A new characterization of the Sobolev space.*]{} Studia Math. 159 (2003), no. 2, 263–275.
Hajłasz, Piotr; Onninen, Jani [*On boundedness of maximal functions in Sobolev spaces.*]{} Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math. [**29**]{} (2004), no. 1, 167–176.
Kałamajska, Agnieszka [*Pointwise multiplicative inequalities and Nirenberg type estimates in weighted Sobolev spaces.*]{} Studia Math. 108 (1994), no. 3, 275–290.
Kinnunen, Juha [*The Hardy-Littlewood maximal function of a Sobolev function.*]{} Israel J. Math. [**100**]{} (1997), 117–124.
Kinnunen, Juha; Lindqvist, Peter [*The derivative of the maximal function.*]{} J. Reine Angew. Math. [**503**]{} (1998), 161–167.
Kinnunen, Juha; Saksman, Eero [*Regularity of the fractional maximal function.*]{} Bull. London Math. Soc. [**34**]{} (2003),no. 4, 529–535.
Korry, Soulaymane [*A class of bounded operators on Sobolev spaces.*]{} Arch. Math. (Basel) [**82**]{} (2004), no. 1, 40–50.
Korry, Soulaymane [*Boundedness of Hardy-Littlewood maximal operator in the framework of Lizorkin-Triebel spaces.*]{} Rev. Mat. Complut. [**15**]{} (2002), no. 2, 401–416.
Luiro, Hannes [*Continuity of the maximal operator in Sobolev spaces.*]{} To appear, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.
Maz'ya, Vladimir; Shaposhnikova, Tatyana [*On pointwise interpolation inequalities for derivatives.*]{} Math. Bohem. 124 (1999), no. 2-3, 131–148.
Maz'ya, V. G.; Shaposhnikova, T. O. [*Pointwise interpolation inequalities for derivatives with best constants.*]{} (Russian) Funktsional. Anal. i Prilozhen. 36 (2002), no. 1, 36–58, 96; translation in Funct. Anal. Appl. 36 (2002), no. 1, 30–48
Tanaka, Hitoshi [*A remark on the derivative of the one-dimensional Hardy-Littlewood maximal function.*]{} Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. [**65**]{}, no. 2, (2002), 253–258.
[^1]: Both authors were partially supported by Grant BFM2003-06335-C03-03 of the D.G.I. of Spain
[^2]: The second named author thanks the University of La Rioja for its hospitality.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
The evolution equations of Einstein’s theory and of Maxwell’s theory—the latter used as a simple model to illustrate the former— are written in gauge covariant first order symmetric hyperbolic form with only physically natural characteristic directions and speeds for the dynamical variables. Quantities representing gauge degrees of freedom \[the spatial shift vector $\beta^{i}(t,x^{j})$ and the spatial scalar potential $\phi(t,x^{j})$, respectively\] are not among the dynamical variables: the gauge and the physical quantities in the evolution equations are effectively decoupled. For example, the gauge quantities could be obtained as functions of $(t,x^{j})$ from subsidiary equations that are not part of the evolution equations. Propagation of certain (“radiative”) dynamical variables along the physical light cone is gauge invariant while the remaining dynamical variables are dragged along the axes orthogonal to the spacelike time slices by the propagating variables. We obtain these results by $(1)$ taking a further time derivative of the equation of motion of the canonical momentum, and $(2)$ adding a covariant spatial derivative of the momentum constraints of general relativity (Lagrange multiplier $\beta^{i}$) or of the Gauss’s law constraint of electromagnetism (Lagrange multiplier $\phi$). General relativity also requires a harmonic time slicing condition or a specific generalization of it that brings in the Hamiltonian constraint when we pass to first order symmetric form. The dynamically propagating gravity fields straightforwardly determine the “electric” or “tidal” parts of the Riemann tensor.
[**PACS \#:** ]{} 04.20.-q, 97.60.Lf
author:
- |
Andrew Abrahams, Arlen Anderson, Yvonne Choquet-Bruhat[@YCBadd]\
and James W. York, Jr.\
[*Department of Physics and Astronomy*]{}\
[*University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 27599-3255 USA*]{}
title: |
Geometrical Hyperbolic Systems for\
General Relativity and Gauge Theories[@ded]
---
=0.3in =-0.0in =8.5in =6.25in
IFP-UNC-516
TAR-UNC-053
gr-qc/9605014
Introduction
============
We examine the Cauchy problem [@CBY79] for general relativity as the time history of the two fundamental forms of the geometry of a spacelike hypersurface, its metric ${\bf {\bar g}}$ and its extrinsic curvature ${\bf K}$. By using a $3+1$ decomposition of the Riemann and Ricci tensors, we split the Einstein equations into initial data constraints—equations containing only ${\bf \bar g} $, ${\bf K}$, and their space derivatives—and evolution equations giving the time derivatives of ${\bf \bar g}$ and ${\bf K}$ in terms of space derivatives of these quantities and also of the lapse and shift, that is, of the variables that fix the proper time separation between leaves of the foliation of spacetime and the “time lines” threading the foliation [@Lic; @YFB; @Yor79]. The constraints can be posed and solved as an elliptic system by known methods. (See, for example [@CBY79; @Yor79; @OMY].) However, the equations of evolution of ${\bf \bar g} $ and ${\bf K }$ are in essence the spatially covariant canonical Hamiltonian [@ADMDir] equations with first order time derivatives and second order space derivatives. Casting these equations into hyperbolic form [@CBR; @FritReu; @BMSS; @Fre; @FiMa] is a problem important for theoretical analysis and for practical applications. However, the procedure used may entail a loss of spatial coordinate covariance, the use of non-geometrical variables, or the appearance of unphysical characteristics, that is, directions which are neither along the light cone nor orthogonal to the time slices.
All of these difficulties can be overcome, as we show, by obtaining first a nonlinear wave equation for the evolution of ${\bf K}$. The evolution of the spatial metric ${\bf \bar g}$ is just its dragging by ${\bf K}$ along the axis orthogonal to the spacelike time slices.
One method for obtaining this result requires choosing the time slicing by specifying the mean (extrinsic) curvature of the slices. It leads to a mixed elliptic-hyperbolic system for which we have recently proven local in time, global in space, existence theorems in the cases of compact [@CBY95] or asymptotically flat slices [@ChKl; @CBY95; @CBY96].
In this paper, we concentrate on a second method, which relies on a harmonic time slicing condition or a certain class of generalizations of it [@CBY95; @prl; @CBY96; @AY96]. We obtain equations of motion equivalent to a covariant first order symmetric hyperbolic system with only physical characteristics. We construct this system explicitly. The only quantities propagated along the light cone are [*curvatures*]{}. The space coordinates and the shift vector are arbitrary. In this sense, the system is gauge covariant.
Electromagnetism
================
Maxwell’s theory provides a simple example for illustrating the method we use in treating Einstein’s theory. The idea is to work with the dynamical or 3+1 form of the theory, that is, essentially the canonical form. By using a further time and a further space derivative in a definite way, one proceeds to construct a physically natural second order wave equation for the canonical momentum, in this case the electric field. The wave equation for the electric field can be written in a first order symmetric hyperbolic form (“FOSH" form) that is also flux conservative. Furthermore, this procedure maintains gauge covariance and produces a FOSH system that has [*only*]{} the physically natural characteristic directions given by null generators of the light cone and timelike vectors orthogonal to the spacelike time slices. We refer to these properties as “simple physical characteristics.” Correspondingly, one obtains “characteristic fields” that propagate along the light cone. By treating this simple case first, many steps in dealing with the technically more intricate case of general relativity can be abbreviated because they follow the same pattern.
Consider Maxwell’s theory on flat spacelike slices of flat Minkowski spacetime with $$ds^2 = -dt^2 +g_{ij} dx^i dx^j$$ and prescribed current $j_\mu (t,x^j) = (- \rho, j_i)$ such that $\nabla^\mu j_\mu = \dzero \rho + \bar \nabla ^i j_i = 0$ (an overbar denotes a spatial tensor or operator). Using $F_{\mu \nu} = 2 \nabla_{[ \mu}A_{\nu ]}$ and and $A_\mu=(-\phi,A_i)$, we define $R_\mu \equiv \nabla^\nu F_{\mu \nu}$, which leads to the identities $$R_0 \equiv - \bar \nabla ^j E_j,$$ $$R_i \equiv -\dzero E_i + \bar\nabla^jF_{ij} .$$ The standard form of the Maxwell equations can be written as $$R_0 + 4 \pi \rho = 0,
\eqno{(4C)}$$ $$R_i - 4 \pi j_i = 0
,
\eqno{(4E)}$$ $$\dzero A_i = -E_i - \bar \nabla _i \phi,
\eqno{(4D)}$$ where $\bar \nabla _i \phi = \partial_i \phi$. ( C denotes “constraint,” E “evolution,” and D “definition.”) To construct the new 3+1 system, form the spatial one-form $$\Omega_i \equiv \dzero R_i - \bar \nabla_i R_0$$ and use (4D) and the definition of $F_{ij}$ to obtain $$\Omega_i \equiv (-\dzero \dzero + \bar \Delta) E_i \equiv \Box E_i,$$ where $\bar \Delta \equiv \bar \nabla^k\bar\nabla_k$. While (6) is an identity, the Maxwell equations give us a new statement of the evolution equation, $$\Omega_i = 4 \pi (\dzero j_i + \bar\nabla_i\rho) .$$ The new form of the Maxwell system is therefore $$\bar \nabla^i E_i = 4 \pi \rho,
\eqno{(8C)}$$ $$\Box E_i = 4 \pi (\dzero j_i + \bar\nabla_i \rho),
\eqno{(8W)}$$ $$\dzero A_i = -E_i - \bar\nabla_i \phi
,
\eqno{(4D)}$$ where W denotes “wave equation,” and the scalar potential $\phi = \phi(t,x^j)$ is an arbitrary gauge field that can be regarded for the present as prescribed.
The initial data (Cauchy data) for the new system on a spacelike slice $\Sigma_0\ (t=0)$ are (a) $A_i$ given freely, (b) $E_i$ such that (8C) holds for given $\rho$, and (c) $\dzero E_i$ such that (4E) holds ($R_i-4\pi j_i = 0$) for given $j_i$. In other terms, the extra time derivative used in constructing $\Omega_i$ requires that we give as further Cauchy data $\dzero E_i$ satisfying on $\Sigma_0$ the usual Maxwell equation of motion, which is (3) combined with (4E).
For any given $\phi(t,x^j)$, the new system (8W), (4D) forms a quasi-diagonal strictly hyperbolic system in the unknowns $E_i$ and $A_i$. Its characteristics at a point are the light cone and the time axis $\dzero$, which lies inside the cone. The cone therefore determines the propagation. The new system in its present form implies that $E_i$ propagates at light speed along the cone while $A_i$ is dragged along the time axis.
Before passing to FOSH form, let us show that the new system is equivalent to the standard Maxwell equations: Assume (7) has been solved. Then $$\bar\nabla^i \Omega_i = 4 \pi \Box \rho,$$ where current conservation, $\nabla^\mu j_\mu = 0$, has been used. Therefore, using (6) we find $$\Box ( \bar\nabla^i E_i - 4\pi \rho) = 0.$$
But $\bar\nabla^iE_i - 4\pi \rho=0$ ($R_0+4\pi\rho=0$) on $\Sigma_0$ by hypothesis, and from the “Bianchi identity” $\nabla^\mu R_\mu=0$ (i.e. $\nabla^\mu
\nabla^\nu F_{\mu\nu}=0$) and current conservation $\nabla^\mu j_\mu=0$, we have $$\dzero(\bar\nabla^iE_i-4\pi\rho)=\bar\nabla^i(-R_i+4\pi j_i)=0$$ on $\Sigma_0$. In the last equality we have used the initial data condition (c) that $R_i-4\pi j_i=0$ on $\Sigma_0$. Therefore, the Cauchy data pertaining to (10) are zero and it follows that the Maxwell constraint (4C) holds on $\Sigma_0 \times {\rm I}$, where ${\rm I}$ is an interval of time. (Mathematically rigorous statements of results in this paper can be given in terms of Sobolev spaces $H_s$, or weighted Sobolev spaces $H_{s,\delta}$ for asymptotically flat time slices.)
Now (5) and (7) together with the result just obtained that the constraint (4C) holds on $\Sigma_0 \times{\rm I}$ show that $$\dzero(R_i - 4 \pi j_i) =0$$ on $\Sigma_0 \times{\rm I}$. But again $R_i-4\pi j_i = 0$ on $\Sigma_0$, so it must remain zero on $\Sigma_0 \times{\rm I}$, which is what we wanted to prove.
In passing to the FOSH form of the Maxwell equations, we will leave the constraint (8C) unchanged; it can be converted to an elliptic equation that needs to be solved only on $\Sigma_0$. Also, the other initial-value data will be given as above.
We consider here the vacuum case $\rho = j_i = 0$. Defining $G_{0 i}=\dzero E_i$ and $G_{ji}=\bar\nabla_jE_i$, we write the first order system corresponding to (4D) and (8W) as $$\dzero A_i = -E_i -\bar\nabla_i \phi ,
\eqno{(4D)}$$ $$\dzero E_i = G_{0 i},
\eqno{(13D)}$$ $$\dzero G_{0i}-\bar\nabla^jG_{ji}=0,
\eqno{(13W)}$$ $$\dzero G_{ji}-\bar\nabla_jG_{0i}=0,
\eqno{(13A)}$$ where A=“adjoint”, an equation obtained by using the trivial commutator $[\dzero,\bar\nabla_i]=0$. (It is already clear that this system has “simple physical characteristics” as previously defined.)
Define the transpose ${\bf u}^T$ of a column matrix ${\bf u}$ by $${\bf u}^T = \left( {\bf A, ~ E, ~ G_0, ~ G_1, ~ G_2, ~ G_3} \right) ,$$ where the final index “i” has been omitted for each entry. The above equations (4D)-(13A) have the form $$\dzero {\bf u} + {\bf B}^j \bar\nabla_j {\bf u} +{\bf C} = 0,$$ where ${\bf B}^j\ (j=1,2,3)$ is an $n \times n$ square matrix and $C$ is an $n\times 1$ column vector, with $n$ the number of unknowns. (With the abbreviated notation (14), $n = 6$.) The matrices ${\bf B}^j$ and vector ${\bf C}$ depend on $(t,x^i)$ in the linear case and on $({\bf u};t,x^i)$ in the quasi-linear case. Equations (15) are hyperbolic and [*symmetrizable*]{} if there is an $n \times n$ symmetric positive definite matrix ${\bf M}^0$ such that ${\bf M}^0 {\bf B}^j \equiv {\bf M}^j$ is symmetric. (It may be that these properties hold only in some restricted region of spacetime and, in the quasi-linear case, only in a functional neighborhood of a particular ${\bf u}$). If we carry out this operation, we obtain an explicitly FOSH form, $${\bf M}^\alpha \nabla_\alpha {\bf u}+ {\bf M}^0 {\bf C} =
{\bf M}^0 \dzero {\bf u}+{\bf M}^j \bar\nabla_j{\bf u}+{\bf M}^0{\bf C}=0.$$ From the FOSH form, one can construct “energy norms” and “energy inequalities” that lead, by the methods of functional analysis, to precise results on the existence and uniqueness of solutions, and global estimates of the time of existence [@FiMa].
In the present case, the ${\bf B}^j$’s are not symmetric but the symmetrizer is $${\bf M}^0=
\left(\matrix{{\bf 1}_{3\times3}& {\bf 0}_{3\times3} \cr
{\bf 0}_{3\times3}& {\bf g}^{-1}_{3\times3}}
\right)$$ where $(g^{-1})=g^{ij}$. The matrix ${\bf M}^0$ is positive definite if and only if $g_{ij}$ is properly Riemannian. (This is important in the case of gravity, where $g_{ij}$ is an unknown. There, the symmetrizer will be essentially two copies of ${\bf M}^0$ centered on the diagonal of a simple larger matrix.) We verify easily that the ${\bf M}^0{\bf B}^j$’s are symmetric.
It is clear from the form of (4D)-(13A) that $A_i$ and $E_i$ are fields associated with evolution along the the time axis. There are also fields propagating at light speed. These “characteristic fields” can be found by returning to the symmetrizable form (15). Then, to exhibit one example of such fields explicitly, we choose a space direction at an event corresponding, for example, to j=1. This means the direction $\pm {\bf n_1}$, orthogonal in space to the $x^1={\rm constant}$ two-surface passing through the event and lying in the $t={\rm constant}$ slice containing the event. We solve the eigenvalue problem associated with ${\bf B}^1$ and diagonalize it with an appropriate matrix ${\bf T}$ by a similarity transformation $${\bf T} {\bf B}^1{\bf T}^{-1} = {\bf D}^1 \nonumber \\ ,$$ where ${\bf D}^1$ is diagonal. The non-zero eigenvalues of ${\bf B}^1$ give the speeds of the “characteristic fields” with respect to observers at rest in the time slices, whose four-velocities are parallel to the orthogonal time axis $\dzero$ (“Eulerian observers”). By construction, for the choice of direction $\pm {\bf n_1}$, these characterisitic fields include [*only*]{} those which propagate in the local spacetime two-plane defined by $\dzero$ and $\pm {\bf n_1}$ at the given event. As we change the direction $\pm {\bf n_1}$, we move around the locally isotropic null cone at the event and capture [*all*]{} the characteristic fields.
The non-zero eigenvalues of ${\bf B}^1$ are $\pm \alpha^{-1}$, where $\alpha=(g^{11})^{-1/2}$ is the spatial “lapse function” corresponding to the chosen direction. The quantity $\alpha^{-1}$, of course, [*is*]{} the speed of light because, in this example, the time is proper but the spatial displacements are not. (In local Cartesian coordinates we obtain, of course, $\pm 1$.)
The characteristic fields are obtained from $${\bf T} {\bf u} = {\bf u}_{\rm char}.$$ They are found to be $${1 \over \sqrt{2}} \alpha
\left[
G_{0 i} \pm \alpha^{-1} (G_{1 i}-v^a G_{ai}) \right],$$ where $v^a=-g^{1a}(g^{11})^{-1}$ with $a=2,3$ is the “shift vector” in space corresponding to the $x^{1}=$constant two-surface whose “space lapse function” is $\alpha=(g^{11})^{-1/2}$. Substituting into (20) the definitions of $G_{0i}$ and $G_{ji}$, we see that the characteristic fields in this example are the [*differential*]{} electric field along the advanced and retarded “$\pm {\bf n_1}$- branches” of the generators of the null cones. That is, the fields (20) are $${1 \over \sqrt{2}} \alpha
\left[
\dzero \pm \alpha^{-1} (\bar\nabla_1-v^a \bar\nabla_a)) \right] E_i.$$ The operator in rectangular brackets (times $1/\sqrt{2}$) gives the geometrical form of the usual advanced and retarded time derivatives defined with respect to the chosen local spacetime two-plane at the given event. Knowing the characteristic fields facilitates imposing physically consistent boundary conditions[@AY96], in this case, boundary conditions compatible with causality. As examples, consider a “no outgoing waves” condition at the future event horizon of a black hole or a “no incoming waves” condition in the vacuum far-field of electromagnetic source switched on a finite time in the past.
The final points we wish to emphasize concern the facts that (1) no particular gauge condition was imposed on $A_i$ to obtain our physical FOSH system, and (2) the scalar potential (“gauge field”) $A_0 = -\phi$ played an entirely passive role. It could either be [*given*]{} or [*obtained*]{} (say) by a [*supplementary*]{} (non-Maxwell) equation, as a function of $(t, x^i)$. Any mathematically consistent method of obtaining $\phi (t,x^i)$ can be used without affecting the features of the Maxwell equations [*per se*]{} in the form in which we have given them above. The “gauge sector” and the “physical sector” have thus been separated to this extent. Our FOSH system and its simple physical characteristics are maintained in the face of complete gauge covariance. (A similar statement holds for $A_0$ in the Yang-Mills equations [@prl] and for the “shift-vector” of the Einstein equations—see below.)
Gravitation
===========
In Einstein’s theory it is convenient to write the metric as $$ds^2 = -N^2 (\theta^0)^2 +g_{ij} \theta^i \theta^j,$$ with $\theta^0 = dt$ and $\theta^i = dx^i+\beta^i dt$, where $\beta^i$ is the shift vector. The cobasis $\theta^\alpha$ satisfies $$d\theta^\alpha = - {1 \over 2} C_{\beta \gamma}^\alpha
\theta^\beta\wedge \theta^\gamma$$ with $C_{0 j}^i=-C_{j 0}^i = \partial_j \beta^i$ and all other structure coefficients zero. The corresponding vector basis is given by $e_0 = \partial_t - \beta^j\partial_j$ and $e_i =\partial_i$ where $\partial_t = \partial/\partial t$, $\partial_i = \partial/\partial x^i$, and the action of $e_0$ on space scalars is the Pfaffian or convective derivative, $e_0[f]=\dzero f = \partial_t f - \beta^j \partial_j f$.
We shall assume throughout that the lapse function $N>0$ and the space metric $\bar {\bf g}$ on $\Sigma_t$ is properly Riemannian. Note that $\bar g_{ij}=g_{ij}$ and $\bar g^{ij}=g^{ij}$.
The spacetime connection one-forms are defined by [@CBDW; @Yor79] $$\omega^\alpha_{\beta \gamma}=\Gamma^\alpha_{\beta \gamma}+
g^{\alpha \delta} C_{\delta(\beta}^\epsilon g_{\gamma)\epsilon}
-{1 \over 2} C_{\beta \gamma}^\alpha = \omega_{(\beta \gamma)}^\alpha
+\omega_{[\beta \gamma]} ^\alpha,$$ where $(\beta \gamma)={1\over 2}(\beta \gamma +\gamma \beta)$, $[\beta \gamma] = {1\over 2}(\beta \gamma- \gamma \beta)$, and $\Gamma$ denotes a Christoffel symbol. These connection forms are written out in [@CBY96]. In particular, the extrinsic curvature (second fundamental tensor) of the space slices is given by $$K_{ij} = -N \omega^0_{ij} \equiv -{1\over 2}N^{-1} \dzeroh g_{ij} ,$$ where we define for any $t-$dependent space tensor ${\bf T}$ another such tensor $\dzeroh {\bf T}$ of the same type by setting $$\dzeroh = {\partial \over \partial t} - {\cal L}_\beta,$$ where ${\cal L}_\beta$ is the Lie derivative on $\Sigma_t$ with respect to the vector $\beta$. Note that $\dzeroh$ and $\partial_i$ commute: $[\dzeroh,\partial_i]{\bf T} =0$.
We have chosen in this paper to work with $K_{ij}$ rather than the usual canonical momentum, $(\det \bar g)^{1/2}(H g^{ij}-K^{ij})$, conjugate to $ g_{ij}$, where $H = K^i\mathstrut_i$ denotes the mean curvature. This is a matter of choice, not of principle. Indeed, our general procedure can be applied to other choices of canonical or geometric variables. (We note that $K_{ij}$ is conjugate to $(\det \bar g)^{1/2} g^{ij}$.)
We regard the dynamics of general relativity as being given by the time dependence of the first and second fundamental forms of the foliation $\Sigma_t$. It is therefore appropriate to use $\dzeroh$ as our time derivative and $\bar \nabla_i$, the spatial covariant derivative, for spatial derivatives ($\omega^i_{jk} = \Gamma^i_{jk}=\bar \Gamma^i_{jk}$). An advantage of using $\dzeroh$ is that it is always timelike because it is orthogonal to the spacelike slices $\Sigma_t$. We recall that $\partial/\partial t$ is not necessarily timelike in Einstein’s theory so that using it to define hyperbolicity can be confusing. Unlike the flat-spacetime Maxwell theory on flat, spacelike hypersurfaces, here we have the non-trivial commutator $$[\dzeroh, \bar\nabla_i] u_j=
Nu_k\left[2\bar\nabla_{(i}K_{j)}\mathstrut^k-\bar\nabla^kK_{ij}
+ 2 a_{(i}K_{j)}\mathstrut^k-a^k K_{ij}\right],$$ where $u_j$ is a spatial one-form and $a_i=\partial_i \log N = \bar\nabla_i \log N$ is the acceleration one-form of the “Eulerian” observers at rest in the time slices. The commutator on higher-rank tensors is similar to (27), with corresponding terms for each further index.
It is necessary to relate the spacetime and space Riemann tensor components as well as the corresponding Ricci tensor components. We use the conventions in [@MTW] and the $\theta^\alpha$ cobasis. The Riemann tensor components are given by $$\begin{aligned}
R_{ijkl}&=&\bar R_{ijkl}+2K_{i[k}K_{l]j},
\\
R_{0ijk}&=&2N\bar\nabla_{[j}K_{k]i},
\\
R_{0i0j}&=&N(\dzeroh K_{ij} +N K_{ik}K^k\mathstrut_j+
\bar\nabla_i\bar\nabla_j N), \end{aligned}$$ where we note that $$N \bar\nabla_i\bar\nabla_jN=N^2(\bar\nabla_ia_j+a_ia_j),$$ and, in three dimensions, $$\bar R_{ijkl}=2g_{i[k}\bar R_{l]j}+2g_{j[l}\bar R_{k]i}
+\bar R g_{i[l}g_{k]j}.$$ The latter relation proves to be very important in our construction of a FOSH system for the Einstein equations in (3+1) dimensions.
The Ricci curvature $R_{\alpha \beta} =
R^\sigma \mathstrut_{\alpha \sigma \beta}$ is given in (3+1) form by the identities $$\begin{aligned}
R_{ij}&=&\bar R_{ij}-N^{-1} \dzeroh K_{ij}+H K_{ij}
-2K_{ik}K^k\mathstrut_j-\bar\nabla_i a_j -a_ia_j,\\
R_{0i}&=&N\bar\nabla^j(Hg_{ij}-K_{ij}),\\
R_{00}&=&N\bar\Delta N-N^2 K_{mk}K^{mk}+N\dzero H .\end{aligned}$$ The Einstein equations, $G_{\alpha \beta} = \kappa T_{\alpha \beta}$, can be written as $R_{\alpha \beta} = \kappa \rho_{\alpha \beta}$, where $\kappa= 8\pi$ if $G=c=1$, and, in (3+1) dimensions, $\rho _{\alpha \beta}= T_{\alpha \beta} -
{1\over 2} g_{\alpha \beta}T^\sigma\mathstrut_\sigma$. In this paper we will take $T_{\alpha \beta}=0$ but indicate at certain stages what the matter terms are. (The presence of matter fields indeed causes no difficulties in a complete hyperbolic system for gravity plus matter if these fields themselves have well-posed Cauchy problems in flat spacetime and, as a sufficient condition, are minimally coupled to gravity.)
We recognize (33) as the evolution equation E, (34) as the “momentum constraints” $C_i$, and from the definition $G_{\alpha \beta} = R_{\alpha \beta}- {1\over 2} R g_{\alpha \beta}$ of the Einstein tensor, we see that the “Hamiltonian constraint” $C_0$ is defined by $$G^0\mathstrut_0={1\over2}(R^0\mathstrut_0-R^i\mathstrut_i)
={1\over 2}( K_{mk}K^{mk}-H^2-\bar R).$$ The constraint equations $C_i$ and $C_0$ can be posed and solved as an elliptic problem and will not be discussed further here. Therefore, in analogy to (4C), (4E), and (4D), we have $$R_{0i}=0, ~~~~~~~~~~~~
{1\over2}(R^0\mathstrut_0-R^i\mathstrut_i)=0,
\eqno{(37C)}$$ $$R_{ij}=0,
\eqno{(37E)}$$ $$\dzeroh g_{ij}=-2N K_{ij}. \eqno{(37D)}$$
To construct the new (3+1) system, form the symmetric spatial tensor $$\Omega_{ij}\equiv \dzeroh R_{ij}-2\bar\nabla_{(i}R_{j)0},$$ and work it out using the relations above and $$\begin{aligned}
\dzeroh \bar R_{ij} &=& \bar\nabla_k (\dzeroh \bar \Gamma^k_{ij}
) - \bar\nabla_j (\dzeroh \bar \Gamma^k_{ik}),
\\
\dzeroh \bar \Gamma^k_{ij}&=&- 2 \bar\nabla_{(i}(N K_{j)}\mathstrut^k)
+ \bar\nabla^k(N K_{ij}),\end{aligned}$$ to obtain, in analogy to (6), the identity $$\Omega_{ij}\equiv N {\Boxh} K_{ij}+J_{ij}+S_{ij},$$ where $\Boxh \equiv -(N^{-1}\dzeroh )^2 +\bar\Delta$. This wave operator was denoted “$\Box$” in [@prl]; but here we reserve that standard symbol for $g^{\alpha \beta} \nabla_\alpha \nabla_\beta$, where $\nabla_\alpha$ is the usual spacetime covariant derivative operator. In [@CBY96] and [@CBY95], slightly different wave operators were used, resulting in slightly different counterparts for $J_{ij}$. These wave operators all have the same principal symbol.
With the conventions above, to which we adhere in this paper, the explicit form of the “source” $J_{ij}$ is given in [@prl]; below, it will be written out explicitly for our FOSH system. For the present, we note that $J_{ij}$ contains no derivatives of $K_{ij}$ higher than the first; and that it contains $\bar R_{ijkl}$ and $\bar R_{ij}$ with the former subject to elimination in favor of the latter using (32). The contribution of matter to (41), before the elimination of $\bar R_{ij}$ to be carried out later in obtaining FOSH form, is found by noting that Einstein’s equations assert $$\Omega_{ij} = \kappa [\dzeroh \rho_{ij} - 2 \bar\nabla_{(i}\rho_{j)0}].$$
The “slicing term” $S_{ij}$ is given by $$S_{ij}=-N^{-1} \bar\nabla_i \bar\nabla_j(\dzero N + N^2 H).$$ Because of the presence of the $\bar\nabla_i \bar\nabla_j H$ term in $S_{ij}$, the principal part of the complete second-order operator acting on $K_{ij}$ in (41) is not a wave operator. However, this problem (which has no counterpart in Maxwell’s theory) can be eliminated by using either the [*simple harmonic slicing*]{} condition ($g^{\alpha \beta}\omega^0_{\alpha\beta}=0$) $$\dzero N + N^2 H=0,$$ or a [*generalized harmonic slicing*]{} condition [@prl] $$\dzero N + N^2 H=Nf(t,x^j),$$ where $f(t,x^j)$ is an arbitrary given function analogous to a “gauge source”[@Fre]. Although we shall, for simplicity, take $f=0$ in most of the following discussion, a choice of $f\ne 0$ causes no material changes. In any event, we now have, from (41) and (45), $$\Omega_{ij}\equiv N {\Boxh} K_{ij}+J_{ij}-\bar\nabla_i \bar\nabla_j f
-2 a_{(i} \bar\nabla_{j)} f -f(\bar\nabla_i a_j + a_i a_j),$$ which is a second-order nonlinear wave operator on $K_{ij}$ for all time slicings in the class (45). (Recall $a_i=\bar\nabla_i \log N$.)
\[Another way to handle $S_{ij}$ is to prescribe the mean curvature: set $H=h(t,x)$, a known function. This leads to a mixed elliptic-hyperbolic representation of the Einstein evolution equations which we will not pursue here. See [@CBY96; @CBY95].\]
The new Einstein system of equations of motion is given by (46), (45), and $\dzeroh g_{ij}=-2NK_{ij}$. The appropriate Cauchy data on an initial slice $\Sigma_0$ ($t=0$) are ${\bf \bar g},\ {\bf K},\ {\rm N}$, and $\dzeroh {\bf K}$. We require ${\bf \bar g}$ and ${\bf K}$ to satisfy the usual momentum and Hamiltonian constraints and $\dzeroh {\bf
K}$ to be given by $R_{ij}=0$ in (33) in the vacuum case: that is, we require that all the Einstein equations $G_{\alpha\beta}=0$ hold on $\Sigma_0$. The lapse function must satisfy $N>0$. Note that the shift $\beta^i$, which we may regard at present as being known in the form $\beta^i(t,x^j)$, is playing a passive role completely analogous to the scalar potential $\phi$ in our treatment of the Maxwell equations. The shift has been absorbed into the operator $\dzeroh$.
To show that the new system is indeed solvable, before showing that it is equivalent to the Einstein equations on $\Sigma_0 \times I$, we shall reduce it to the form (8W) and (4D) obtained for the Maxwell equations. To accomplish this, we use the expression for $H$ in terms of $g_{ij}$ and its derivatives \[cf. (37D)\] to write (45) in the form $$\dzero \log [N(\det \bar g)^{-1/2}]=f(t,x^j),$$ from which $N$ can be obtained in terms of the spatial metric and the known functions $\beta^i$ and $f$, called “algebraic gauge” in [@CBY96; @CBY95]. (Compare [@CBR] in the case $\beta^i=0$ and $f=0$ and [@CBY96; @CBY95] in the case $f=0$.) The new system now acquires a reduced form $$\begin{aligned}
{\Boxh} K_{ij} &=& -N^{-1}[J_{ij}-\bar\nabla_i \bar\nabla_j f
-2 a_{(i} \bar\nabla_{j)} f -f(\bar\nabla_i a_j + a_i a_j)], \\
\dzeroh g_{ij} &=&-2N K_{ij},\end{aligned}$$ where N is understood to be determined by (47). These equations, analogous to the Maxwell equations (8W) and (4D), are a quasi-diagonal system whose characteristics are the light cone and the $\dzero$ axis, which lies inside the cone. This form of the equations implies that $K_{ij}$ propagates along the light cone at unit speed while $g_{ij}$ is dragged by $K_{ij}$ along the $\dzero$ axis. Since equivalence to Einstein’s theory has not yet been proven and therefore cannot be used, the Ricci curvatures occuring in $J_{ij}$ [@prl] are understood by their definition in terms of the metric $g_{ij}$ and its derivatives, up to second order. Using (49) in (48), we obtain a third order strictly hyperbolic equation for $(\det \bar g)^{-1/2} g_{ij}$. A theorem of Leray[@leray] then implies the temporally local existence of solutions in spatially local Sobolev spaces. In practice, we see that we can regard (45), (46), and $\dzeroh g_{ij}=-2N K_{ij}$ as a system to be solved simultaneously.
It is next required that we show the equivalence of the above system to the standard Einstein equations. This proof is transparent especially when the actions of the operators $\dzeroh$ and $\bar\nabla_i$ on spatial scalars, one-forms, and covariant symmetric tensors are related to those of $\nabla_0$ and $\nabla_i$ on these same objects. Such relations follow from the definitions of the operators and the values of the connection one-forms $\omega^\alpha_{\beta\gamma}$.
Assume that the reduced system defined by (45) or (47), as well as (48) and (49), has been solved, so that the lapse and the metric are known on $\Sigma_0\times {\rm I}$, where ${\rm I}$ is an interval of time. We must prove that given the Cauchy data for the reduced system, i.e., that the Einstein equations hold initially and that $N>0$ is given initially in accord with (47), then (38) \[and (42)\], supplemented by the twice-contracted Bianchi identities \[and the covariant conservation law $\nabla^\beta T_{\alpha \beta}=0$\], implies that they hold on $\Sigma_0\times {\rm I}$. It is necessary that we have already found (i.e. proven the existence) of the lapse and the metric so that (38) becomes a definite equation for the Ricci curvature, and we can raise and lower indices as necessary. In vacuum, $$\Omega_{ij} \equiv \dzeroh R_{ij}-2\bar\nabla_{(i}R_{j)0}
\equiv \nabla_0R_{ij}-2\nabla_{(i}G_{j)0} +({\rm l.h. E.})_0=0,$$ where the notation $({\rm l.h. E.})_n$ denotes additive terms that are linear and homogeneous in the Einstein tensor and its derivatives of order $\leq n$. Form the tensor $$\Omega_{ij}'=\Omega_{ij}-g_{ij}\Omega^k \mathstrut_k =
\nabla_0G_{ij}-2\nabla_{(i}G_{j)0}+g_{ij}\nabla^kG_{k0}+
({\rm l.h. E.})_0.$$ From the twice-contracted Bianchi identities $\nabla^\mu G_{\mu \nu} \equiv 0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla^0G_{00}+\nabla^jG_{j0}\equiv 0, \\
\nabla^0G_{0i}+\nabla^jG_{ji}\equiv 0.\end{aligned}$$ Compute $\nabla^j \Omega_{ij}'$, use the Ricci identity to commute covariant derivatives, and use (53) to obtain $$\Box G_{0i}+({\rm l.h. E.})_1 = 0.$$
But $G_{\alpha\beta}=0$ on $\Sigma_0$ by hypothesis and $\dzeroh G_{\alpha \beta}=0$ (or $\nabla_0 G_{\alpha\beta}=0$) on $\Sigma_0$ from (51), (52) and (53). Hence $G_{0i}=0$ on $\Sigma_0\times{\rm I}$. (The action of $\dzeroh$ on $G_{\alpha \beta}$ is defined because in our basis, $G_{00}$ is a space scalar, $G_{0i}$ is a space one-form, and $G_{ij}$ a space tensor.)
From $G_{0i}=0$ on $\Sigma_0\times{\rm I}$ and (51), it now follows that $\dzeroh G_{ij}=0$; therefore, $G_{ij}=0$ on $\Sigma_0\times{\rm I}$ because it was zero on $\Sigma_0$. Likewise, from (52), we infer that $G_{00}=0$ on $\Sigma_0\times{\rm I}$, which completes the proof.
The passage to FOSH form of the Einstein equations proceeds similarly to that for the Maxwell equations except for two points. One is technical: the non-trivial commutator (27) has to be used. The other is conceptual: the necessity of using a generalized harmonic time-slicing condition. In what follows, [*we shall use simple harmonic slicing [(44)]{} in the vacuum case*]{}; use of (45) only adds known terms and no new variables. The key point about harmonic slicing $\dzero N+N^2 H=0$ is that when it is combined with the Einstein equation $R_{00}=0$, i.e. $$\dzero H = - \bar\Delta N+K_{mk}K^{mk}N,$$ we obtain a wave equation for $N$: $$\Boxh N - (K_{ij}K^{ij}-H^2)N=0 .$$
It is at this stage that the Hamiltonian constraint enters explicitly into our system: see (36). By applying $\bar \nabla_k$ to this equation we obtain a non-linear wave equation for $a_k$. We may then reduce the pair of wave equations involving $\Boxh K_{ij}$ and $\Boxh a_k$ each to flux-conservative FOSH form as we did previously for $\Box E_i$. Furthermore, the new variables we must introduce to carry this out are precisely the ones required to express the non-linear right-hand-sides of these two wave equations in terms of the defined variables, given the elimination of $\bar R_{ij}$ in these equations using the standard Einstein equation of motion (33) with $R_{ij}=0$. ($\bar R_{ijkl}$ is to be regarded as eliminated from the right-hand-side of the $\Boxh K_{ij}$ equation using (32): this key step in obtaining FOSH form uses the fact of [*three*]{} space dimensions. The $\Boxh K_{ij}$ equation itself has the same form in any Lorentzian (d+1) spacetime for the Einstein equations.) These steps are executed in [@CBY95; @prl; @CBY96; @AY96], but here we shall state the final results slightly more explicitly.
The new variables needed to reduce the $\Boxh K_{ij}$ and $\Boxh a_i$ wave equations are, respectively, $$L_{0ij} \equiv N^{-1} \dzeroh K_{ij} ~~~~~~~~~~~~
L_{kij}\equiv \bar\nabla_k K_{ij},$$ $$a_{0i}\equiv N^{-1} \dzeroh a_i ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ a_{ji}\equiv\bar\nabla_j a_i.$$ (In previous works we denoted $L_{0ij}$ by $L_{ij}$ and $L_{kij}$ by $M_{kij}$.)
Altogether, our unknowns up to this point in the analysis are $N$, $g_{ij}$, $K_{ij}$, $a_i$, $a_{0i}$, $a_{ji}$, $L_{0ij}$, and $L_{kij}$. Note that the shift $\beta^i$ is not among the unknown variables. Like $\phi(t,x^j)$ in the case of Maxwell’s equations, $\beta^i(t,x^j)$ may be regarded as [*given*]{} or [*obtained*]{} (as a function of $t$ and $x^j$) in any manner that is mathematically compatible with the Einstein equations in FOSH form. Obtaining $\beta^i(t,x^j)$ is needed in solving Einstein’s equations, but its “manufacture” is not a part of Einstein’s equations [*per se*]{}.
The reduction to first order form produces the following system (in vacuum, with simple harmonic slicing) $$\dzeroh N=-N^2H,$$ $$\dzeroh g_{ij}= -2N K_{ij},$$ $$\dzeroh K_{ij}= NL_{0ij},$$ $$\dzeroh L_{0ij}-N \bar\nabla^k L_{kij} = N {\cal J}_{ij} ,$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\dzeroh L_{kij}-N\bar\nabla_k L_{0ij}=
N \left[ a_k L_{0ij} +2 L_{km(i} K_{j)}\mathstrut^m
+ 2 K_{m(i}L_{j)k}\mathstrut^m-2K_{m(i}L^m\mathstrut_{j)k} \right. \nonumber\\
\left. +2K_{m(i} \left(K_{j)}\mathstrut^m a_k +a_{j)}K_k\mathstrut^m
-a^mK_{j)k} \right) \right], \end{aligned}$$ $$\dzeroh a_i = N a_{0i} ,$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\dzeroh a_{0i} - N \bar\nabla^k a_{ki}=
N \left[ H L_{ik}\mathstrut^k - 2L_{imk}K^{mk} +a^k \left(
a_{ki}-L_{0ik} + H K_{ik} - 2 K_{im}K^m\mathstrut_k \right) \right.\nonumber \\
\left.+a_i \left( H^2 +a^k a_k +2 a^k\mathstrut_k -2 K_{mk}K^{mk}\right)\right],\end{aligned}$$ $$\dzeroh a_{ij}-N \bar\nabla_j a_{0i} = N \left[ a_k \left(
2L_{(ij)}\mathstrut^k - L^k\mathstrut_{ij}+2a_{(i}K_{j)}\mathstrut^k
-a^k K_{ij} \right) +a_j a_{0i} \right],$$ where, in (62), $N{\cal J}_{ij}=J_{ij}$ with insertion of the unknowns and elimination of spatial Riemann and Ricci tensors: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal J}_{ij} =
K_{ij} \left( 2K_{mk}K^{mk}-3H^2 + a^k a_k \right)
+ H \left(3 L_{0ij} + 10 K_{ik} K^k\mathstrut_j
+ 6 a_i a_j + 4 a_{ij} \right) \nonumber \\
\hspace{-1.5cm}+ a_k \left( 3L^k\mathstrut_{ij}-4L_{(ij)}\mathstrut^k\right)
+4a_{(i}L_{j)k}\mathstrut^k
-\left(10 L_{0k(i}+ 16 K_{km} K^m\mathstrut_{(i}
+10 a_k a_{(i}+8 a_{k(i} \right) K_{j)}\mathstrut^k
\\
+2g_{ij} K^{mk} \left(L_{0mk}- H K_{mk}+2K_{ml}K^l\mathstrut_k
+a_ma_k+a_{mk} \right)
-g_{ij}H\left( K_{mk}K^{mk} - H^2 \right) . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Note that the right-hand sides of (59)-(66) are polynomials in the unknowns and in $g^{ij}$. However, the reduction to first order form is not quite complete because the spatial covariant derivatives on the left-hand sides of (62), (63), (65), and (66) involve derivatives of the unknown $g_{ij}$. Two ways to complete the reduction are as follows.
One could introduce a known fiducial torsion-free connection $\bar F^i_{jk}
(t,x^l)$ on $\Sigma_0\times {\rm I}$ whose associated covariant derivative operator is (say) $\bar D_i$. Then define the tensor $$S^i_{jk}=\bar \Gamma^i_{jk}-\bar F^i_{jk}(t,x^l)$$ as a new unknown whose equation of motion is $$\dzeroh S^i_{jk}=\dzeroh \bar \Gamma^i_{jk}-\dzeroh \bar F^i_{jk}(t,x^l),$$ where $$\dzeroh \bar \Gamma^i_{jk}=-N[2L_{(jk)}\mathstrut^i- L^i\mathstrut_{jk}
+2 a_{(j}K_{k)}\mathstrut^i-a^i K_{jk}].$$ The equation obtained from combining (69) and (70) can be appended to (59)-(66) to form the complete first order system. The operators $\bar\nabla_i$ are replaced by relations of the form $$\bar\nabla_k T_{ij}=\bar D_k T_{ij} -T_{lj} S^l_{ik} -T_{il}S^l_{jk}.$$
Another method that can be used to complete the reduction is simply to append the relation (70) and to rewrite the $\bar \nabla_i$’s in terms of ordinary derivatives: [*all*]{} the equations of the system are still spatially covariant though some will have, of course, individual terms which are not tensors. This is true, perhaps not obviously, of (70) also. One has to recall that $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}_\beta \bar \Gamma^i_{jk} &=&(\beta^l \partial_l \bar \Gamma^i_{jk}
-\bar \Gamma^l_{jk} \partial_l \beta^i
+\bar \Gamma^i_{lk} \partial_j \beta^l
+\bar \Gamma^i_{jl} \partial_k \beta^l)
+\partial_j \partial_k \beta^i \\
&\equiv& \bar\nabla_j \bar\nabla_k \beta^i - \bar R^i\mathstrut_{kjl}\beta^l
\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ is a spatial tensor.
In our system, (62) and (65) are wave equations and (63) and (66) are, respectively, their “adjoint” equations. All the other equations are definitions except for the slicing equation (59) and the equation for the evolution of the connection. This system is [*symmetrizable*]{} upon multiplication by a symmetric positive definite matrix consisting of 1’s down the main diagonal and two sub-matrices of the form (17) centered on the main diagonal to handle the two wave equations and their adjoints. The unknowns can be expressed by $${\bf u}^T=({\bf\bar g}, {\bf K}, {\bf L_0}, {\bf L_1}, {\bf L_2},
{\bf L_3}, N, {\bf a}, {\bf a_0}, {\bf a_1}, {\bf a_2}, {\bf a_3},
{\bf \bar \Gamma}),$$ where a trailing pair of indices is suppressed from ${\bf\bar g},\ {\bf K},$ and ${\bf L}_{\mu}$, a trailing vector index from ${\bf a}$ and ${\bf a}_\mu$ and all of the indices from ${\bf
\bar\Gamma}$. Therefore, we have constructed a complete FOSH system. The structure of the left-hand sides has the “flux-conservative” form possible for curved space and curvilinear coordinates.
For completeness, we state explicitly the initial data for the FOSH system (59)-(66) and (70), given $\beta^i(t,x^j)$. These data are consistent with those of (47), (48) and (49) with $f=0$. The lapse function $N>0$ is chosen freely, which implies the initial acceleration $a_i = \partial_i \log N$. The metric $g_{ij}$ and extrinsic curvature $K_{ij}$ satisfy the usual Gauss-Codazzi constraints $C=0$ and $C_i=0$ given by (37C). From $g_{ij}$ and $K_{ij}$ we obtain the initial values of $\bar \Gamma^i_{jk}$ and of $L_{ijk}=\bar\nabla_i K_{jk}$, as well as those of $a_{ji}= \bar\nabla_j \partial_i \log N$. The initial values of $L_{0ij}=N^{-1} \dzeroh K_{ij}$ are given by $R_{ij}=0$ in (33) and those of $a_{0i}=N^{-1} \dzeroh a_i$ by $-(\partial_i H + H \partial_i \log N)$, where the simple harmonic slicing condition $\partial_0 N +N^2 H=0$ was used in the latter.
Upon inspection, one sees that all fields evolve along the $\partial_0$ axis except those obtained from the wave equations and their adjoints. Dividing these equations through by $N$ (to obtain proper time), just as in the case of Maxwell’s theory we obtain characteristic fields of the form, for the choice $x^j=x^1$, $$\begin{aligned}
&&{1\over \sqrt{2}} \alpha [L_{0ij} \pm \alpha^{-1} (L_{1ij} -v^a
L_{aij})], \\
&&{1\over \sqrt{2}} \alpha [a_{0i} \pm \alpha^{-1} (a_{1i} - v^a
a_{ai})].\end{aligned}$$ These fields propagate at light speed along the cone, and they have the dimensions of curvature, as evident from (29) and (30). At a given event, the “electric” or “tidal” parts of the Riemann tensor ($N^{-2} R_{0i0j}$) are constructed from contributions from these fields, which arrive from along the past cone, and from additional contributions which arrive from along the past timelike curve orthogonal to the slice $\Sigma_t$ of the given foliation in which the event lies.
By writing (74) and (75) in the equivalent forms $$\begin{aligned}
&&{1\over \sqrt{2}} \alpha [N^{-1}\dzeroh \pm \alpha^{-1} (\bar\nabla_1 -v^a
\bar\nabla_a)]K_{ij}, \\
&&{1\over \sqrt{2}} \alpha [N^{-1}\dzeroh \pm \alpha^{-1} (\bar\nabla_1 -v^a
\bar\nabla_a)]a_i,\end{aligned}$$ we see that the “characteristic fields” are differential extrinsic curvature and differential acceleration, with differences taken along the past cone of an event using the many pairs of null generators corresponding to advanced and retarded times for all spatial directions in $\Sigma_t$ with origin at the event.
Finally, we remark that net matter contribution to the wave equations (62) and (65) are included by adding to the right-hand sides the quantities $$\begin{aligned}
\Theta_{ij}&\equiv& N \tau_{ij}= N\kappa [-N^{-1}\dzeroh \rho_{ij} +
2N^{-1}\bar\nabla_{(i} \rho_{j)0} +
K_{ij}(2N^{-2}\rho_{00}+ \rho^k\mathstrut_k) \\
&&\hspace{1cm}
+2 H \rho_{ij} - 6 \rho_{k(i} K_{j)}\mathstrut^k
+g_{ij}(2 K^{mk}\rho_{mk} -H \rho^k\mathstrut_k
-H N^{-2}\rho_{00})], \nonumber \\
\Phi_i&\equiv& N\mu_i = -N\kappa \left[ \rho_{ik} a^k
+N^{-2} \bar \nabla_i \rho_{00} \right] . \end{aligned}$$ Note that the detailed forms of (78) and (79) depend on which Einstein equations we have used to display the right hand sides of (62) and (65).
Higher Order Formulation
========================
We may ask whether a wave equation form of the Einstein evolution equations can be found in which both the shift [*and the lapse*]{} can be freely specified. The answer is yes [@AACBYprep], but we will not give a full description here.
Form the expression $$\Lambda_{ij} \equiv \dzeroh \Omega_{ij} +\bar\nabla_i \bar\nabla_j R_{00}
\equiv \dzeroh \dzeroh R_{ij} - 2 \dzeroh \bar\nabla_{(i} R_{j)0}
+ \bar\nabla_i \bar\nabla_j R_{00}.$$ This gives a system of the form $$\Boxh\dzeroh K_{ij}= [ {\rm terms~with~derivatives~of~}
{\bf K} {\rm~of~order~} \leq 2 {\rm~and~of~} {\bar {\bf g}} \rm{~of~
order~} \leq 3 ],$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\dzeroh g_{ij} &=& -2N K_{ij}, \end{aligned}$$ that has no slicing term analogous to $S_{ij}$. It has characteristics along the light cone and $\partial_0$. It is not quasi-diagonal because of third order derivatives of $g_{ij}$ arising in (81) from $\bar\nabla^2 \bar \Delta N$. This system is hyperbolic non-strict [@LeOh]. On the other hand, the fourth order equation for $g_{ij}$ deduced from (81) and (82) is also not strictly hyperbolic because of the appearance of $\dzero^2$ in its principal operator ($\dzero^2 \Box$). It seems that the system, in its present form, cannot be written as a first order symmetrizable system; but it is potentially very useful, especially in perturbation theory, because the lapse and the shift need not be perturbed or satisfy any particular gauge conditions. The system (81) and (82) can be proven to be equivalent to the full Einstein equations using the twice-contracted Bianchi identities and the appropriate Cauchy data: $G_{\alpha \beta}=0$ and $\Omega_{ij}=0$ on $\Sigma_0$. This system can be directly adapted for the study of the non-linear perturbative regime of high-frequency wave propagation [@YCB1; @YCB2].
Concluding Remarks
==================
One of the numerous attractive reasons for writing general relativity in flux-conservative FOSH form, as emphasized recently in [@BMSS], is to facilitate emulating the successful strategy applied in computational fluid dynamics, rather than tailoring the form of Einstein’s equations to suit each particular application. However, in fluid dynamics in flux-conservative FOSH form, the only characteristics that can appear are the physical ones associated with the “sound cone” or “flow lines,” because there are no analogs of the spatial coordinate and slicing “gauges” of general relativity that give rise to constraints and can lead to unphysical characteristics. In this paper, by modifying the equations of motion of Einstein’s theory in a specific way ($R_{ij}\rightarrow \Omega_{ij}$), and by choosing time slicings in which the lapse function obeys a causal wave equation, we have incorporated full spatial coordinate freedom while assuring that only physical characteristics are present. Among other things, this means that causal boundary conditions can be imposed naturally on bounded regions of spacetime. Gravitational physics and its mathematical expression have been smoothly melded.
Acknowledgements. A.A., A.A., and J.W.Y. were supported by National Science Foundation grants PHY-9413207 and PHY 93-18152/ASC 93-18152 (ARPA supplemented). They thank Gregory Cook and Mark Scheel for helpful correspondence.
[99]{}
Dedicated to Andrzej Trautman.
Permanent address: Gravitation et Cosmologie Relativiste, t.22-12, Un. Paris VI, Paris 75252 France.
Y. Choquet-Bruhat and J.W. York, in [*General Relativity and Gravitation*]{}, edited by A. Held (Plenum: New York, 1980).
A. Lichnerowicz, [*Problémes Globaux en Mecanique Relativiste*]{} (Hermann, Paris, 1939).
Y. (Foures)-Bruhat, J. Rat. Mechanics and Anal. [**5**]{}, 951 (1956).
J.W. York, in [*Sources of Gravitational Radiation*]{}, edited by L. Smarr, (Cambridge Univ. Press: Cambridge, 1979).
N. Ō Murchadha and J.W. York, Phys. Rev. D[**10**]{}, 428 (1974).
R. Arnowitt, S. Deser and C.W. Misner, in [*Gravitation*]{}, edited by L. Witten, (Wiley: New York, 1962). P.A.M. Dirac, Proc. Roy. Soc. [**A246**]{}, 333 (1958).
Y. Choquet-Bruhat and T. Ruggeri, Comm. Math. Phys. [**89**]{}, 269 (1983).
S. Frittelli and O. Reula, Commun. Math. Phys., [**166**]{}, 221 (1995).
C. Bona, J. Masso, E. Seidel, and J. Stela, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 600 (1995).
H. Friedrich, “Hyperbolic Reductions for Einstein’s Equations”, AEI Preprint 1, Potsdam, Germany (1996).
A. Fischer and J. Marsden, Commun. Math. Phys. [**28**]{}, 1 (1972).
Y. Choquet-Bruhat and J. W. York, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, [**t. 321**]{}, Série I, 1089 (1995).
D. Christodoulou and S. Klainerman, [*The Global Nonlinear Stability of the Minkowski Space*]{} (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1993).
Y. Choquet-Bruhat and J.W. York, “Mixed Elliptic and Hyperbolic Systems for the Einstein Equations,” to appear in [*Gravitation, Electromagnetism and Geometric Structures*]{}, edited by G. Ferrarese (Pythagora Editrice, Bologna, Italy, 1996), gr-qc/9601030.
A. Abrahams, A. Anderson, Y. Choquet-Bruhat, and J.W. York, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 3377 (1995).
A. Abrahams and J.W. York, “3+1 General Relativity in Hyperbolic Form,” to appear in [*Astrophysical Sources of Gravitational Radiation*]{}, Proceedings of the 1995 Les Houches Summer School, edited by J-A. Marck and J-P. Lasota (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1997), gr-qc/9601031.
Y. Choquet-Bruhat and C. DeWitt-Morette with M. Dillard-Bleick, [*Analysis, Manifolds, and Physics, Part I: Basics, Rev. ed.*]{}, (North-Holland: Amsterdam, 1977, 1982).
C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler, [*Gravitation*]{}, (W. H. Freeman: San Francisco, 1973).
J. Leray, [*Hyperbolic Differential Equations*]{}, I.A.S lecture notes, Princeton, 1952.
A. Abrahams, A. Anderson, Y. Choquet-Bruhat, and J.W. York, in preparation.
J. Leray and Y. Ohya, Math. Ann. [**162**]{}, 228 (1966).
Y. Choquet-Bruhat, “High frequency oscillations of Einstein geometry,” to appear in [*Modern Group Analysis*]{}, edited by N. Ibragimov and F. Mahomed (World Scientific, Singapore, 1996).
Y. Choquet-Bruhat and A. Greco, “Interactions of gravitational and fluid waves,” to appear in Circolo Matematico di Palermo, 1996.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We construct a collection of Lorentz violating Yang-Mills theories exhibiting supersymmetry.'
address: |
Division of Natural Science, New College of Florida\
Sarasota, FL 34234, USA\
$^*$E-mail: [email protected]
author:
- 'DON COLLADAY and PATRICK MCDONALD$^*$'
title: LORENTZ VIOLATION AND EXTENDED SUPERSYMMETRY
---
Introduction and background
===========================
Symmetry has played a fundamental role in the construction of field theories purporting to describe fundamental physics. Nowhere is this more true than in the construction of the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model where symmetries mixing bosonic and fermionic states lead to tightly constrained theories often exhibiting remarkable properties. This is particularly true for ${\mathcal N}=4$ extended supersymmetric Yang-Mills theories [@BSS], which are known to be finite.
In this note we construct field theories which exhibit ${\mathcal N}=4$ extended supersymmetry and Lorentz violation. To do so we combine ideas of Berger and Kostelecký [@BK] involving supersymmetric scalar theories exhibiting Lorentz violation, and well-known constructions of extended supersymmetric theories involving dimensional reduction (nicely described in the work of Brink, Schwartz and Scherk[@BSS]). We begin by establishing notation in the context of the standard construction.
Consider a gauge theory involving a single fermion $\lambda$ and lagrangian = - F\^2 +|, where $F$ is the field strength, $F^{\mu\nu} =
[D^\mu,D^\nu]/ig$ and $D$ is the covariant derivative, D\^= \^+ig A\^. To simplify notation, we will first consider the abelian case. To implement supersymmetry we introduce a supercharge, $Q,$ satisfying = 0, {Q,|[Q]{}} = 2\^P\_, where $\gamma^\mu$ are the standard Dirac matrices { \^,\^} = 2 g\^, and the energy momentum 4-vector $P_\mu$ generates spacetime translations. The construction of a supercharge is elegantly carried out in the context of [*superspace.*]{} More precisely, introduce four independent anticommuting variables, $\theta,$ and consider the general vector superfield $$\begin{aligned}
V(x,\theta)& = &C(x) + i\bar{\theta}\gamma^5 w(x)
-\frac{i}{2}\bar{\theta}\gamma^5\theta M(x)
-\frac{1}{2}\bar{\theta}\theta N(x)
+\frac{1}{2}\bar{\theta}\gamma^5\gamma^\mu \theta A_\mu \nonumber\\
& & -i\bar{\theta}\gamma^5\theta \bar{\theta}[\lambda +\frac{i}{2} \not
\partial w(x)] + \frac{1}{2}(\bar{\theta}\theta)^2(D(x)
-\frac{1}{2}\partial_\mu\partial^\mu C(x))\end{aligned}$$ and the $Q$ operator Q= -i \_[|]{} -\^\_. Fixing an arbitrary spinor $\alpha,$ standard analysis[@S] of the operator $\delta_Q V = -i\bar{\alpha}QV$ leads to the supersymmetry transformations defining an ${\mathcal N}=1$ supersymmetric theory.
${\mathcal N}=1$ supersymmetry
==============================
Following Berger and Kostelecký[@BK], we introduce Lorentz violation by defining a twisted derivative: $$\label{perturbation}
\tilde{\partial}^\mu = \partial^\mu + k^{\mu \nu} \partial_\nu,$$ where $k^{\mu \nu}$ is a symmetric, traceless, dimensionless tensor parametrizing Lorentz violation. To obtain a gauge invariant theory, we also twist the underlying connection: \^= A\^+ k\^ A\_. These perturbations lead to a general vector superfield $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{V}(x,\theta)& = &C(x) + i\bar{\theta}\gamma^5 w(x)
-\frac{i}{2}\bar{\theta}\gamma^5\theta M(x)
-\frac{1}{2}\bar{\theta}\theta N(x)
+\frac{1}{2}\bar{\theta}\gamma^5\gamma^\mu \theta \tilde{A}_\mu \nonumber\\
& & -i\bar{\theta}\gamma^5\theta \bar{\theta}[\lambda +\frac{i}{2} \not
\tilde{\partial} w(x)] + \frac{1}{2}(\bar{\theta}\theta)^2(D(x)
-\frac{1}{2}\tilde{\partial}_\mu\tilde{\partial}^\mu C(x))\end{aligned}$$ and perturbed $Q$ operator = -i \_[|]{} -\^\_. Using Wess-Zumino gauge we obtain a lagrangian $$\label{lagrangian1}
\tilde{{\mathcal L}} = \frac{1}{4} \tilde{F}^2 +\frac{i}{2}
\bar{\lambda} \not \tilde{\partial} \lambda +\frac{1}{2} D^2,$$ where $D$ is an auxiliary chiral field and $\tilde{F}$ is the twisted field strength, $\tilde{F}^{\mu \nu} =\tilde{\partial}^\mu
\tilde{A}^\nu -\tilde{\partial}^\nu \tilde{A}^\mu.$ The twisted field strength can be written in terms of the standard SME parameters: $\tilde{F}^2 = F^2 +k_F^{\mu\nu \alpha \beta}F_{\mu\nu}F_{\alpha
\beta}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
k_{F}^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta} & = & 2(2k^{\alpha \mu} +(k^2)^{\alpha
\mu})g^{\beta \nu} +4(k^{\mu \alpha} +(k^2)^{\alpha \mu})k^{\nu
\beta} +(k^2)^{\alpha \mu} (k^2)^{\beta \nu}.
\quad\end{aligned}$$ Direct calculation confirms that the action is invariant under the supersymmetry transformations $$\begin{aligned}
\delta \tilde{A}^\mu & = & -i\bar{\alpha} \gamma^\mu \lambda, \nonumber\\
\delta \lambda & = &
\frac{i}{2}\sigma^{\mu\nu}\tilde{F}_{\mu\nu}\alpha - \gamma^5
D\alpha, \nonumber\\
\delta D & = & \bar{\alpha} \not \partial \gamma^5 \lambda.\end{aligned}$$ This defines an ${\mathcal N}=1$ supersymmetric theory with Lorentz violation.
${\mathcal N}=4$ supersymmetry
==============================
To build an ${\mathcal N}=4$ supersymmetric theory we work in $4+6$-dimensional spacetime. We represent the $32\times 32$ gamma matrices via $\Gamma^\mu = \gamma^\mu \otimes I_8$ where $I_8$ is the $8\times 8$ identity matrix and $\mu = 0, 1, 2, 3, $ and $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma^4 = \Gamma^{14} +\Gamma^{23}, \hspace{.25in} & \Gamma^6 = \Gamma^{34}
+\Gamma^{12}, &\hspace{.25in} i\Gamma^8 = \Gamma^{24} +\Gamma^{13}, \nonumber\\
\Gamma^5 = \Gamma^{24} -\Gamma^{13},\hspace{.25in} & i\Gamma^7 = \Gamma^{14}
-\Gamma^{23}, &\hspace{.25in} i\Gamma^9 = \Gamma^{34} -\Gamma^{12}, \end{aligned}$$ where \^[ij]{} = \_5 (
[cc]{} 0 & \^[ij]{}\
\_[ij]{} & 0
) and the $4\times 4$ matrices $\rho$ are defined by $$\begin{aligned}
(\rho^{ij})_{kl} & = & \delta_{ik} \delta_{jl} -\delta_{jk}
\delta_{il},\nonumber\\
(\rho_{ij})_{kl} & = & \frac{1}{2} \epsilon_{ijmn}(\rho^{mn})_{kl} =
\epsilon_{ijkl}. \end{aligned}$$ We consider the lagrangian = - \^2 + | , where $\tilde{\not \partial} = \Gamma^\mu (\partial_\mu +
k_{\mu\nu}\partial^\nu) $ is the twisted derivative with $k_{\mu\nu}$ parametrizing $SO(1,9)$ violation and $\tilde{F}$ is the corresponding perturbed field strength.
Imposing both the Weyl and the Majorana condition and compactifying, the fermion $\lambda$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda = \left(\begin{array}{cc}
L\chi \\
R\tilde{\chi}
\end{array} \right) , & & \end{aligned}$$ where $L$ and $R$ denote left and right projection operators, respectively, the spinor $\chi$ transforms as a 4 of $SU(4)$ and the (independent) spinor $\tilde{\chi}$ transforms as a $\bar{4}$ of $SU(4).$
Choosing the Lorentz violating parameters with care leads to Lorentz violating extended supersymmetric theories which are easy to describe. For example, taking the $k_{\mu\nu}$ to vanish in the compactified directions leads to a lagrangian of the form = - \^2 + i | L+ \_\_[ij]{}\^\^[ij]{} , where the complex scalar fields $\phi_{ij}$ transform as a 6 of $SU(4)$ and are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{i4}& = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(A_{i+3}+iA_{i+6}),\nonumber\\
\phi^{jk} & = &\frac{1}{2} \epsilon^{jklm}\phi_{lm} = (\phi_{jk})^*. \end{aligned}$$ The associated action is invariant under the supersymmetry transformations $$\begin{aligned}
\delta \tilde{A}^\mu & = & -i(\bar{\alpha}_i \gamma^\mu L\chi^i
-\bar{\chi}_i \gamma^\mu L\alpha^i), \nonumber\\
\delta \phi_{ij} & = & -i\sqrt{2}(\bar{\alpha}_j R\tilde{\chi}_i -
\bar{\alpha}_i R\tilde{\chi}_j
+\epsilon_{ijkl}\bar{\tilde{\alpha}}^k L \chi^l), \nonumber\\
\delta L\chi^i & = &
\frac{i}{2}\sigma^{\mu\nu}\tilde{F}_{\mu\nu}L\alpha^i -
\sqrt{2}\gamma^\mu \tilde{\partial}_\mu \phi^{ij} R\tilde{\alpha}_j, \nonumber\\
\delta R\tilde{\chi}_i & = &
\frac{i}{2}\sigma^{\mu\nu}\tilde{F}_{\mu\nu}R\tilde{\alpha}_i +
\sqrt{2}\gamma^\mu \tilde{\partial}_\mu \phi_{ij} L\alpha^j. \end{aligned}$$
Similarly, choosing the $k_{\mu \nu}$ parameters to vanish in the spacetime directions $\mu = 0, 1, 2, 3,$ we obtain a Lagrangian of the form = - F\^2 + i | L+ \_\_[ij]{}\^\^[ij]{} , where $\tilde{\phi}_{ij} = \phi_{ij} +\Lambda_{ijkl}\phi_{kl}$ with the matrix $\Lambda_{ijkl}$ containing the effect of Lorentz violation in the compactified directions. The associated action is invariant under the supersymmetry transformations
$$\begin{aligned}
\delta A^\mu & = & -i(\bar{\alpha}_i \gamma^\mu L\chi^i
-\bar{\chi}_i \gamma^\mu L\alpha^i), \nonumber \\
\delta \tilde{\phi}_{ij} & = & -i\sqrt{2}(\bar{\alpha}_j R\tilde{\chi}_i -
\bar{\alpha}_i R\tilde{\chi}_j
+\epsilon_{ijkl}\bar{\tilde{\alpha}}^k L \chi^l), \nonumber \\
\delta L\chi^i & = &
\frac{i}{2}\sigma^{\mu\nu}F_{\mu\nu}L\alpha^i -
\sqrt{2}\gamma^\mu \partial_\mu \tilde{\phi}^{ij} R\tilde{\alpha}_j ,\nonumber \\
\delta R\tilde{\chi}_i & = &
\frac{i}{2}\sigma^{\mu\nu}F_{\mu\nu}R\tilde{\alpha}_i +
\sqrt{2}\gamma^\mu \partial_\mu \tilde{\phi}_{ij} L\alpha^j. \end{aligned}$$
Note that if the scalars $\tilde{\phi}_{ij}$ are identified with physical scalars $\phi_{ij}$ we restore $SU(4)$ symmetry and remove any Lorentz violating effects. If, however, the $\phi_{ij}$ couple to other sectors, Lorentz effects may reappear in these sectors.
Extensions and clarifications
=============================
The above results warrant a number of additional comments:
- These constructions can be carried out in the nonabelian case where they yield supersymmetric theories which exhibit Lorentz violation[@cm].
- The same techniques can be applied to obtain an ${\mathcal N}=2$ supersymmetric theory with Lorentz violation. The construction proceeds by working in 4+2-dimensional spacetime and using dimensional reduction[@cm].
- Because these constructions involve changing the structure of the underlying superalgebra,[@cm; @cm2] the no-go results of Nibbelink and Pospelov[@NP] do not apply.
[xx]{}
L. Brink, J. Schwartz and J. Scherk, Nucl. Phys. B [**121**]{}, 77 (1977).
M. Berger and V.A. Kostelecký, Phys. Rev. D. [**65**]{}, 091701 (2002).
M. Srednicki, [*Quantum Field Theory.*]{} Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007.
D. Colladay and P. McDonald, in preparation.
D. Colladay and P. McDonald, J. Math. Phys. [**43**]{}, 3554 (2002).
S. Nibbelink and M. Pospelov, Phys. Rev. Lett. [bf 94]{}, 081601 (2005).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.